**Contents**

Page

Nomenclature v

1.0 Summary 1

2.0 Introduction 1

3.0 Ames Research Center Hardware 2

3.1 Background: 1978--1991 2

3.1.1 Research Animal Holding Facility (RAHF) 2

3.1.2 Flight diet 5

3.1.3 General Purpose Work Station 7

3.1.4 General purpose transfer unit 8

3.1.5 Animal Enclosure Modules 8

3.1.6 Small Mass Measuring Instrument 9

3.1.7 Refrigerator/Incubator Module 9

3.1.8 Miscellaneous stowage 10

3.2 Results 10

3.2.1 Research Animal Holding Facility 10

3.2.2 General Purpose Work Station 10

3.2.3 Refrigerator/Incubator Module 14

3.2.4 Animal Enclosure Modules 14

3.2.5 Small Mass Measuring Instrument 14

3.3 Anomalies 14

3.3.1 Failed lixit, cage 6B 14

3.3.2 RAHF leak alarms, 4A, 4B, and 10B in flight 14

3.3.3 AEM swagelock fitting loose 15

3.3.4 RAHF water pressure transducer failure 15

3.3.5 Other issues 15

3.3.6 Lung-tissue analysis 16

4.0 Crew Training 16

4.1 Ames Research Center Training 16

4.1.1 Orientation training 16

4.1.2 Task training 17

4.1.3 Phase training 17

4.1.4 Project integrated training 17

4.2 Mission Management Office Training 17

4.3 Lessons Learned 18

5.0 Science Results 19

5.1 Rodent Growth, Behavior, and Organ Weight Changes Resulting from
Spaceflight 19

5.1.1 Introduction 19

5.1.2 Methodology 19

5.1.3 Results 20

5.1.4 Discussion/conclusions 25

5.2 Spacelab Life Sciences Experiments: ARC SLS-1 Experiments 26

5.3 Biospecimen Sharing Program 31

6.0 References and Publications 38

Appendix 1: ARC Space Life Sciences Payloads Office Overview 41

Appendix 2: Hardware Activities Post SLS-1 83

Appendix 3: Summary Food and Water-Consumption Data 91

Nomenclature

**Symbols and Abbreviations**

cfm cubic feet per minute

fmol femtomole

g gram

Hct hematocrit

Hgb hemoglobin

mg milligram

pmol picomole

psi pounds per square inch

**Acronyms**

ACE acetyl cholinesterase

AEM Animal Enclosure Modules

AN arcuate nucleus

ANF atrial natriuretic factor

ANOVA analysis of variance

ANP atrial natriuretic peptide

AOP antioxidant protection

ARC Ames Research Center

ATR ambient temperature recorder

AVP atrial vasopressin

BFU-e burst forming unit-erythroid

BSP biospecimen sharing program

BTV biotransport van

CDR critical design review

CFU-e colony forming unit-erythroid

CNP C-type natriuretic peptide

DFPT delayed flight profile test

DFRC Dryden Flight Research Center

ECS environmental control system

EDL extensor digitorum longus

Epo erythropoietin

ESA European Space Agency

EUH experiment unique hardware

EVT experiment verification test

FD flight day

FEC field engineering change

g gravity

GMP guanosine monophosphate

GPTU general purpose transfer unit

GPWS General Purpose Work Station

GRF growth hormone releasing factor

GSE ground support equipment

HEPA high-efficiency particulate air

IL interleukin

JITS joint integrated training simulation

JSC Johnson Space Center

KSC Kennedy Space Center

L launch

LCC launch control center

LMSC Lockheed Missiles and Space Co., Inc. (now Lockheed Martin Missiles
& Space)

LPO lipid peroxidation

LSLE life science laboratory equipment

MAb monoclonal antibody

MAO monaminoxidase

ME medial eminence

MAC myosin heavy chains

MIT mission integrated training

MITS mission integrated training session

MMO mission management office

MPE mission-provided equipment

MS mission specialist

MSFC Marshall Space Flight Center

MVAK module vertical access kit

N number

NE norepinephrine

NIH National Institutes of Health

NSF National Science Foundation

OSSA Office of Space Science and Applications

PCDT particulate containment demonstration test

PED payload experiment developer

PI principal investigator

POCC payload operations control center

PR problem report

PRF payload receiving facility

PS payload specialist

PV plasma volume

QA quality assurance

R + ML recovery + mission length

R/IM Refrigerator/Incubator Module

RAHF Research Animal Holding Facility

RAU remote acquisition unit

RBC red blood cell

RBCM red blood cell mass

SL-3 Spacelab-3

SL-J Spacelab Japan

SLS-1 Spacelab Life Sciences-1

SLS-2 Spacelab Life Sciences-2

SLSPO Space Life Sciences Payloads Office

SMD spacelab mission development

SMMI Small Mass Measuring Instrument

SMIDEX spacelab mid-deck experiment

SPAF single pass auxiliary fan

SST system sensitivity test

STS space transport system

TEU thermal electric unit

TGF transforming growth factor

TNF tumor necrosis factor

USSR Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

WBC white blood cell

Spacelab Life Sciences-1\
Final Report

[Bonnie P. Dalton, Gary Jahns, John Meylor,\* Nikki Hawes,\* Tom N.
Fast,\* and Greg Zarow\*\*]{.smallcaps}

*Ames Research Center*

1.0 Summary[^1]**\*** [^2]**†**

This report provides a historical overview of the Spacelab Life
Sciences-1 (SLS-1) mission along with the resultant biomaintenance data
and investigators' findings. Only the nonhuman elements, developed by
Ames Research Center (ARC) researchers, are addressed herein. The STS-40
flight of SLS-1, in June 1991, was the first spacelab flown after
"return to orbit"; it was also the first spacelab mission specifically
designated as a Life Sciences Spacelab. The experiments performed
provided baseline data for both hardware and rodents used in succeeding
missions.

Planning for SLS-1 started in 1978 with the Announcement of Opportunity
(AO) from NASA Headquarters to the scientific community. Early hardware
verification accomplished on Spacelab 3 (SL-3) with rats and monkeys
pointed out some definite operational flaws. Although problems with
particulate containment on SL-3 caused a major hardware impact on SLS-1,
the mission delays allowed sufficient time for the development and
verification of an upgraded, fully functional, animal loaded facility by
1991---the rodent Research Animal Holding Facility (RAHF). The delays
also allowed an opportunity to compare two types of animal habitats, the
RAHF and the Animal Enclosure Module (AEM), which are flown in the
spacelab with individually caged animals and in the mid-deck with
gang-caged animals, respectively. In addition, the SLS-1 flight verified
the utility and functionality of the General Purpose Work Station
(GPWS), the Small Mass Measuring Instrument (SMMI), and supporting
hardware to transfer the live animals between the various pieces of
equipment without the release of particulates. Charts are included to
indicate postflight status of the hardware and actions implemented to
prepare the hardware for succeeding missions. Although differing in some
aspects, the spacelab hardware will provide models for the development
of equipment for the Space Station era.

Data obtained from the hardware and the rats during the flight were
compared to data obtained in a delayed flight profile test (DFPT)
conducted immediately following the nine-day mission. Because of the
lack of hardware availability, SLS-1 provided the only opportunity to
obtain a RAHF ground control immediately postflight. Baseline biological
data obtained from the flight and ground controls revealed that:

• Flight rats gained less body weight during the flight period than
ground controls during the same period.

• Flight and ground rats gained weight at the same rate beginning two
days postflight.

• No difference in body weights was noted between flight rats maintained
in the RAHF and flight rats maintained in the AEM. Further discussion is
provided on food and water consumption and organ weights.

Over 6,000 biosamples were distributed to the scientific community.
Summaries of results obtained by the 10 primary investigators, along
with those from investigators in the biospecimen sharing program (BSP),
are included. This second group included investigators from various
universities in Canada, Germany, Russia, and the United States.

**2.0 Introduction**

June 5, 1995, marked the fourth anniversary of the Spacelab Life
Sciences-1 (SLS-1) flight. The results of the tests conducted on that
flight could not be reported after the flight because completion of many
of the experiments was dependent on activities of SLS-2. This report
summarizes the scientific data from SLS-1 as an Ames Research Center
(ARC) SLS-1 final report.

Abstracts from the experimenters are enclosed; the scientists summarized
their results and listed publications and/or meeting proceedings in
which the results were presented. The water, food-consumption, and
weight-gain data retrieved from the flight and ground controls has been
reviewed and analyzed, and varying aspects of these data are presented
herein. The complete data sets are available from the ARC Life Sciences
Data Archive.

A summary of upgrades and/or refurbishment of the Research Animal
Holding Facility (RAHF) hardware prior to its use on SLS-2 is included.
The General Purpose Work Station (GPWS) was refurbished for immediate
use on Spacelab Japan (SL-J), which flew in September 1992. Changes
included replacement of the two-part sliding side window with a
single-piece side window and installation of cabinetry electrical
connections to accommodate microscope use and video downlink. The
Refrigerator/Incubator Module (R/IM) door was also changed to support
SL-J activities. All other hardware was transferred to subsequent
flights "as is."

A six-month report was forwarded to Mission Management and Headquarters.
The report, never formally published, is included herein as Appendix 1.
With the exception of the rodent-body-weight data, no element of the
SLS-1 90-day report (AR-01449) is included in this final report.

The SLS-1 ARC payload management extends a thank-you to all the
principal investigators (PIs) for their cooperative efforts in providing
information for this report.

Both the SLS-1 investigators and the ARC SLS-1 team acknowledge the
excellent job of the SLS-1 crew: Bryan O\'Connor, commander; Sid
Gutierrez, pilot; Rhea Seddon, Jim Bagian, and Tamara Jernigan, mission
specialists; Drew Gaffney and Millie Hughes-Fulford, payload
specialists; and Bob Phillips, alternate payload specialist. Also
acknowledged are the outstanding support efforts of all the personnel in
the Space Life Sciences Payloads Office (SLSPO) and in other support
organizations at ARC.

**3.0 Ames Research Center Hardware**

**3.1 Background: 1978--1991**

Hardware for the ARC experiments aboard SLS-1 started with concepts for
animal holding facilities for rodents, squirrel monkeys, and rhesus
monkeys and a GPWS as part of the Spacelab mission development test #3\
(SMD-3) conducted at the Johnson Space Center (JSC) in 1977. The RAHF
and GPWS were originally designed and built in the 1978 to 1981 time
period for flight on Spacelab 4 (the term originally applied to SLS-1
and SLS-2), which was scheduled for a 1981 launch as the first dedicated
Life Sciences mission. In the interim, RAHFs were flown as an
"engineering proof of concept" aboard Spacelab 3 (SL-3) in April/May
1985.

Two versions of RAHF were built, one to house 24 rodents and one to
house 4 unrestrained squirrel monkeys. The hardware was built at
Lockheed Missiles and Space Co., Inc. (LMSC, now Lockheed Martin
Missiles & Space) and delivered to the Spacelab Life Sciences Payloads
Office (SLSPO, then the Life Sciences Flight Experiments Project) in
1982. The GPWS was developed at the same time but was not delivered to
the project until 1984 because of budget cuts and launch slips.

**3.1.1 Research Animal Holding Facility (RAHF)--** The RAHF was
designed to provide for basic animal maintenance: air, food, water,
waste management, lighting, humidity removal, and temperature control.
Water was available to the animal in each cage compartment via a set of
lixits mounted just above the cage top in the cage module. Food was
dispensed via a feeder cassette mounted on the side of the cage; it
required replacement by the crew every three days. Airflow directed
urine and feces into a waste tray at the bottom of the cage. An
Environmental Control System (ECS) mounted on the rear of the cage
module controlled temperature and humidity. A water separator system
removed excess humidity and transferred it to a condensate collector
bag. When necessary, the crew changed the bag at a "quick disconnect"
fitting. Lights were mounted just above the cage tops. Activity of each
rodent was monitored via an infrared-beam activity monitor. A camera
structure mounted over a four-cage segment on the rodent RAHF was
activated during launch and reentry on SL-3. Figure 1 illustrates the
SL-3 RAHF configurations (rodent and primate).

During the SL-3 flight, problems were encountered with the hardware;
chief among these was particulate contamination and animal odor.
Particulates observed by the crew and collected in fan filter screens in
the Spacelab module included food-bar crumbs, fine charcoal bits, and
fecal particles, which were released from the cage during feeder and
waste-tray changeout. Persistent animal odor was also reported by the
crew. At the direction of NASA's Associate Administrator for the Office
of Space Science and Applications (OSSA) after the SL-3 flight, a
committee was convened to review the design of the RAHF and recommend
changes. Thirty-one discrepancies were noted with the design.

Extensive postflight testing of the RAHF hardware revealed several leak
paths within the cage module, which prevented operation of the unit as a
negative-pressure device. The outward direction of the air leaks
accounted for the presence of odor in the cabin. The rodent cages were
constructed without adequate sealing; e.g., the cage top was 1/4-in.
grid, two holes in cage top for lixit access, waste trays not sealed at
cage front, severely crumbing food bar, etc. Airflow was also highly
erratic, turbulent within the cage, and nonexistent in some places.

![](media/image1.pct){width="1.0in" height="1.0in"}

*Figure 1. SL-3 RAHF configurations (rodent and primate).*

As a result of the SL-3 problems, the RAHF was demanifested from the
SLS-1 payload. The ARC experimenters proposed flying Animal Enclosure
Modules (AEMs) instead so that the effect of microgravity on rats could
be evaluated.

The RAHF was redesigned between 1985 and 1988 to prevent the recurrence
of the particulate and odor problems. New versions of the RAHF were
delivered to the SLSPO in August 1988 and June 1989. Because of the
launch delay to 1990, the RAHF was remanifested on SLS-1 in July 1987,
after the critical design review (CDR) and unanimous acceptance of the
new design by the crew and the oversight committee.

To assure requirements compliance with all elements in the redesign of
the RAHF, a requirements document was developed and signed by the PIs,
the Astronaut Office at JSC, the Mission Management Office for SLS-1,
and the Life Sciences Division at NASA Headquarters. Hardware changes in
the specification forwarded to LMSC included:

• Sealing the cage module to prevent odor escape and to insure inward
airflow.

• Improving the ECS system to produce linear airflow through the cages.

• Redesigning the cage to include internal lixits, an improved waste
tray, and a feeder with expanded food capacity.

• Assuring that all cage parts, including feeder, waste tray, and cage,
are interchangeable (proven during SLS-1 flight integration).

• Sealing the cages to prevent escape of all particles \>150 microns.

Modifications were implemented to alleviate various RAHF problems
observed:

• Added single pass auxiliary fan (SPAF) to produce high inward airflow
during cage servicing operations such as feeder or waste-tray
replacement.

• Replaced all drinking-water-system parts with stainless steel. (The
previous system had been susceptible to corrosion.)

• Added iodinator system to reduce drinking-water contamination.

• Implemented reliability upgrades as required in the water-separator
fan and other critical components.

• Sealed cages to cage module to prevent escape of particles into the
cabin. High-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filters were installed to
prevent escape of particles \> 0.3 microns into the cabin.

• Addressed and corrected all problem reports (PRs) generated at the
Kennedy Space Center (KSC) during the previous SL-3 integration
activities.

Members of the Astronaut Office at JSC and the payload crew participated
in the redesign activity. Special consideration was given to
human-factors elements in the design, e.g., cage latches, SPAF
configuration, waste-tray design, and the rodent-viewing window.

As a method of predetermining the RAHF airflow problems on SL-3 and
altering them, an existing oil-pipeline-design software program was
modified to simulate the airflow in the RAHF. The program allowed
analyses of ineffective air paths in terms of leaks out of the module,
and assisted in reconstruction of a system allowing sufficient air to
the animals while insuring the capture of potential escaping
particulates. During the development testing, airflow was greatly
improved through the cages by placing a coarse mesh screen on the cage
top, which served as a turning vane for air coming through the inlet
plenum of the ECS. Testing with acetic acid smoke revealed that airflow
was virtually linear over the length of the cage. The improved average
10-cfm airflow through the cages was in part due to the changed
waste-tray packing material. Use of Bondina,[^3]1 charcoal-\
impregnated polyester foam, and Filtrete[^4]2 facilitated airflow,
eliminated loose charcoal, and maintained\
150-micron particle containment, respectively. During SL-3, the use of
layers of fiber glass batting and loose charcoal resulted in
inconsistent pressure differentials across each cage and loss of
charcoal particles into the cage module. The treatment of all filter
materials with phosphoric acid was retained as a standard to prevent
odor and eliminate microbial growth.

In addition to LMSC hardware changes, a low crumbing, 10-day-duration,
wheat-based, microbial-resistant food bar was developed within the SLSPO
along with a commercial means of production.

The RAHF was extensively tested at ARC. A 14-day biocompatibility test
was conducted upon receipt of the unit, followed by a system sensitivity
testing (SST), and an experiment verification test (EVT) 6 months later
(March 1989). The crew participated in these tests, which included
demonstration of the SPAF particulate capabilities, odor evaluation, and
microbial-containment verification. All results were positive.
Carbon-dioxide levels within the RAHF were also evaluated to insure
conformance to less than 0.5 percent. The tests did reveal that animals
would succumb to asphyxiation if there were loss of power and resultant
loss of circulating air for periods greater than 45 minutes. This
finding also verified that the unit was sealed tighter than the unit in
SL-3, in which animals could be maintained for more than four hours in
the absence of power and recirculating air. The second flight RAHF,
which was delivered in 1990, underwent an extensive SST at Ames and was
utilized during the delayed flight profile test (DFPT), a science
control test at KSC. The second unit profile mimicked the first, which
was integrated into the Spacelab. The SSTs characterized the performance
of the RAHF, including responses to high and low fluid loop
temperatures, responses to high and low ambient temperatures, and
capabilities during half thermal electric unit (TEU) performance. The
data proved valuable as a diagnostic tool during pad and in-flight
operations. These data were, in fact, utilized as reference in
requesting the lower coolant loop temperature prior to the insertion of
animals during the third launch attempt. Figure 2 illustrates the
features of the refurbished RAHF as flown on SLS-1. Only rodents (fig.
3) were accommodated in this tightly sealed unit, in which even the
water lixits were internal to the cage.

Figure 4 illustrates a crew member checking the rats through the RAHF
front windows during the SLS-1 flight.

**3.1.2 Flight diet--** The flight diet used in the feeding systems of
both the AEM and the RAHF was developed to overcome the crumbing from
the food bar used for SL-3. The SLS-1 formulation was a low-residue,
defined food

![](media/image1.pct){width="1.0in" height="1.0in"}

*Figure 2. RAHF refurbished.*

![](media/image1.pct){width="1.0in" height="1.0in"}

*Figure 3. Rodent in RAHF cage.*

![](media/image1.pct){width="1.0in" height="1.0in"}

*Figure 4. Crew checking the rats in the RAHF.*

bar[^5]3 with an initial water content of about 26 percent. The
manufacturing processes of milling/extrusion developed by the American
Institute of Baking yielded a bar that reduced crumbing while
maintaining the nutrient quality recommended by NIH and an energy yield
of about\
2.21 kilocalories per gram of prepared food bar. After the milling
process the bars were treated with sorbate to prevent mold growth and
radiation sterilized to prevent bacterial contamination. The processed
food bars, packed in sealed bags, were held at 4°C to maintain
nutritional value and palatability until used. Formulation for the diet
was as follows (refs. 1--7):

  --------------------------------------------------------- -------------
  **NASA Experimental Rodent Diet (#TD 88179)**             **g/kg**

  --------------------------------------------------------- -------------

  --------------------------------------------------------- -------------
  Casein, high protein                                      100.0

  --------------------------------------------------------- -------------

  --------------------------------------------------------- -------------
  DL-methionine                                             3.0

  --------------------------------------------------------- -------------

  --------------------------------------------------------- -------------
  Wheat gluten                                              120.0

  --------------------------------------------------------- -------------

  --------------------------------------------------------- -------------
  Wheat flour, durum 2nd clear                              225.0

  --------------------------------------------------------- -------------

  --------------------------------------------------------- -------------
  Corn starch                                               199.7349

  --------------------------------------------------------- -------------

  --------------------------------------------------------- -------------
  Corn syrup                                                100.0

  --------------------------------------------------------- -------------

  --------------------------------------------------------- -------------
  Sucrose                                                   100.0

  --------------------------------------------------------- -------------

  --------------------------------------------------------- -------------
  Corn oil                                                  40.0

  --------------------------------------------------------- -------------

  --------------------------------------------------------- -------------
  Cellulose (fiber)                                         50.0

  --------------------------------------------------------- -------------

  --------------------------------------------------------- -------------
  Mineral mix, AIN-76 (170915)                              35.0

  --------------------------------------------------------- -------------

  --------------------------------------------------------- -------------
  Calcium carbonate                                         5.0

  --------------------------------------------------------- -------------

  --------------------------------------------------------- -------------
  Vitamin Mix, AIN-76A (40077)                              20.0

  --------------------------------------------------------- -------------

  --------------------------------------------------------- -------------
  Choline bitartrate                                        2.0

  --------------------------------------------------------- -------------

  --------------------------------------------------------- -------------
  Vitamin B12 (0.1%) trituration)                           0.23

  --------------------------------------------------------- -------------

  --------------------------------------------------------- -------------
  Thiamin HCl                                               0.02

  --------------------------------------------------------- -------------

  --------------------------------------------------------- -------------
  Folic acid                                                0.012

  --------------------------------------------------------- -------------

  --------------------------------------------------------- -------------
  Menadione sodium bisulfite complex                        0.0031

  --------------------------------------------------------- -------------

  -------------------------------------------------------- --------------
  **Mineral Mix, AIN-76 (#170915)a**                       **g/kg**

  -------------------------------------------------------- --------------

  -------------------------------------------------------- --------------
  Calcium phosphate, dibasic (Ca2HPO4)                     500.0

  -------------------------------------------------------- --------------

  -------------------------------------------------------- --------------
  Sodium chloride (NaCl)                                   74.0

  -------------------------------------------------------- --------------

  -------------------------------------------------------- --------------
  Potassium citrate, monohydrate                           220.0

  -------------------------------------------------------- --------------

  -------------------------------------------------------- --------------
  Potassium sulfate (K2SO4)                                52.0

  -------------------------------------------------------- --------------

  -------------------------------------------------------- --------------
  Magnesium oxide (MgO)                                    24.0

  -------------------------------------------------------- --------------

  -------------------------------------------------------- --------------
  Manganous carbonate                                      3.5

  -------------------------------------------------------- --------------

  -------------------------------------------------------- --------------
  Ferric citrate, USP (16.7% Fe)                           6.0

  -------------------------------------------------------- --------------

  -------------------------------------------------------- --------------
  Zinc carbonate                                           1.6

  -------------------------------------------------------- --------------

  -------------------------------------------------------- --------------
  Cupric carbonate                                         0.3

  -------------------------------------------------------- --------------

  -------------------------------------------------------- --------------
  Potassium iodate (KIO4)                                  0.01

  -------------------------------------------------------- --------------

  -------------------------------------------------------- --------------
  Sodium selenite (Na2SeO3.5H2O)                           0.01

  -------------------------------------------------------- --------------

  -------------------------------------------------------- --------------
  Chromium potassium sulfate (CrK(SO4)2.12H2O)             0.55

  -------------------------------------------------------- --------------

  -------------------------------------------------------- --------------
  Sucrose, fine powder                                     118.03

  -------------------------------------------------------- --------------

aDesigned to be used at 3.5 percent of diet.

  ---------------------------------------------------------- ------------
  **Vitamin Mix AIN-76A (#40077)b**                          **g/kg**

  ---------------------------------------------------------- ------------

  ---------------------------------------------------------- ------------
  Thiamin HCl                                                0.6

  ---------------------------------------------------------- ------------

  ---------------------------------------------------------- ------------
  Riboflavin                                                 0.6

  ---------------------------------------------------------- ------------

  ---------------------------------------------------------- ------------
  Pyridoxine HCl                                             0.7

  ---------------------------------------------------------- ------------

  ---------------------------------------------------------- ------------
  Niacin                                                     3.0

  ---------------------------------------------------------- ------------

  ---------------------------------------------------------- ------------
  Calcium pantothenate                                       1.6

  ---------------------------------------------------------- ------------

  ---------------------------------------------------------- ------------
  Folic acid                                                 0.2

  ---------------------------------------------------------- ------------

  ---------------------------------------------------------- ------------
  Biotin                                                     0.02

  ---------------------------------------------------------- ------------

  ---------------------------------------------------------- ------------
  Vitamin B12 (0.1% trituration in mannitol)                 1.0

  ---------------------------------------------------------- ------------

  ---------------------------------------------------------- ------------
  Dry vitamin A palmitate (500,000 U/g)                      0.8

  ---------------------------------------------------------- ------------

  ---------------------------------------------------------- ------------
  Dry vitamin E acetate (500 U/g)                            10.0

  ---------------------------------------------------------- ------------

  ---------------------------------------------------------- ------------
  Vitamin D3, trituration (400,000 U/g)                      0.25

  ---------------------------------------------------------- ------------

  ---------------------------------------------------------- ------------
  Menadione sodium bisulfite complex                         0.15

  ---------------------------------------------------------- ------------

  ---------------------------------------------------------- ------------
  Sucrose, fine powder                                       981.08

  ---------------------------------------------------------- ------------

bDesigned for use at the 1-percent diet level (10g/kg). (This vitamin
mix is designed without a choline source because choline bitartrate is
listed as a separate item in the formula of the 88179 diet.)

The NASA flight food bar was established as an adequate nutrient source
for rodents by its use in the Small Payload Program as well as in the
Spacelab EVT. Animals fed this specialized form of the diet exhibited
normal growth and apparent normal development. However, Danny Riley
noted that the diet formulated for use on SLS-1 may have had only 50
percent of the vitamin B1 (thiamin) recommended by NIH and the National
Academy of Sciences for laboratory rats. Since thiamine is necessary for
preventing peripheral nerve degeneration, Riley was concerned that any
changes found in the peripheral nerves of SLS-1 flight rats could be due
to a diet artifact rather than space flight. Therefore, concentrations
of thiamin were increased after SLS-1 and SLS-2 activities, and the
enhanced food bars have been used in the SLS-2 formulation for all small
payloads activities since 1992.

**3.1.3 General Purpose Work Station--** As a result of the anomalies of
SL-3, the GPWS was re-evaluated, and the following changes were
implemented during the period 1985--1988 to assure particle containment:

• Cabinet sealed to National Science Foundation-49 (NSF-49) Class II
standards (contains particles\
\<150 microns)

• Side access window added to allow entry of small items such as rodent
cage without opening the large front window and breaking containment

• Gauntlet ports added to front and side doors to prevent particulate
escape during operation and to keep crew garments clean. Gauntlets were
made of Tyvek,[^6]4 a standard, medical, clean-room material. Gauntlets
fit only to the wrist, thus allowing crew to use surgical gloves during
delicate procedures. Spare gauntlets were installed in stowage, for use
in the event of any tearing.

• Grille covers added inside cabinet to prevent particulates from
entering HEPA filter system.

The GPWS was forwarded to the KSC in 1988 to allow sufficient time for
modal testing in the flight-rack configuration. As a result of later,
coupled-loads analyses, structural redesign was required, and the
following changes were made:

• Two overhead stowage lockers eliminated and replaced by single
closeout panel.

• Experiment power-distribution panel reconfigured to single panel
spanning both sides of double rack.

• Bracing installed at interior corner posts.

Figure 5 illustrates the elements of the GPWS as configured for SLS-1.

**3.1.4 General purpose transfer unit (GPTU)--** An auxiliary piece of
equipment, the GPTU, was developed as a result of particulate problems
on SL-3. The GPTU was designed to accommodate transfer of rodent cages
between the RAHF and the GPWS and thus eliminate any potential for
release of particulates from the cage to the Spacelab environment. The
GPTU resembles a windsock attached to a lexan box frame (fig. 6), as
seen during SLS-1. The frame attaches to the RAHF; a cage is pulled into
the Tyvek windsock and closed off by a door in the lexan frame. The
frame is then interfaced to the GPWS. Opening the GPWS side window opens
the lexan frame window, and the cage is pulled into the GPWS. RAHF,
GPWS, and GPTU interfaces were thoroughly evaluated during the EVT at
ARC, prior to flight.

**3.1.5 Animal Enclosure Modules--** The two AEMs housed five rats each
in the mid-deck location. AEMs had been flown on space transport systems
(STS) 8, 11, 29, and 41 prior to SLS-1. AEMs are dependent on cabin air
and circulation via internal fans for temperature control. The units
remain closed during flight and, because of their configuration, there
is no in-flight manipulation of specimens. Observations are made through
a lexan cover. Food bars are glued to side walls; approximately\
125 square inches of floor space are available.

Waste containment and absorption is accomplished through the use of a
phosphoric-acid-impregnated, charcoal bed/filter pad. Temperature is
monitored via an ambient temperature recorder (ATR), which is read
postflight.

![](media/image1.pct){width="1.0in" height="1.0in"}

*Figure 5. GPWS configured for SLS-1.*

![](media/image1.pct){width="1.0in" height="1.0in"}

*Figure 6. General purpose transfer unit.*

The ARC-constructed AEMs were modified from original units constructed
by General Dynamics for the STS student program. The ARC units included
a 1500-cc watering system and an automatic light timer.

Several changes were implemented in the SLS-1 AEM:

• Waste filter material changed to resemble that in the RAHF; resultant
weight of AEM decreased about\
six pounds.

• Water box along with in-flight refill unit utilized allowed longer
duration flight.

• ATR installed. Study of scrub 2 ATR playback resulted in preflight
low-temperature conditioning of KSC biotransport van (58° C) and level
IV carrier unit and request for continuing mid-deck 65° C air purge to
launch --2 hours (L -- 2).

**3.1.6 Small Mass Measuring Instrument (SMMI)--** The SMMI was a piece
of JSC Life Science laboratory equipment (LSLE) loaned to ARC. Three
units were forwarded to ARC, one of which flew. ARC implemented a
contract with Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Tex., the
builders of the units, for refurbishment in 1989 because the units
experienced continuous stability problems. Although the units were
received from JSC as "flight certified" hardware, extensive additional
testing was required by ARC to fulfill all elements of verification as
defined in 1986. The SMMI was flown in SLS-1 to verify its
calibration-maintenance capabilities before its use as experiment
support in SLS-2. The units continued to perform well throughout SLS-2.

**3.1.7 Refrigerator/Incubator Module--** The R/IM was procured as an
addition to an existing Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) contract.
MSFC units had been flown earlier in numerous missions since STS-26
supporting microgravity materials experiments. As MSFC had done, ARC
replaced various electrical components and incorporated a digital
temperature readout. For SLS-1, the

mid-deck configured unit was flown in Spacelab in the Spacelab mid-deck
experiment (SMIDEX) rack configuration. The unit was maintained at 28° C
and supported the jellyfish flasks and bags.

**3.1.8 Miscellaneous stowage--** Various stowage hardware onboard was
modified, commercially supplied items, e.g., air sampler and video
camera. The air sampler was a copy of units utilized previously for
microbiological sampling aboard the STS. The agar strips, normally used
for microbiological sampling, were removed. A fine mesh screen,
entrapping particles \>150 microns, was attached over the
minicentrifugal head. The screens were covered with a solid lid at the
conclusion of each sampling, and the unit was screwed off the sampler
and retained in stowage for observation at the end of the mission. The
video camera was outfitted with a special adapter plate, which allowed
handling of the jellyfish flasks in a steady, mounted position. The
jellyfish bagging system was a combination of syringes mounted within
sealed bags. Development of equipment supporting the jellyfish
experiment (R/IM, video brackets, bagging system) was not started until
1986, when the experiment was manifest aboard SLS-1.

Another type of stowage, which served as accessories to the AEMs and the
R/IM, were the ATRs. These units are the size of the European Space
Agency (ESA) type 1 containers, have a wide temperature range, and are
battery maintained for several months. The units can also be configured
with external probes, if required.

**3.2 Results**

**3.2.1 Research Animal Holding Facility--** The RAHF was flown with 19
animals of approximately 250 grams each. One cage compartment (6B) was
flown empty because of lixit failure on the launch pad. Two of the other
cage slots, 2A/B and 9A/B, contained equipment for the particulate
containment demonstration test (PCDT). With the exception of the
pressure transducer anomaly (detailed under Section 3.3, Anomalies), the
RAHF performed as planned. Figure 7 illustrates the "on pad"\
T -- 0 data (launch control center (LCC) prelaunch data), which included
monitoring of quadrant 1 temperature,\
humidity 1, TEU coolant inlet temperature, and coolant flow status. The
following facts were observed:

• High quadrant temperature (27°C) noted on launch attempt two was
attributed to sustained mission-provided equipment (MPE) fluid loop
temperatures of 21°C. The MPE loop was reduced to 12--14°C, and nominal
temperature data were received and maintained to L -- 6 hours.

• Leak alarms noted after launch attempt two. Module vertical access kit
(MVAK) technicians were able to reset 4A and 4B. Cage 6B could not be
cleared; no animal was placed in that cage slot during launch attempt
three (only 19 animals flown in RAHF). The RAHF was maintained on "ON"
condition between launch attempts two and three.

(Note: Rodents were lowered into the RAHF at approximately L -- 29 hours
on both launch attempts two and three).

Figure 8 typifies the RF1 and RF2 (designates in-flight data) responses
observed throughout the flight and processed through the ARC ground-data
compilation. Temperature and humidity matched ground tests, but quadrant
four data were slightly lower than expected. Raising the set point to
25°C (from 24°C) brought all temperatures to nominal limits. The MPE
fluid loop was approximately 12°C.

The water-tank pressure transducer failed on flight day (FD) 3. Three
activity monitors failed in flight; the data were redundant with water
counts. Two computer crashes of approximately 5 hours each interfered
with data retrieval. Because of the uncertainty of water consumption
versus water availability, the crew added Gel Paks to the cages on FD 8.
The following data, retrieved at the end of the mission, very closely
mimicked the data obtained with the second RAHF used during the delayed
flight profile test (DFPT) conducted at Hangar L at the KSC facility 30
days postlanding:

• Total condensate collected during the flight:\
\~3.5 liters

• Microbial analysis of condensate: *Pseudomonas paucimobilis*

• Microbial analysis of water tank: No colony forming units

• Total water retrieved from water tank (includes MVAK operations and
postflight micro sample volumes): 3.8 liters.

**3.2.2 General Purpose Work Station--** The GPWS was used in flight for
performance of the PCDT when both particulates and fluids were released
on two different days by two different crew members. In addition, the
GPWS was also utilized for:

• Observation of in-flight release by crew member of a rat from cage
within the GPWS cabinet (FD 7)

• Addition of Gel Paks to each rodent cage compartment (FD 8)

• Fixation of jellyfish specimens within their bag system (FD 9)

![](media/image1.pct){width="1.0in" height="1.0in"}

*Figure 8. RF1 and RF2 responses.*

All activities with the GPWS were nominal with the exception of several
crew observations indicated in Section 3.3, Anomalies.

After the initial particulate dispersion, a crew member reported
particulates settling via the airflow within\
20--30 seconds. Initial dispersions resulted in some adherence to
interior surfaces, which was thought to be due to static attraction.
This condition was not observed during the second dispersion;
particulates were readily flipped from surfaces with a plastic bag. A
long-handled brush was incorporated in subsequent flight stowages to aid
in cleanup.

Postflight microscopic examination of the centrifugal sampler screens
collected during both GPWS and RAHF PCDT activities revealed particulate
accumulation under only one condition and on only one screen at a size
level of \<50 microns and not exceeding 20 particles/inch. That
condition was during the first release and cleanup within the GPWS when
the crew failed to adequately clean the interior backside of the GPWS
front window and material was entrapped when the window was raised. With
appropriate cleaning operation, the condition was not repeated during
the second particulate release.

The crew kit (ping-pong ball), implemented at a crew member's request,
proved extremely beneficial in demonstrating airflow patterns and the
appropriate window height for retrieval of items without contamination
to the Spacelab atmosphere.

The PCDT, involving both the RAHF and GPWS, was so successful that the
Administrator approved transfer of live rats in their cages from the
RAHF to the GPWS for handling within the GPWS (fig. 9). This opportunity
provided useful insights on animal behavior outside their smaller,
closed environment (RAHF cage). It also demonstrated debris when the
cage was opened in the GPWS since there was no airflow through the cage
outside the RAHF. Procedures were implemented to minimize this release
within the GPWS and thus not contaminate any processed samples within
the GPWS during SLS-2 experiment activities.

Although the jellyfish experiment bagging system was triple-contained,
the STS Safety Committee requested that the GPWS be used for the
fixation activities (fig. 10) "...because it was available." The
requirement to start up

![](media/image1.pct){width="1.0in" height="1.0in"}

*Figure 9. Rodent within GPWS.*

![](media/image1.pct){width="1.0in" height="1.0in"}

*Figure 10. Jellyfish activities in the GPWS.*

the GPWS and transfer all activities to the cabinet unnecessarily
impacted available crew time.

**3.2.3 Refrigerator/Incubator Module--** The R/IM maintained its preset
28°C temperature throughout the flight and adequately maintained the
jellyfish kits, which were placed within the R/IM.

**3.2.4 Animal Enclosure Modules--** The two units performed nominally.
Though lexan windows were extremely soiled by FD 3 (also observed in
previous and subsequent flights) and alarming amounts of debris were
viewed floating with animals, the AEM animals appeared well groomed on
return and exhibited food consumption, water consumption, and weight
gain comparable to that of RAHF animals. The data are discussed in more
detail in Section 5.0, Science Results.

Data obtained from the ATRs postflight have been compared to results
from the small payloads flight of the AEM over several years. There were
indications that mid-deck temperatures and location of the AEM within
the mid-deck greatly affect the AEM temperature profile. Results of this
study are not included herein.

The in-flight refill capability allowed use of the AEMs for the extended
flight. Normal capacity is limited to a maximum of 6 to 7 days with the
1,500-cc bladder. Units are currently filled directly from the crew's
potable-water source.

**3.2.5 Small Mass Measuring Instrument--** Performance of the SMMI
exceeded expectations. The data shown in the following table were
recovered from operations performed on FD 4 and FD 6 with predetermined
weights:

  ------------------- ---------------- ----------------- -----------------
  **Actual mass**     **175.21 g**     **250.21 g**      **100.21 ± 175.21
                                                         g**

  ------------------- ---------------- ----------------- -----------------

  ------------------- ---------------- ----------------- -----------------
  Measured\                                              
  mass trial \#                                          

  ------------------- ---------------- ----------------- -----------------

  ------------------- ---------------- ----------------- -----------------
  1                   175.0            250.2             275.3

  ------------------- ---------------- ----------------- -----------------

  ------------------- ---------------- ----------------- -----------------
  2                   175.2            250.4             275.1

  ------------------- ---------------- ----------------- -----------------

  ------------------- ---------------- ----------------- -----------------
  3                   175.1            250.1             275.4

  ------------------- ---------------- ----------------- -----------------

  ------------------- ---------------- ----------------- -----------------
  4                   175.2            250.2             275.4

  ------------------- ---------------- ----------------- -----------------

  ------------------- ---------------- ----------------- -----------------
  5                   175.2            250.2             275.4

  ------------------- ---------------- ----------------- -----------------

  ------------------- ---------------- ----------------- -----------------
  6                   175.3            250.2             275.4

  ------------------- ---------------- ----------------- -----------------

  ------------------- ---------------- ----------------- -----------------
  7                   175.3            250.2             275.3

  ------------------- ---------------- ----------------- -----------------

  ------------------- ---------------- ----------------- -----------------
  8                   175.3            250.1             275.3

  ------------------- ---------------- ----------------- -----------------

  ------------------- ---------------- ----------------- -----------------
  Average             175.2            250.2             275.3

  ------------------- ---------------- ----------------- -----------------

**3.3 Anomalies**

Four anomalies were noted against the ARC hardware during the SLS-1
mission and reviewed by the Headquarters (code UL)-appointed Robbins
Committee. The first three anomalies were closed out by the committee;
the fourth remains open for further resolution by ARC:

• Failed lixit, cage 6B

• RAHF leak alarms 4A, 4B, and 10B in flight

• AEM swagelock fitting loose

• RAHF water-pressure-transducer failure

The history of these anomalies follows:

**3.3.1 Failed lixit, cage 6B--** During the third launch-attempt MVAK
operations, leak alarms were noted on cage slots 4A, 4B, and 6B. The
MVAK technician was able to successfully reset 4A and 4B; 6B did not
respond, even after 180 cc of water was manually drained through the
lixit. No animal was placed in the 6B cage slot because of the
inoperative lixit.

Postflight testing revealed that the problem was due to air in the
lines. Removal of the air resulted in nominal functioning and
calibration of the lixit. Corrective action required burping of the
water manifold during the integration process to eliminate air. The
procedure had not been performed because of integration-processing
schedule conflicts.

Subsequent missions were not affected because appropriate planning,
(e.g., procedure was included in Ground Integration Requirements
Document) and correct integration burping procedures were scheduled and
implemented. For those leak alarms occurring as a result of rapid water
consumption by the rat or bumps against the lixit, ARC is designing a
monitoring system for use during preflight; it will allow for tracking
of water counts and a remote master reset of leak alarms from the LCC
console.

**3.3.2 RAHF leak alarms 4A, 4B, and 10B in flight--** Leak alarms in
cage slots 4A and 4B were discovered on FD 1 during Spacelab activation.
A leak alarm also occurred in cage slot 10B on FD 2. The RAHF water
system was designed to shut the lixit off if greater than eight counts
were received in an eight-second period. During the ARC biocompatibility
and verification tests, three leak alarms were experienced during each
test. Although the system performed nominally, changing it would have
been counteractive to required safety constraints, so no corrective
action was implemented.

**3.3.3 AEM swagelock fitting loose--** On FD 5 it was necessary to
refill the AEMs. AEM 1 was filled nominally; a water leak appeared
around the swage fitting on the refill lines when AEM 2 filling was
attempted. The maximum volume of water released, as reported by the
crew, was 0.25 to 0.50 cc. The crew was able to hand-tighten the fitting
completely and eliminate any leaks. The second filling on FD 8 was
without incident.

Evidently inspection of lines and fittings during the preflight
preparations was inadequate. Appropriate inspection points in assembly
procedures eliminated the problem for future flights. The corrective
action involved evaluating preflight assembly and processing procedures
and inspection lines to insure proper hardware configuration.

**3.3.4 RAHF water-pressure-transducer failure--** Historically the RAHF
water-pressure transducer has functioned with high reliability. This
pressure transducer operated nominally during all functional testing
both at ARC and KSC, and through all testing and refill operations
performed during levels IV through I (on the pad). On FD 3, the
RAHF-transmitted readings of water-tank pressure went from 36.8 psi to
55 psi . Evaluation of the "raw voltage" showed a constant reading of
102 psi, which is full scale.

As part of the failure analyses, the RAHF and other systems were tested
postflight outside the Spacelab but in the flight rack configuration.
The following tests were made:

• RAHF powered with ground-support equipment (GSE): The transducer read
22--18 psi, which matched the 3.4-liter volume left in the tank.

• Flight remote acquisition unit (RAU) tested with ground unit tester,
which applied voltage through the unit and verified channel response;
all elements performed nominally.

• RAHF/RAU interface tested by applying GSE power to determine if
translational voltage from transducer to RAU (or reverse) could have
resulted in failed readings and the 102-psi voltage indication; both the
RAHF transducer and the RAU performed nominally.

In conclusion, this anomaly is unexplained. The RAHF was returned to ARC
from KSC the week of November 8, 1991. Testing continued to resolve the
issue prior to\
SLS-2 use. ARC continued to use high-reliability parts and installed a
manual gauge for direct readout, in the event that a similar anomaly
occurred during SLS-2. All pressure systems performed nominally during
SLS-2, including repressurization during water refill of the RAHF water
tanks.

**3.3.5 Other issues--** Other issues referenced during crew debriefings
and various reports are noted as follows:

• PCDT particles stuck in GPWS grilles

> Care should be observed not to push large items through grilles. Items
> larger than the grille width were not intended to be pushed through
> the grilles. SLS-2 procedures reflected these cautions.

• PCDT particles stick to GPWS door

> A long-handled cleaning brush was installed in SLS-2 stowage to
> facilitate cleaning in corners, in crevices, and on inside of door
> face.

• GPWS rails bind and interfere with GPTU/GPWS mating

> The rails on the GPWS side window used in SLS-2 were reworked. SL-J
> used a plain window.

• Dirty velcro in GPWS

> Although the use of a double-backed velcro that could be easily
> replaced in flight was studied, the velcro was not replaced.

• Gauntlets limit visibility

> The crew did not use the garters provided; SL-J uses a rubber band to
> curtail ballooning effect of gauntlets. ARC investigated elastic
> shirring down gauntlet side to minimize ballooning for SLS-2.

• RAHF adapter rails loose

> Detents were tightened prior to SLS-2 with positive latch.

• Slide valve on RAHF SPAF

> The RAHF office investigated a variable flow capability on the SPAF to
> reduce the potential for feces from cage front waste compartment to
> drift to back compartment during SPAF activation.

• Tight foam around AEM refill unit

> This problem was reported in previous flights. More project
> interaction with the Boeing flight equipment processing contractor
> (FEPAC) was recommended along with "fit checks" prior to shipment of
> foam inserts to KSC.

• Heightened AEM preflight temperatures

> ARC implemented procedures to circumvent elevated temperatures in the
> AEM, including cooling the biotransport van (BTV), purging the
>
> mid-deck with 65°F air to as late as possible prior to launch, and
> using only half of the lights. Prior to the use of the ATRs in the
> AEMs, these preflight elevated temperatures were not "apparent."

• GPWS phase imbalance

> The GPWS was retested with a quality assurance (QA) witness during
> SL-J integration. There was no phase imbalance.

• GPWS low flow light

> The "LO FLO" light was activated on the last flight day during the
> jellyfish fixation activities in the GPWS. Two possibilities existed
> to explain this anomaly:\
> - inefficient opening of grille closures;\
> - suspended particulates in the system, which\
> blocked the system.

The GPWS was activated on return to 1 g, the grille closures, though
difficult to open, were operated in the "OPEN" position, and the unit
performed nominally.

All PRs and field engineering changes (FECs) generated at KSC were
reviewed prior to refurbishment of any hardware utilized in succeeding
missions.

**3.3.6 Lung-tissue analysis--** The flight crew of SLS-1 had commented
that particulates were floating in the AEMs in zero gravity and had
indicated a concern that these debris were being aspirated into the
rodents' respiratory tree. To determine if this was a cause for concern,
pathological examinations of the respiratory trees of\
5 flight and 5 control rats were made by a veterinary diagnostic
laboratory. The analyses for type of debris, size of particles, profile
of location, and associated anomalies were done blind. Very rare
intra-alveolar fragments of debris found in 6 of the 10 animals were
limited to 1 to 3 fragments in the sections examined. Intra-alveolar
hair fragments were found only in 2 control specimens. Also found was a
tiny, sharp, crystalline shard that was unidentified because of the
small size and limited quantity present. Congestive changes consistent
with decapitation were noted, as were peribronchiolar accumulations of
small numbers of lymphocytes and rare plasma cells. In summary, no
differences were noted between the flight group and the control group.

**4.0 Crew Training**

Training began in September 1987 and continued until the launch of
STS-40 on June 5, 1991. As of August 1988, the mission management office
(MMO) was distributing schedules showing a June 1990 launch date.
Consequently, training schedules reflected that July 1988 was L -- 23
months and ARC was preparing to coordinate training for the SLS-1
payload crew. The generic training template used by ARC to schedule
training was difficult to follow because of several launch slips and
hardware and crew unavailability.

It should be noted that the payload crew had already begun training on
SL-4 experiments in the fall of 1983. When training resumed in the fall
of 1987, the original SL-4 payload had been reduced to hardware
verification of the RAHF, RAHF adapter, GPWS, GPTU, and SMMI. (RAHF,
GPWS, and GPTU verification was to be accomplished through the PCDT). In
addition, crew in-flight activities concerned with RAHF/AEM rodent
health observations, AEM water refill, jellyfish inducement and
fixation, and jellyfish filming were scheduled.

**4.1 Ames Research Center Training**

The ARC mission-dependent training is divided into timed phases:
orientation, task, phase, project integrated, mission integrated, and
proficiency. Every component of each experiment and associated hardware
is subject to the same basic training template. This approach provides
an ideal working model as each successive training session builds on
knowledge gained from the previous session until proficiency on
integrated payload procedures is achieved.

The obstacles that greatly affected the training program were hardware
availability, changing in-flight requirements, and launch slips. Every
launch adjustment caused fluctuations in mission-specialist (MS) support
and required additional resources to bring all individuals to a similar
level of proficiency. In addition, hardware development and verification
were often not in sync with hardware availability requirements to
support in the training of the payload crew and to assist in procedural
development.

**4.1.1 Orientation training--** The first exposure to orientation
training, in the then-present reincarnation of the\
SL-4 experiments, was begun in September 1987 and was completed in
February 1989. Training was accomplished at either ARC facilities or
(for the jellyfish experiment) at the PI's lab. The crew received
orientation to the ARC complement of rack-mounted hardware, i.e., RAHF,
GPWS, and SMMI, the jellyfish experiment and associated hardware, and
the mid-deck-stowed AEMs. The crew also received an orientation on the
cardiovascular animals, which at this time were to be housed in an AEM.
Interspersed within this window was a training session in May 1988 to
review PCDT activities and associated tasks to be performed on a KC-135
flight in June 1988.

Approximately 47 orientation training hours were accomplished for each
crew member during this interval of training. This figure does not
include the additional hours each crew member spent prior to May 1988
nor the additional hours required to review training materials prior to
the start of the scheduled training session.

**4.1.2 Task training--** During task training, the payload crew became
proficient in all aspects of the experiment objectives through intensive
and in-depth lectures on experiment unique hardware (EUH), stowed items,
procedures, and "hands-on" training with specimens and available
experiment hardware. Because of the overall launch schedule and the
availability of the hardware and the crew, task training was often
accomplished together with orientation training.

Task training on PCDT activities was provided on three training dates
(September 1987, November 1987, and January 1989). The payload crew also
received training on the jellyfish experiment, SMMI, GPWS, and RAHF.
Approximately 49 hours (for each crew member) were accumulated in
support of task training.

**4.1.3 Phase training--** Phase training was designed to allow the crew
the opportunity to complete enough repetitions of the experiment so that
(s)he would be able to complete the procedures at a defined level of
time proficiency. Training was to have utilized the experiment operating
procedures, payload specific hardware, and stowage items. This training
opportunity was also designed to provide the crew with a level of
proficiency that would guarantee a meaningful participation in the EVT.
The crew logged approximately 37 hours each during this portion of the
training, accomplished over a period of two years and three training
opportunities.

**4.1.4 Project integrated training--** The objective of crew training
during the SLS-1 EVT (February 28 to March 8, 1989) was to conduct
project-integrated training of the payload crew members. They were to
perform all ARC in-flight activities to assist in validation of the\
SLS-1 timeline. Although the crew were familiar with the ARC payload,
this EVT was the first time they combined the tasks into operational
procedures with most of the flight hardware and stowage items available
for their use.

Unfortunately, the payload crew mission specialists\
were not available to support the EVT while the primes and backup
payload specialists (PS) attended and participated in a large number of
the in-flight sessions. Their participation covered approximately 40
hours of the total 72-hour execute shift.

**4.2 Mission Management Office Training**

The objectives of the mission integrated training sessons (MITS) were
twofold; they allowed the crew to develop their proficiency to a level
of performance where they could successfully perform all the payload
activities within the mission timeline, and they allowed the payload
operations control center (POCC) cadre and payload experiment developer
(PED) support the opportunity to rehearse in-flight ground protocols.
MITS were similar to project integrated training, but included timeline
performance of all mission experiments and other activities necessary to
carry out the mission.

Each MITS occurred within a fully integrated Spacelab mockup and was
supported by ARC training. Integration of the building 36 mockup began
in June 1989. Confusion existed initially because ARC hardware was of
mockup and not flight fidelity; the level of JSC building 36 QA was
sometimes inappropriate. Training included not only nominal operations
but also malfunction training.

The SLS-1 payload had the unique opportunity of participating in 10
simulations with the POCC cadre (including MMO and PED support
personnel). In addition 5 joint integrated training simulations (JITS)
were scheduled with the POCC cadre at MSFC, mission control personnel at
JSC, and the crew traveling between the building 36 Spacelab mockup, the
building 9 mid-deck mockup, and the building 5 simulators. Each of these
training opportunities simulated different start and stop times on the
overall mission timeline. This stipulation required that the mockup,
including stowage, be configured to simulate the mockup as it would
appear at the start time of the simulation for that particular FD.

Payload crew members participated in MIT. The alternate payload
specialist supported all training simulations by serving as the voice
interface between the crew and the POCC cadre. The orbiter crew were
selected later than the payload crew and, therefore, their participation
came later in the flow of these events. (Note: these additional
assignments required that ARC provide orientation to the ARC payload as
well as exposure to the hardware and\
in-depth training on any ARC experiments they were to perform in
flight).

MITS dates and FDs simulated were as follows:

  -------------- -------------------------------- -----------------------
  **MITS \#**    **Date**                         **FD \#**

  -------------- -------------------------------- -----------------------

  -------------- -------------------------------- -----------------------
  1              July 26--27, 1989                1a

  -------------- -------------------------------- -----------------------

  -------------- -------------------------------- -----------------------
  2              Aug. 23--25, 1989                2--4

  -------------- -------------------------------- -----------------------

  -------------- -------------------------------- -----------------------
  3              Oct. 17--19, 1989                4--7

  -------------- -------------------------------- -----------------------

  -------------- -------------------------------- -----------------------
  4              Dec. 5--8, 1989                  2--5

  -------------- -------------------------------- -----------------------

  -------------- -------------------------------- -----------------------
  5              Jan. 17--18, 1990                3--4

  -------------- -------------------------------- -----------------------

  -------------- -------------------------------- -----------------------
  6              Mar. 12--16, 1990                4--6, 7--8

  -------------- -------------------------------- -----------------------

  -------------- -------------------------------- -----------------------
  7              Apr. 17--19, 1990                1--3

  -------------- -------------------------------- -----------------------

  -------------- -------------------------------- -----------------------
  8              Sept. 24--25, 1990               1

  -------------- -------------------------------- -----------------------

  -------------- -------------------------------- -----------------------
  9              Nov. 26--28, 1990                4--5

  -------------- -------------------------------- -----------------------

  -------------- -------------------------------- -----------------------
  10             Feb. 12, 1991                    1

  -------------- -------------------------------- -----------------------

aSpacelab activation.

JITS dates and FDs simulated were as follows:

  -------------- ------------------------ -------------------------------
  **JITS \#**    **Date**                 **FD \#**

  -------------- ------------------------ -------------------------------

  -------------- ------------------------ -------------------------------
  Pre            Feb. 20--22, 1991        Simulation for POCC cadre only;
                                          alternate payload specialist

  -------------- ------------------------ -------------------------------

  -------------- ------------------------ -------------------------------
  1              Mar. 20, 1991            1a

  -------------- ------------------------ -------------------------------

  -------------- ------------------------ -------------------------------
                                          

  -------------- ------------------------ -------------------------------

  -------------- ------------------------ -------------------------------
  2              Apr. 2--3, 1991          4

  -------------- ------------------------ -------------------------------

  -------------- ------------------------ -------------------------------
  3              Apr. 16--17, 1991        1--2

  -------------- ------------------------ -------------------------------

  -------------- ------------------------ -------------------------------
  4              May 3, 1991              9b

  -------------- ------------------------ -------------------------------

aAscent/activation.\
bDeorbit.

**4.3 Lessons Learned**

The following items address some of the difficulties associated with
training a crew and demonstrate that in-flight operations should be
given a higher level of priority during payload development and
maturation. These "lessons learned" are presented from an operations
standpoint. Delivery of the hardware to meet integration is highly
critical, but it is the success or failure of the\
in-flight operations that will be remembered and used to determine the
outcome of a mission. The following items address training and procedure
development:

• The necessity that hardware be available to support procedure
development and training conflicts with hardware verification and
delivery dates to STS.

• Higher fidelity mockups of training hardware are required to support
MITS.

• Spacelab mockups used to support MITS must be configured correctly and
validated prior to the onset of this phase of training.

• Procedure development requires the use of high-fidelity, flight-like
hardware many months before the present payload-development schedule
allows. (Payload considered mature and frozen at CDR,\
\~L -- 18 months, but crew begins training between\
L -- 24 and L -- 18 months; consequently, procedure validation using
flight-like hardware cannot occur early.)

• Month-by-month launch delays prolong the training program such that
skills are dampened and performance quality decreases.

• Crew must be exposed to procedures that have been correctly formatted
into a preliminary in-flight version at the onset of integrated
training.

• Preliminary in-flight documentation must be available to support MIT.

• Clear and detailed science and engineering requirements that address
crew operations covering the range of activities from photo/filming to
in-flight data collection must be provided.

• Every activity timelined concurrently or on either side of an ARC
experiment must be performed during a simulation.

• Possible stowage interference with other payload experiments must be
determined when ARC experiments are performed.

• Changes to any procedures must be completed well in advance of L -- 1
month. The MMO procedure delivery schedule must be changed to ensure
that all procedure verification is done early in the documentation
cycle.

• ARC must verify stowage and foam-fit checks while foam is in its
locker, even though MMO is responsible for fabricating the foam.

• Pictures should be taken of hardware switch panels and stowage
closeout for crew update/familiarization materials and for support of
POCC in-flight activities.

• Individually wrapped items should be repackaged into groupings to
avoid excessive garbage generation.

• SMMI weight kit needs to reworked, i.e., foam configuration must be
tighter.

• Labeling of items should be as high a priority as the actual hardware
concerns.

• Procedures sent to in-flight crew should always be in the same format.
The ground should not be providing ground or MVAK procedures since the
crew has probably never seen or worked with this version of the
procedures. There should be only one source for the procedures.

Greater details of lessons learned affecting PED elements were detailed
in the ARC SLS-1 90-day report.

**5.0 Science Results**

**5.1 Rodent Growth, Behavior, and Organ-Weight Changes Resulting from
Spaceflight**

**5.1.1 Introduction--** SLS-1 was dedicated to the study of responses
of humans and rats to spaceflight and a period of reexposure to Earth's
gravity. This first opportunity to perform detailed parallel studies on
humans and rodents and studies on similarly treated rodents flown in two
different types of habitats (individual and group housed) had these
specific objectives:

• To verify the RAHF and AEM and the capability of these facilities to
maintain healthy animals for experimental use.

• To compare changes in rats exposed to spaceflight to the changes seen
at 1 g in rats housed in identical flight hardware and exposed to a
similar flight environmental profile.

• To compare the changes seen in rats flown in the RAHF with those seen
in rats flown in the AEM and to identify housing-related effects.

• To compare results from both human and rat experiments to determine
whether the rat is a good model for the study of the effects of
spaceflight on human physiology. (It should be noted that this objective
is outside of the purview of this report and requires collaborative
efforts between the human and animal subject investigators.)

**5.1.2 Methodology--** The following discussion of the procedures used
in SLS-1 summarizes the more detailed account in the SLS-1 90-day report
(AR-01449).

One hundred and sixty three male rats, (*Rattus norvegicus*,
Sprague-Dawley strain, Taconic Farms) 30 days old were received at
Hangar L, KSC, 28 days before the scheduled launch. A daily health check
along with food, water, and body-weight measurements obtained every\
3 days were used as selection criteria for the final pool of
experimental animals. Flight-candidate rats were selected at L -- 13
days, either grouped 5 per cage or individually housed, and were placed
on flight food-bar diets (see Section 3.1.2, Flight Diet).
Microbiological testing was performed at receipt and L -- 6 days in
order to certify that the rodents were clear of organisms (per NASA
Specific-Pathogen Free List, ref. 8). All flight-candidate rats were
given preflight injections and blood draws for the hematology and
bone-growth experiments (table 1). On\
L -- 2 flight rodents were selected randomly from a pool of candidates
displaying good general health, normal growth curves, and normal food-
and water-consumption rates. Observations of their behavior during
hematology and bone-growth experiment procedures also helped determine
the final flight-candidate pool.

Twenty-nine flight rats were loaded into the flight cages approximately
33 hours before launch. Nineteen rats were flown in individual cages in
the RAHF, while 10 rats were flown, 5 rats each, in two AEMs. Real-time
control rats were maintained throughout the flight period: RAHF control
animals in vivarium cages and AEM control animals in flight-qualified
AEMs. The total shuttle flight lasted 9 days, 3 hours, 13 minutes.
Except for two rats, which were briefly handled by the crew, the flight
rats remained in their habitats throughout flight. Flight animals had
access to food bars and water ad libitum. In addition, on FD 8 (L + 7),
all RAHF rats also received\
2 to 3 Gel Paks, each containing 30 ml of 1-percent agar solution as a
water supplement.

Beginning at about three hours after launch (L + 0), single and group
house control rats were dissected and organ weights and tissue samples
were taken for the biospecimen sharing program (BSP). Whole organ
weights were obtained for spleen, heart, thymus, adrenals, kidneys,
liver, and testes.

On L + 2 days the science team and the ground control rodents were flown
from KSC to the DFRC payload receiving facility (PRF) at Edwards Air
Force Base, California. Before being loaded into the passenger
compartment of the aircraft, the singly housed rodents were weighed and
transferred from their vivarium cages to compartmentalized,
rodent-shipping containers; food and water were available ad libitum. On
the other hand, AEM-housed animals were not removed from their habitat
and the lighting and fan systems were powered by batteries for the
flight from Florida to California. On landing at the PRF, the ground
control rodents that had been transported in shipping cages were
examined for possible injury or illness enroute. They were placed in
clean vivarium cages with fresh food and water. Routine maintenance was
resumed for all animals held in animal holding rooms for the duration of
the experiment.

Upon landing (R + 0), flight and control rats were removed from their
habitats, weighed, and checked by the ARC veterinarian for general
health. All rats were photographed and videotaped. After this initial
processing, half of the flight animals designated as the R + 0 flight
group and their ground control complement were dissected while the
remaining rats underwent injections and blood draws in support of the
bone and hematology experiments. The residual groups were maintained
throughout the recovery period in vivarium cages with

food and water ad libitum and were dissected after 9 days, a recovery
period equal to the mission length (R + ML).

A DFPT simulating the profile of environmental conditions in Spacelab
during the SLS-1 spaceflight was conducted at KSC using flight RAHF and
flight AEM hardware. The DFPT beginning with the receipt of rats on June
6, 1991, mirrored the mission timeline and matched the temperature,
humidity, and light/dark cycles experienced by the rodents during
flight. Significant operational events (Gel Pak additions, hardware
maintenance, and rodent handling) were also repeated; however, the
airplane trip to California was not duplicated for the DFPT ground
control rats, nor were the g force, vibration, and noise profiles
experienced during spaceflight by the animals held in the RAHF and AEMs.
All DFPT dissection operations were performed per the flight procedures
at launch (L + 0), landing (R + 0) and after a recovery of\
9 days (R + ML). The fidelity of the repetition of the DFPT procedures
to those of the mission can be most easily seen in the rodent chronology
(table 1).

Statistical analyses on a Macintosh computer utilized Statview II and
SuperAnova software programs (Abacus Concepts, Berkeley, Calif.) in a 2
⋅ 2 ⋅ 3 fashion (Flight/DFPT; AEM/RAHF; preflight/flight/recovery).
Organ-weight data were contrasted via analysis of variance (ANOVA) with
Bon Ferroni corrections for multiple groups (tables 2 and 3). Food,
water, and body-weight data were contrasted via repeated measure ANOVA
for specific time windows (tables 4 and 5).

**5.1.3 Results--**

**General rodent health and behavior:** The rats remained healthy during
all phases of the mission and DFPTs, as confirmed by observations made
by the flight crew and the ARC veterinarian. However, the flight crew
did express a concern that the particulates floating in the AEMs during
spaceflight might have been aspirated by the rats. As noted in Section
3.3, Anomalies, no unusual pathology was found in the lungs of the
exposed animals.

On landing, flight rats appeared weak and shaky with a loss of muscle
tone, and they moved as if their joints and muscles hurt. They felt
soft-bodied when handled. They were lethargic and less inquisitive than
real-time 1-g controls. Flight rats exhibited reduced use of their tails
as stabilizing tools, and displayed difficulty in balancing themselves
on their hindlimbs in an upright posture; effects were more pronounced
in AEM rats than in RAHF rats. These changes were markedly reduced in
the rodents by the second postflight day. No differences in behavior
were distinguishable between groups by the third post-flight day. Rodent
health remained good throughout the recovery period.

**Body weight and weight gain:** Body weights were not different between
mission and DFPT flight groups at loading (mission = 285.3 ± 3.1 g, DFPT
= 281.8 ± 3.1 g; p \< 0.05 percent). Mission flight rats gained
significantly less body weight during the flight period than DFPT flight
rats (4.2 ± 0.2 vs. 6.0 ± 0.2 g/day, p \< 0.0001). As a result, mission
flight rats weighed significantly less at unloading (331.0 ± 3.5 g vs.
347.4 ± 3.7 g, p \< 0.01). The mission flight rats lost 6.9 ± 0.7 g/day
for the first\
two days after landing compared to a net gain of\
2.9 ± 0.5 g/day in the DFPT flight rats (p \< 0.0001). Weight gain after
this initial "trough" (fig. 11(a)) was not different from that of DFPT
flight rats; however, body weights of mission flight animals remained
significantly below those of the DFPT flight rats throughout recovery (p
\< 0.0001). All rat groups except the untreated baseline control animals
showed a marked weight loss from R + 8 to R + 9. There is no difference
in body weights between flight RAHF and flight AEM rats on any day
during the recovery period.

**Food:** Daily food consumption (indexed per 100 g of body weight) was
greater during the flight period in mission flight rats than in DFPT
flight rats (9.4 ± 0.2 g vs. 8.7 ± 0.1 g/day, p \< 0.01) (fig. 11(b)).
The mission flight rats significantly decreased their daily food
consumption upon landing, consuming significantly less than the DFPT
flight rats during the first two days of recovery\
(--41 percent vs. --2 percent, p \< 0.001). The average daily food
consumption for the mission flight rats was\
28 percent less than for the DFPT flight rats throughout the postflight
recovery period (p \< 0.0001).

**Water:** In-flight water utilization differences between mission
flight and DFPT flight rats were insignificant (fig. 11(c)). Mean water
utilization for mission flight and DFPT flight AEM rats combined (N =
20) was greater when compared to mission flight and DFPT flight RAHF
rats combined (N = 38) (44.1 vs.\
27.5 ml/day, p \< 0.0001). Mean water utilization for combined AEM rats
dropped 50 percent from the in-flight mean during the first two days of
recovery, while mission flight and DFPT flight RAHF rats increased
utilization\
23 percent and 7 percent, respectively, for the same period (fig.
11(d)). Daily water-utilization rate after\
R + 3 days was not different between flight RAHF and flight AEM rats,
but was 42 percent greater (indexed to body weight) in mission flight
AEM and RAHF rats combined than DFPT flight AEM and RAHF rats combined
(p \< 0.01).

**Table 1. SLS-1 Mission and DFPT Rodent Chronology**

  ---- --- --- --------- ----- ------ ----- -----------------------------------------
               MISSION         DFPT         

  ---- --- --- --------- ----- ------ ----- -----------------------------------------

  --------- --------- -------- ------ ------ ------ ------ -----------------------------------------
  Mission   Elapsed   Flight   Date   Time   Date   Time   Event or procedure
  day       day       day                                  

  --------- --------- -------- ------ ------ ------ ------ -----------------------------------------

  ---- --- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------
  L -- 0       5/08/91         6/12/91         Receipt of launch contingency group 2 at
  28                                           Hangar L KSC; age 30 ± 3 days;
                                               microbiology sampling

  ---- --- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------

  ---- --- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------
  L -- 1       5/09/91         6/13/91         
  27                                           

  ---- --- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------

  ---- --- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------
  L -- 2       5/10/91         6/14/91         
  26                                           

  ---- --- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------

  ---- --- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------
  L -- 3       5/11/91         6/15/91         Food, water, and body weight; health
  25                                           check

  ---- --- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------

  ---- --- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------
  L -- 4       5/12/91         6/16/91         
  24                                           

  ---- --- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------

  ---- --- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------
  L -- 5       5/13/91         6/17/91         
  2 3                                          

  ---- --- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------

  ---- --- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------
  L -- 6       5/14/91         6/18/91         Food, water, and body weight; health
  2 2                                          check

  ---- --- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------

  ---- --- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------
  L -- 7       5/15/91         6/19/91         
  21                                           

  ---- --- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------

  ---- --- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------
  L -- 8       5/16/91         6/20/91         
  20                                           

  ---- --- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------

  ---- --- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------
  L -- 9       5/17/91         6/21/91         Food, water, and body weight; health
  19                                           check

  ---- --- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------

  ---- ---- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------
  L -- 10       5/18/91         6/22/91         
  18                                            

  ---- ---- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------

  ---- ---- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------
  L -- 11       5/19/91         6/23/91         
  17                                            

  ---- ---- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------

  ---- ---- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------
  L -- 12       5/20/91         6/24/91         Food, water, and body weight; health
  16                                            check

  ---- ---- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------

  ---- ---- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------
  L -- 13       5/21/91         6/25/91         
  15                                            

  ---- ---- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------

  ---- ---- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------
  L -- 14       5/22/91         6/26/91         
  14                                            

  ---- ---- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------

  ---- ---- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------
  L -- 15       5/23/91         6/27/91         Flight candidates selected; group or
  13                                            singly housed; diet switched to food bars

  ---- ---- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------

  ---- --- --- --- ----- --- ----- -----------------------------------------
                                   All groups: Sub-cue, Calcein bone marker;
                                   IV 200--250-ml blood draw

  ---- --- --- --- ----- --- ----- -----------------------------------------

  ---- ---- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------
  L -- 16       5/24/91         6/28/91         
  12                                            

  ---- ---- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------

  ---- ---- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------
  L -- 17       5/25/91         6/29/91         
  11                                            

  ---- ---- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------

  ---- ---- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------
  L -- 18       5/26/91         6/30/91         
  10                                            

  ---- ---- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------

  ---- ---- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------
  L -- 19       5/27/91         7/01/91         
  09                                            

  ---- ---- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------

  ---- ---- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------
  L -- 20       5/28/91         7/02/91         R + ML: Inject IV: 51Cr-RBC,
  08                                            125I-albumin, 0.9-percent saline; IV
                                                200--250-ml blood draw

  ---- ---- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------

  ---- ---- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------
  L -- 21       5/29/91         7/03/91         R + 0: Inject IV: 51Cr RBC, 0.9-percent
  07                                            saline: IV 200--250-ml blood draw

  ---- ---- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------

  ---- --- --- --- ----- --- ----- -----------------------------------------
                                   R + ML: IV 150-ml blood draw

  ---- --- --- --- ----- --- ----- -----------------------------------------

  ---- ---- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------
  L -- 22       5/30/91         7/04/91         R + 0 group: IV 150-ml blood draw
  06                                            

  ---- ---- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------

  ---- --- --- --- ----- --- ----- -----------------------------------------
                                   All groups: Inject Sub-cue,
                                   demeclocycline; microbiology sampling

  ---- --- --- --- ----- --- ----- -----------------------------------------

  ---- ---- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------
  L -- 23       5/31/91         7/05/91         
  05                                            

  ---- ---- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------

  ---- ---- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------
  L -- 24       6/01/91         7/06/91         
  04                                            

  ---- ---- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------

  ---- ---- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------
  L -- 25       6/02/91         7/07/91         
  03                                            

  ---- ---- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------

  ---- ---- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------
  L -- 26       6/03/91         7/08/91         All groups: Sub-cue. demeclocycline
  02                                            

  ---- ---- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------

  ---- --- --- --- ----- --- ----- -----------------------------------------
                                   Flight rodents selected from candidate
                                   pool; loaded RAHF cages at L -- 33 hr; at
                                   pad 39A L -- 31 hr

  ---- --- --- --- ----- --- ----- -----------------------------------------

  ---- ---- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------
  L -- 27       6/04/91         7/09/91         Flight and ground control rodents loaded
  01                                            into AEMs; AEMs and jellyfish at pad 39A
                                                L -- 17 hr

  ---- ---- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------

  ----- ---- --- --------- ------ --------- ----- -----------------------------------------
  L + 0 28   1   6/05/91   9:25   7/10/91         SLS-1 (STS 40) launched
                           a.m.                   
                           EDT                    

  ----- ---- --- --------- ------ --------- ----- -----------------------------------------

  ----- --- --- --- ------- --- ------- -----------------------------------------
  L + 0             12:15       12:30   L + 0: Start dissect group housed #1--5
                    p.m.        p.m.    (AEM control)
                    EDT         EDT     

  ----- --- --- --- ------- --- ------- -----------------------------------------

  ----- --- --- --- ------ --- ------ -----------------------------------------
  L + 0             2:00       2:00   L + 0: Start dissect singly housed #6--15
                    p.m.       p.m.   (RAHF control)
                    EDT        EDT    

  ----- --- --- --- ------ --- ------ -----------------------------------------

  ----- ---- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------
  L +   29   2   6/06/91         7/11/91         
  01                                             

  ----- ---- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------

  ----- ---- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------
  L +   30   3   6/07/91         7/12/91         Mission: ground controls flown to DFRC
  02                                             PRF

  ----- ---- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------

  ----- ---- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------
  L +   31   4   6/08/91         7/13/91         
  03                                             

  ----- ---- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------

  ----- ---- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------
  L +   32   5   6/09/91         7/14/91         
  04                                             

  ----- ---- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------

  ----- ---- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------
  L +   33   6   6/10/91         7/15/91         
  05                                             

  ----- ---- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------

  ----- ---- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------
  L +   34   7   6/11/91         7/16/91         
  06                                             

  ----- ---- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------

  ----- ---- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------
  L +   35   8   6/12/91         7/17/91         All RAHF animals received 2--3 Gel Paks
  07                                             containing 30 ml 1-percent agar as water
                                                 supplement

  ----- ---- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------

  ----- ---- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------
  L +   36   9   6/13/91         7/18/91         
  08                                             

  ----- ---- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------

  ----- ---- ---- --------- ------ --------- ----- -----------------------------------------
  R + 0 37   10   6/14/91   8:38   7/19/91         SLS-1 landed at DFRC PRF; flight
                            a.m.                   duration: 9 d, 3 hr, 13 min
                            PDT                    

  ----- ---- ---- --------- ------ --------- ----- -----------------------------------------

  ---- --- --- --- ------ --- ------- -----------------------------------------
                   9:15       12:15   R + 0: Start dissect AEM ground control
                   a.m.       p.m.    #16-20
                   PDT        EDT     

  ---- --- --- --- ------ --- ------- -----------------------------------------

  ---- --- --- --- ------- --- ------ -----------------------------------------
                   10:55       1:30   R + 0: Start dissect AEM flight #21-25
                   a.m.        p.m.   
                   PDT         EDT    

  ---- --- --- --- ------- --- ------ -----------------------------------------

  ---- --- --- --- ------- --- ------ -----------------------------------------
                   12:55       3:35   R + 0: Start dissect RAHF flight #26-35
                   p.m.        p.m.   
                   PDT         EDT    

  ---- --- --- --- ------- --- ------ -----------------------------------------

  ---- --- --- --- ------ --- ------ -----------------------------------------
                   4:10       6:55   R + 0: Start dissect RAHF ground control
                   p.m.       p.m.   #36-45
                   PDT        EDT    

  ---- --- --- --- ------ --- ------ -----------------------------------------

  ---- --- --- --- ----- --- ----- -----------------------------------------
                                   R + ML: Inject IV: 51Cr-RBC,
                                   125I-albumin, 59Fe citrate; 200--250-ml
                                   blood draw

  ---- --- --- --- ----- --- ----- -----------------------------------------

  ---- --- --- --- ----- --- ----- -----------------------------------------
                                   R + ML: inject IP: calcein/3H-proline in
                                   0.9-percent saline

  ---- --- --- --- ----- --- ----- -----------------------------------------

  ----- ---- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------
  R +   38       6/15/91         7/20/91         R + ML: IV 150-ml blood draw
  01                                             

  ----- ---- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------

  ----- ---- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------
  R +   39       6/16/91         7/21/91         
  02                                             

  ----- ---- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------

  ----- ---- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------
  R +   40       6/17/91         7/22/91         R + ML: IV 150-ml blood draw
  03                                             

  ----- ---- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------

  ----- ---- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------
  R +   41       6/18/91         7/23/91         R + ML: IV 150-ml blood draw
  04                                             

  ----- ---- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------

  ----- ---- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------
  R +   42       6/19/91         7/24/91         
  05                                             

  ----- ---- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------

  ----- ---- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------
  R +   43       6/20/91         7/25/91         
  06                                             

  ----- ---- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------

  ----- ---- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------
  R +   44       6/21/91         7/26/91         
  07                                             

  ----- ---- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------

  ----- ---- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------
  R +   45       6/22/91         7/27/91         R + ML: inject IV 51Cr-RBC, 125I-albumin,
  08                                             0.9-percent saline; IV 200--250-ml blood
                                                 draw

  ----- ---- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------

  ----- ---- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------
  R +   46       6/23/91         7/28/91         R + ML: IV 3.0-ml blood draw
  09                                             

  ----- ---- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------

  ---- --- --- --- ------ --- ------- -----------------------------------------
                   9:15       12:15   R + ML: Start dissect AEM ground control
                   a.m.       p.m.    #46-50
                   PDT        EDT     

  ---- --- --- --- ------ --- ------- -----------------------------------------

  ---- --- --- --- ------- --- ------ -----------------------------------------
                   10:55       1:30   R + ML: Start dissect AEM flight #51-55
                   a.m.        p.m.   
                   PDT         EDT    

  ---- --- --- --- ------- --- ------ -----------------------------------------

  ---- --- --- --- ------- --- ------ -----------------------------------------
                   12:55       3:35   R + ML: Start dissect RAHF flight #56-65
                   p.m.        p.m.   
                   PDT         EDT    

  ---- --- --- --- ------- --- ------ -----------------------------------------

  ---- --- --- --- ------ --- ------ -----------------------------------------
                   4:10       6:55   R + ML: Start dissect RAHF ground control
                   p.m.       p.m.   #66-75
                   PDT        EDT    

  ---- --- --- --- ------ --- ------ -----------------------------------------

  ----- ---- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------
  R +   47       6/24/91         7/29/91         Dissection: untreated group housed
  10                                             #200-204; untreated singly housed
                                                 #205-214

  ----- ---- --- --------- ----- --------- ----- -----------------------------------------

  ---- --- --- --- ----- --- ----- -----------------------------------------
                                   

  ---- --- --- --- ----- --- ----- -----------------------------------------

  --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -- -- -- -- --
  **Table 2. Organ weightsa flight vs. delayed flight profile test                     
  controls at launch, recovery, and recovery + mission length\                         
  (9 days)**                                                                           

  --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -- -- -- -- --

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
  Organ              L + 0 (g)  Percent ∆  R + 0 (g)  Percent ∆   R + ML (g)
                                Flight                Recovery    

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- -------------- -------
                                                                     

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- -------------- -------

  ------------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
  Spleen       Flight   1.01 ±     --19.5 ±   0.82 ±     0.0 ± 4.5   0.82 ± 0.04
                        0.03       0.31b      0.03c                  

  ------------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ------------ ------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
               DFPT   0.96 ±     0.54 ±     1.00 ±     --7.3 ± 3.6 0.90 ± 0.04
                      0.04       0.23       0.03                   

  ------------ ------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
                                                                  

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ------------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
  Indexed      Flight   0.34 ±     --28.21 ±  0.25 ±     --1.2 ±     0.24 ± 0.01
  spleen                0.01       2.3d       0.01b      4.5b        

  ------------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ------------ ------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
               DFPT   0.32 ±     --11.27 ±  0.29 ±     --18.5 ±    0.23 ± 0.01
                      0.01       2.7        0.01       3.1         

  ------------ ------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ------------- --------
                                                                    

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ------------- --------

  ------------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
  Heart        Flight   1.17 ±     --1.37 ±   1.16 ±     1.3 ± 2.1e  1.17 ±
                        0.04       2.2        0.02e                  0.02c

  ------------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ------------ ------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
               DFPT   1.13 ±     8.5 ± 1.8  1.22 ±     8.9 ± 2.5   1.32 ± 0.03
                      0.03                  0.02                   

  ------------ ------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ------------- --------
                                                                    

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ------------- --------

  ------------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
  Indexed      Flight   0.40 ±     --11.65 ±  0.35 ±     --0.3 ± 1.2 0.35 ±
  heart                 0.01       1.5b       0.004                  0.004

  ------------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ------------ ------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
               DFPT   0.38 ±     --4.51 ±   0.36 ±     --3.7 ± 3.2 0.35 ± 0.01
                      0.01       1.8        0.01                   

  ------------ ------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ----------- ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ------------- ----------
                                                                   

  ----------- ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ------------- ----------

  ------------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
  Liver        Flight   12.98 ±    3.9 ± 2.2  13.49 ±    --16.8 ±    11.23 ±
                        0.24                  0.29       1.7d        0.021d

  ------------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ------------ ------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
               DFPT   12.63 ±    5.7 ± 1.7  13.36 ±    0.0 ± 2.8   13.36 ±
                      0.32                  0.21                   0.34

  ------------ ------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ----------- ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ------------- ----------
                                                                   

  ----------- ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ------------- ----------

  ------------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
  Indexed      Flight   4.40 ±     --7.13 ±   4.08 ±     --17.9 ±    3.35 ± 0.06
  liver                 0.07       1.3        0.06       1.7e        

  ------------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ------------ ------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
               DFPT   4.24 ±     --6.79 ±   3.95 ±     --12.0 ±    3.50 ± 0.08
                      0.06       2.9        0.06       2.0         

  ------------ ------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ----------- ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ------------- ----------
                                                                   

  ----------- ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ------------- ----------

  ------------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
  Thymus       Flight   0.88 ±     --22.0 ±   0.68 ±     --8.6 ± 4.3 0.62 ± 0.03
                        0.04       4.2e       0.04                   

  ------------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ------------ ------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
               DFPT   0.83 ±     --10.4 ±   0.75 ±     --13.7 ±    0.64 ± 0.04
                      0.03       2.9        0.02       5.4         

  ------------ ------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ----------- ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ------------- ----------
                                                                   

  ----------- ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ------------- ----------

  ------------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
  Indexed      Flight   0.30 ±     --30.65 ±  0.21 ±     --9.5 ±     0.19 ± 0.01
  thymus                0.02       3.4e       0.01       4.3e        

  ------------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ------------ ------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
               DFPT   0.28 ±     --21.26 ±  0.22 ±     --24.3 ±    0.17 ± 0.01
                      0.01       2.4        0.01       4.1         

  ------------ ------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ----------- ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ------------- ----------
                                                                   

  ----------- ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ------------- ----------

  ------------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
  Kidney       Flight   2.32 ±     10.2 ± 2.3 2.56 ±     --9.7 ±     2.31 ±
  (total)               0.05                  0.06       1.5c        0.04b

  ------------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ------------ ------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
               DFPT   2.30 ±     12.9 ± 1.9 2.60 ±     1.1 ± 2.6   2.64 ± 0.09
                      0.05                  0.05                   

  ------------ ------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ----------- ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ------------- ----------
                                                                   

  ----------- ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ------------- ----------

  ------------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
  Indexed      Flight   0.79 ±     --1.36 ±   0.78 ±     --10.9 ±    0.67 ± 0.01
  total kidney          0.01       1.3        0.01       0.9         

  ------------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ------------ ------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
               DFPT   0.77 ±     --0.59 ±   0.77 ±     --10.0 ±    0.69 ± 0.02
                      0.01       1.4        0.02       2.1         

  ------------ ------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ----------- ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ------------- ----------
                                                                   

  ----------- ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ------------- ----------

  ------------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
  Testis       Flight   3.05 ±     4.9 ± 1.9e 3.19 ±     4.7 ± 1.7   3.34 ±
  (total)               0.08                  0.06                   0.05b

  ------------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ------------ ------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
               DFPT   2.94 ±     11.8 ± 2.4 3.28 ±     9.9 ± 2.5   3.61 ± 0.08
                      0.07                  0.07                   

  ------------ ------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ----------- ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ------------- ----------
                                                                   

  ----------- ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ------------- ----------

  ------------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
  Indexed      Flight   1.03 ±     --6.13 ±   0.97 ±     3.3 ± 2.4   1.0 ± 0.02
  total testis          0.03       1.5        0.02                   

  ------------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ------------ ------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
               DFPT   0.99 ±     --1.67 ±   0.97 ±     --3.0 ± 2.0 0.94 ± 0.02
                      0.02       2.0        0.02                   

  ------------ ------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ----------- ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ------------- ----------
                                                                   

  ----------- ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ------------- ----------

  ------------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
  Adrenal      Flight   0.0385 ±   9.9 ± 5.3  0.0423 ±   9.5 ± 3.8   0.0460 ±
  (total)               0.0012                0.0021                 0.0016

  ------------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ------------ ------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
               DFPT   0.0396 ±   5.4 ± 3.1  0.0418 ±   15.9 ± 4.5  0.0482 ±
                      0.0007                0.0014                 0.0024

  ------------ ------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ----------- ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ------------- ----------
                                                                   

  ----------- ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ------------- ----------

  ------------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
  Indexed      Flight   0.0131 ±   --1.99 ±   0.0128 ±   8.5 ± 4.4   0.0138 ±
  total                 0.0004     4.40       0.0006                 0.0006
  adrenal                                                            

  ------------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ------------ ------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
               DFPT   0.0133 ±   --7.57 ±   0.0124 ±   2.2 ± 4.3   0.0126 ±
                      0.0003     2.90       0.0004                 0.0006

  ------------ ------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ------------- --------
                                                                    

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ------------- --------

  ------------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
  N for period Flight   15 basal   15         15         14          14

  ------------ -------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ------------ ------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
               DFPT   15 basal   15         15         13          13

  ------------ ------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ------------- --------
                                                                    

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ------------- --------

aAll weights are in grams. Indexed weights are in grams/100 grams of
body weight. All numbers are mean ± SE.

b p \< 0.01\
c p \< 0.001\
d p \< 0.0001\
e p \< 0.05

  --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -- -- -- -- --
  **Table 3. Organ weightsa: flight Research Animal Holding Facility                   
  vs. flight animal enclosure module : launch, recovery, and recovery +                
  mission length (9 days)**                                                            

  --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -- -- -- -- --

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
  Organ              L + 0 (g)  Percent ∆  R + 0 (g)  Percent ∆   R + ML (g)
                                Flight                Recovery    

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
                                                                  

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ------------ ------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
  Spleen       RAHF   1.01 ±     --18.4 ±   0.82 ±     3.6 ± 5.8   0.85 ± 0.05
                      0.38       3.3        0.03                   

  ------------ ------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
               AEM   1.03 ±     21.9 ± 7.1 0.80 ±     --6.4 ± 6.8 0.75 ± 0.05
                     0.03                  0.07                   

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
                                                                  

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ------------ ------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
  Indexed      RAHF   0.35 ±     --27.3 ±   0.25 ±     3.3 ± 6.2   0.26 ± 0.02
  spleen              0.01       2.8        0.10                   

  ------------ ------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
               AEM   0.34 ±     --30.1 ±   0.24 ±     --9.3 ± 4.7 0.22 ± 0.01
                     0.004      4.2        0.01                   

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
                                                                  

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ------------ ------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
  Heart        RAHF   1.13 ±     1.9 ± 2.6e 1.15 ±     0.1 ± 2.6   1.16 ± 0.03
                      0.04                  0.03                   

  ------------ ------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
               AEM   1.26 ±     --7.8 ±    1.16 ±     3.5 ± 3.9   1.20 ± 0.05
                     0.10       1.9        0.02                   

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
                                                                  

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ------------ ------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
  Indexed      RAHF   0.39 ±     --9.1 ±    0.35 ±     --0.3 ± 1.1 0.35 ±
  heart               0.01       1.5b       0.01                   0.004

  ------------ ------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
               AEM   0.42 ±     --16.7 ±   0.35 ±     --0.3 ± 2.9 0.35 ± 0.01
                     0.03       1.7        0.01                   

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
                                                                  

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ------------ ------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
  Liver        RAHF   12.92 ±    3.0 ± 2.9  13.30 ±    --14.5 ±    11.37 ±
                      0.28                  0.37       1.8         0.24

  ------------ ------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
               AEM   13.11 ±    5.8 ± 3.4  13.36 ±    0.0 ± 2.8   13.36 ±
                     0.47                  0.21                   0.34

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
                                                                  

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ------------ ------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
  Indexed      RAHF   4.40 ±     --8.3 ±    4.04 ±     --14.7 ±    3.45 ±
  liver               0.01       1.8        0.08       1.6b        0.06e

  ------------ ------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
               AEM   4.39 ±     --4.8 ±    4.17 ±     --23.8 ±    3.18 ± 0.08
                     0.16       0.9        0.04       1.8         

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
                                                                  

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ------------ ------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
  Thymus       RAHF   0.85 ±     --22.0 ±   0.66 ±     --1.1 ±     0.66 ± 0.02
                      0.05       4.9        0.04       3.8e        

  ------------ ------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
               AEM   0.93 ±     --21.8 ±   0.73 ±     --22.0 ±    0.57 ± 0.05
                     0.08       8.7        0.08       7.1         

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
                                                                  

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ------------ ------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
  Indexed      RAHF   0.29 ±     --30.9 ±   0.20 ± 1.2 --1.5 ±     0.20 ±
  thymus              0.02       4.0                   2.6b        0.01e

  ------------ ------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
               AEM   0.31 ±     --30.2 ±   0.22 ±     --24.1 ±    0.17 ± 0.02
                     0.03       7.1        0.01       7.7         

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
                                                                  

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ------------ ------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
  Kidney       RAHF   2.37 ±     11.5 ± 2.5 2.65 ±     --11.5 ±    2.34 ± 0.05
  (total)             0.06                  0.06       1.9         

  ------------ ------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
               AEM   2.23 ±     7.8 ± 5.3  2.40 ±     --6.5 ± 1.7 2.24 ± 0.04
                     0.10                  0.12                   

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
                                                                  

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ------------ ------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
  Indexed      RAHF   0.81 ±     --1.0 ±    0.80 ±     --11.79 ±   0.71 ±
  total kidney        0.01e      1.6        0.01b      1.3         0.01b

  ------------ ------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
               AEM   0.74 ±     --3.0 ±    0.72 ±     --9.5 ± 0.9 0.65 ± 0.01
                     0.03       3.4        0.02                   

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
                                                                  

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ------------ ------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
  Testis       RAHF   3.10 ±     4.0 ± 2.4  3.22 ±     4.5 ± 1.5   3.37 ± 0.05
  (total)             0.08                  0.08                   

  ------------ ------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
               AEM   2.95 ±     6.6 ± 3.0  3.14 ±     4.8 ± 4.1   3.29 ± 0.13
                     0.21                  0.09                   

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
                                                                  

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ------------ ------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
  Indexed      RAHF   1.06 ±     --7.2 ±    0.98 ±     4.4 ± 2.8   1.02 ± 0.03
  total testis        0.02       2.1        0.02                   

  ------------ ------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
               AEM   0.98 ±     --3.9 ±    0.95 ±     --1.3 ± 4.6 0.96 ± 0.04
                     0.07       2.1        0.02                   

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
                                                                  

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ------------ ------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
  Adrenal      RAHF   0.0388 ±   15.2 ± 7.1 0.0447 ±   6.7 ± 4.6   0.0477 ±
  (total)             0.0013                0.0028                 0.002

  ------------ ------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
               AEM   0.0378 ±   --1.0 ±    0.0376 ±   14.6 ± 6.6  0.0431 ±
                     0.0026     4.9        .00018                 0.0025

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
                                                                  

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ------------ ------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
  Indexed      RAHF   0.0133 ±   2.3 ± 6.1  0.0136 ±   6.8 ± 5.8   0.0145 ±
  total               0.0005                0.0008                 0.0008
  adrenal                                                          

  ------------ ------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
               AEM   0.0126 ±   --10.5 ±   0.0113 ±   11.5 ± 7.4  0.0126 ±
                     0.0008     2.8        0.0004                 0.0008

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
                                                                  

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ------------ ------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
  N for period RAHF   10 basal   10         10         9           9

  ------------ ------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
               AEM   5 basal    5          5          5           5

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------
                                                                  

  ------------ ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -----------

aAll weights are in grams. Indexed weights are in grams/100 grams of
body weight. All numbers are mean ± SE.

b p \< 0.01\
c p \< 0.001\
d p \< 0.0001\
e p \< 0.05

  -------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -- -- -- -- --
  **Table 4. Food and water utilization/body weightsa: Flight rats vs.                
  delayed flight profile test rats**                                                  

  -------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -- -- -- -- --

  ---------- ----- -------- ---------- ---------- ------------ ------------
                   Flight   Percent ∆  Early      Percent ∆    Late
                            from       recovery   from         recovery

  ---------- ----- -------- ---------- ---------- ------------ ------------

  ---------- ----- -------- ---------- ---------- ------------ ------------
                   L -- 2   flight to  R + 1 to   early to     R + 3 to R +
                   to R + 0 recovery   R + 2      late         9
                                                  recovery     

  ---------- ----- -------- ---------- ---------- ------------ ------------

  ---------- -------- -------- ---------- ---------- ------------ ------------
  Mean body  Flight   300.2 ±  6.5        319.6 ±    3.3          330.3 ± 5.1d
  weight              3.1b                5.4d                    

  ---------- -------- -------- ---------- ---------- ------------ ------------

  ---------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ------------ ------------
             DFPT   314.6 ±  13.7       357.7 ±    4.6          374.3 ± 6.0
                    3.1                 5.5                     

  ---------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ------------ ------------

  ---------- ----- -------- ---------- ---------- ------------ ------------
                                                               

  ---------- ----- -------- ---------- ---------- ------------ ------------

  ---------- -------- -------- ---------- ---------- ------------ ------------
  Daily      Flight   4.2 ± 2d            --6.9 ±                 2.7 ± 0.2
  weight                                  0.7d                    
  gain                                                            

  ---------- -------- -------- ---------- ---------- ------------ ------------

  ---------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ------------ ------------
             DFPT   6.0 ±               2.9 ± 0.5               2.6 ± 0.2
                    0.2                                         

  ---------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ------------ ------------

  ---------- ----- -------- ---------- ---------- ------------ ------------
                                                               

  ---------- ----- -------- ---------- ---------- ------------ ------------

  ---------- -------- -------- ---------- ---------- ------------ ------------
  Food       Flight   28.0 ±   --40.7     16.6 ±     18.1         19.5 ± 0.5d
                      0.6                 0.9c                    

  ---------- -------- -------- ---------- ---------- ------------ ------------

  ---------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ------------ ------------
             DFPT   27.6 ±   --2.2      27.1 ± 0.7 1.1          27.3 ± 0.6
                    0.4                                         

  ---------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ------------ ------------

  ---------- ----- -------- ---------- ---------- ------------ ------------
                                                               

  ---------- ----- -------- ---------- ---------- ------------ ------------

  ---------- -------- -------- ---------- ---------- ------------ ------------
  Indexed    Flight   9.4 ±    --44.7     5.24 ±     15.4         6.0 ± 0.1d
  food                0.2b                0.6b                    

  ---------- -------- -------- ---------- ---------- ------------ ------------

  ---------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ------------ ------------
             DFPT   8.8 ±    --14.8     7.51 ± 0.2 --4          7.2 ± 0.1
                    0.1                                         

  ---------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ------------ ------------

  ---------- ----- -------- ---------- ---------- ------------ ------------
                                                               

  ---------- ----- -------- ---------- ---------- ------------ ------------

  ---------- -------- -------- ---------- ---------- ------------ ------------
  Water      Flight   30.3 ±   12.9       33.2 ± 2.8 11.1         36.9 ± 2.2
                      1.7                                         

  ---------- -------- -------- ---------- ---------- ------------ ------------

  ---------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ------------ ------------
             DFPT   29.5 ±   --2.4      28.1 ± 3.4 7.1          30.1 ± 2.9
                    1.8                                         

  ---------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ------------ ------------

  ---------- ----- -------- ---------- ---------- ------------ ------------
                                                               

  ---------- ----- -------- ---------- ---------- ------------ ------------

  ---------- -------- -------- ---------- ---------- ------------ ------------
  Indexed    Flight   9.8 ±    7.1        10.5 ±     7.6          11.3 ± 0.7b
  water               0.5                 0.9e                    

  ---------- -------- -------- ---------- ---------- ------------ ------------

  ---------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ------------ ------------
             DFPT   9.1 ±    --23.1     7.0 ± 1.3  14.3         8.00 ± 0.8
                    0.6                                         

  ---------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ------------ ------------

aAll weights are in grams. Indexed weights are in grams/100 grams of
body weight. Indexed water weights are in ml/100 grams of body weight.
Numbers are mean ± SE.\
b p \< 0.01\
c p \< 0.001\
d p \< 0.0001\
e p \< 0.05

  --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -- -- -- -- --
  **Table 5. Food and water utilization/body weightsa: research animal                 
  holding facility rats vs. animal enclosure module rats**                             

  --------------------------------------------------------------------- -- -- -- -- -- --

  ---------- ----- -------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -------------
                   Flight   Percent ∆  Early      Percent ∆   Late recovery
                            from       recovery   from        

  ---------- ----- -------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -------------

  ---------- ----- -------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -------------
                   L -- 2   flight to  R + 1 to   early to    R + 3 to R +
                   to R + 0 recovery   R + 2      late        9
                                                  recovery    

  ---------- ----- -------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -------------

  ---------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -------------
  Mean body  RAHF   298.3 ±  5.6        315.1 ±    3.1         325.0 ± 6.1
  weight            3.4                 5.5d                   

  ---------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -------------

  ---------- ----- -------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -------------
             AEM   303.7 ±  7.9        327.8 ±    3.7         339.9 ± 8.3
                   6.4                 8.1                    

  ---------- ----- -------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -------------

  ---------- ----- -------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -------------
                                                              

  ---------- ----- -------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -------------

  ---------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -------------
  Daily      RAHF   4.0 ±    --         --7.2 ±    --          2.6 ± 0.2
  weight            0.2                 1.0                    
  gain                                                         

  ---------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -------------

  ---------- ----- -------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -------------
             AEM   4.4 ±    --         --6.3 ±    --          2.7 ± 0.1
                   0.3                 0.6                    

  ---------- ----- -------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -------------

  ---------- ----- -------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -------------
                                                              

  ---------- ----- -------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -------------

  ---------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -------------
  Food       RAHF   28.1 ±   --39.9     16.9 ± 2.1 16          19.6 ± 0.5
                    0.7                                        

  ---------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -------------

  ---------- ----- -------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -------------
             AEM   27.3 ±   --49.8     13.7 ± NA  38          18.9 ± NA
                   0.3                                        

  ---------- ----- -------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -------------

  ---------- ----- -------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -------------
                                                              

  ---------- ----- -------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -------------

  ---------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -------------
  Indexed    RAHF   9.4 ±    --42.6     5.4 ± 0.6  11.1        6.0 ± 0.1
  food              0.2                                        

  ---------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -------------

  ---------- ----- -------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -------------
             AEM   9.0 ±    --53.3     4.2 ± NA   33.3        5.6 ± NA
                   0.1                                        

  ---------- ----- -------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -------------

  ---------- ----- -------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -------------
                                                              

  ---------- ----- -------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -------------

  ---------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -------------
  Water      RAHF   29.2 ±   18.9       34.6 ± 2.6 6.9         37.0 ± 2.4
                    1.6                                        

  ---------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -------------

  ---------- ----- -------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -------------
             AEM   40.5 ±   --49.6     20.4 ± NA  78.9        36.5 ± NA
                   2.9                                        

  ---------- ----- -------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -------------

  ---------- ----- -------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -------------
                                                              

  ---------- ----- -------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -------------

  ---------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -------------
  Indexed    RAHF   9.4 ±    17         11.0 ± 0.8 3.6         11.4 ± 0.7
  water             0.5e                                       

  ---------- ------ -------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -------------

  ---------- ----- -------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -------------
             AEM   13.3 ±   --53.4     6.2 ± NA   72.6        10.7 ± NA
                   1.0                                        

  ---------- ----- -------- ---------- ---------- ----------- -------------

aAll weights are in grams. Indexed weights are in grams/100 grams of
body weight. Indexed water weights are in ml/100 grams of\
body weight. Numbers are mean ± SE.\
b p \< 0.01\
c p \< 0.001\
d p \< 0.0001\
e p \< 0.05

![](media/image2.pct){width="3.25in" height="2.0972222222222223in"}

+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| *(a)*                             | ![](media/image3.                 |
|                                   | pct){width="3.2222222222222223in" |
|                                   | height="1.9861111111111112in"}    |
|                                   |                                   |
|                                   | *(b)*                             |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| ** **![](media/image4.            |  ![](media/image5.                |
| pct){width="3.1944444444444446in" | pct){width="3.1666666666666665in" |
| height="2.1805555555555554in"}    | height="2.1666666666666665in"}    |
|                                   |                                   |
| *(c)*                             | *(d)*                             |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

*Figure 11. Comparative AEM and RAHF flight and DFPT data.*

**Organ weights:** Mission flight rats exhibited\
20 percent less spleen weight than preflight controls and significantly
less than DFPT flight rats at landing (0.82 g vs. 0.97 g, p \< 0.001).
Heart weights of mission flight rats were 1 percent less than those of
preflight controls and significantly less than DFPT controls on landing
day (1.16 g vs. 1.22 g, p \< 0.05). Total indexed kidney weight was
greater in mission RAHF rats than mission AEM rats at landing day (0.80
g/100 g vs. 0.72 g/100 g, p \< 0.01). No other organ differences were
seen between RAHF and AEM rats at landing. After recovery, mission
flight RAHF rats showed greater indexed liver weight\
(3.45 g/100 g vs. 3.18 g/100 g, p \< 0.05) and greater indexed thymus
weight (0.20 g/100g vs. 0.17 g/100 g,\
p \< 0.05) compared to flight AEM rats.

**5.1.4 Discussion/conclusions--** Spaceflight results in significant
decreases in body weight gain and, without concomitant reduction in food
consumption, results in greater caloric intake per body weight.
Reexposure to 1 g results in dramatic reduction in body weight and in
food intake on R + 0 and R + 1 (fig. 11(a)). These changes appear
reversed after two days of recovery, although reduced body weight and
appetite remain. The extreme decrease in food consumption may be
indicative of decreased caloric requirements, or possibly of
dehydration, but this is not clear.

Behaviorally, rodents return from spaceflight not unlike humans, with
reduced muscle tone and altered coordination. In addition, rodents
appear to require time to find their "land legs." This lethargy was
reported in\
reference 9. Videotaped data from SLS-1 underscores the need to perform
more quantitative biomechanical studies of rodents during flight and
recovery, especially during the first two recovery days.

SLS-1 RAHF rats increased their water consumption in flight up to the
fifth day (fig. 11(c)), at which point their water intake was
significantly greater than that of RAHF rats (p \< 0.05). This gradual
increase in water use is

similar to that seen on SL-3 (unpublished data), although SLS-1 data
suggest that this may be a transient increase that reverses by the sixth
FD. The addition of water supplements (Gel Paks) to RAHF cages on FD 8
caused measured water consumption to drop markedly on the final FD and
may have obscured water-consumption data from early recovery. This
situation may help explain the striking difference in water consumption
between RAHF and AEM rats upon return to 1 g. In addition, the marked
drop in habitat temperature between AEMs and vivarium cages (5--8°C) on
landing day probably contributed to the dramatic reduction in
water-consumption rate for AEM rats.

The increase in water consumption by flight rats during the period from
R + 3 days to the final dissection on\
R + 9 days may be related to dehydration from spaceflight, although
volume reloading in response to successive postflight blood draws cannot
be ruled out. In addition, food consumption and weight gain decreased
markedly from R + 8 to R + 9. These changes are seen in all rats and as
such are likely a response to extensive handling on R + 8 and are
probably not associated with recovery from spaceflight.

The differences in water consumption between space-flown AEM rats and
RAHF rats (fig. 11(c) and 11(d)) are similar to the differences seen
between group and single housed controls in an Earth-gravity
environment. The greater water utilization by group housed rats is at
least in part due to greater ambient temperature of the group habitat
(3--5°C), whether it be an AEM or vivarium cage. This greater habitat
temperature is partially due to increased total body heat and in the AEM
seems to be accentuated by the radiant heat from incandescent lighting.
The marked increase in water utilization by AEM rats may be also
confounded by inadvertent lixit activation as the "weightless" rats
float and brush up against the water source.

The decreases in spleen mass seen in SLS-1 rats agree with data reported
in references 10 to 12. The results from SL-3 and Cosmos identify
decreases in spleen weight of 20--24 percent and 13 percent,
respectively. Additional data from the combined hematology studies on
SLS-1 should shed more light on this phenomenon. Data from\
R + ML spleen weights indicate that flight spleen weight remained
unchanged throughout the recovery period, whereas, curiously, the spleen
weight of DFPT rats decreased 8 percent during this period (possibly in
response to blood-draw protocols). The decrease in heart mass seen in
SLS-1 rats after spaceflight may reflect cardiovascular deconditioning
identified in human subjects and previously summarized (ref. 13).

At R + ML the smaller absolute weight of flight rat heart, liver,
kidney, and testes may be indicative of stress during recovery, although
it may simply reflect the smaller body weight of rats at this point. The
differences in indexed liver, kidney, and thymus weights seen between
RAHF and AEM rats at R + ML are probably associated with a caging
phenomenon. Individually housed rats are known to manifest signs of
isolation stress phenomena, which can affect organ weights as well as
cause changes in hepatic enzyme levels (ref. 14). Stress from other
environmental factors, including heat and vibration, has been shown to
alter kidney weight (ref. 15). It is important, therefore, to
distinguish the physiological changes resulting from microgravity from
those caused by environmental and operational perturbations.

In conclusion, the RAHF and AEM have both proved to be valuable habitats
for the maintenance of rats as experimental subjects during spaceflight.
Minor anomalies include temperature regulation within the AEM, which is
currently being addressed by the SLSPO at ARC.

The results of SLS-1 indicate that the rat serves as a valuable model
for basic research regarding the effects of spaceflight as well as a
useful surrogate for certain human studies. Detailed investigations of
the organs weighed in this study and other tissues obtained from rats
during SLS-1 will help define the limitations of this model.

**5.2 Spacelab Life Sciences Experiments: ARC SLS-1 Experiments**

**Summaries of Results--** The original SL-4 experiment payload, which
was renamed SLS-1, was very different by flight from its first EVT in
1985: Monkeys and instrumented rats were eliminated. By flight, seven of
the original experiments remained and the jellyfish experiment was added
along with a BSP.

Given the final 1991 launch date for SLS-1 and the limitations of
activities, the flight nonetheless served as an excellent control for
the comparison of animals flown under two different animal maintenance
systems in the microgravity environment, the RAHF and the AEM. The
former provided for single animal housing and a controllable
environment; the latter gang-caged animals in a unit that was greatly
dependent on the outside environment for internal-cage temperature
control. In addition, monitoring of individual feeding and watering was
not available in the AEMs, as it was in the RAHF. Data gathered from
SLS-1 were the control to the next dedicated Life Sciences mission,
SLS-2. SLS-1 was the only opportunity to immediately perform ground
controls in backup flight hardware.

Abstracts submitted by the primary investigators and their
co-investigators follow; the abstracts summarize the data gathered from
the SLS-1-mission-associated activities.

**Experiment 012:\
Regulation of Erythropoiesis in Rats during Spaceflight**

Robert D. Lange\
University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tenn.

Spaceflight anemia (decrease of red blood cell (RBC) numbers in the
circulating blood) has been documented since Gemini flights of the early
1960s. The objective of the present experiments was to aid in answering
the question: What mechanism(s) is responsible for the anemia
experienced by astronauts? In experiment 012, measurements were made of
the various factors affecting erythropoiesis in a group of rats and
their appropriate controls.

Objectives:

• Determine if any changes in serum erythropoietin (Epo) levels occurred
in rats exposed to microgravity.

• Determine if there were any changes in standard hematological
parameters: hemoglobin (Hgb), hematocrit (Hct), RBC count, platelet
count, reticulocyte count, white blood cell (WBC) count, and WBC
differential count.

• Enumerate lymphocyte subsets in peripheral blood.

• Determine the effect of weightlessness on the responsiveness of
erythropoietin-sensitive bone marrow cells (burst forming unit-erythroid
(BFU-e) and colony forming unit-erythroid (CFU-e) in vitro cultures).

• Determine if the rat is an appropriate model for hematological changes
that occur in astronauts during spaceflight.

The results of these hematological studies indicated that on the day of
landing (R + 0) there was a significant decrease in the number of
Epo-responsive erythroid progenitor cells as enumerated by the BFU-e
progenitor cells. Also, the peripheral blood showed a significant
decrease in the total WBC and in the absolute number of lymphocytes and
monocytes and a slight decrease in eosinophils. Immunophenotyping
studies of peripheral blood lymphocytes indicated a significant decrease
in the absolute number of B-cells, T-helper cells and\
T-suppressor cells. All values returned to the control levels by nine
days postflight (R + 9). No significant differences between flight and
control animals were observed in the RBC parameters (RBC, Hgb, Hct),
serum erythropoietin level, or reticulocyte counts.

The exact mechanism(s) that caused these observed changes during this
flight is not completely defined. Although the primary cause might be
the influence of microgravity, the etiology is probably multifactorial.
Influencing factors might include altered hemodynamics, changes in
oxygen demand or oxygen carrying capacity, and metabolic disturbances.
In vertebrates, including man and rat, red cell production is controlled
by a complex network of hormones and cytokines.

Changes observed in the responsiveness of bone marrow to erythropoietin
indicated that differentiation was either slowed or altered in some
manner by spaceflight. With progenitor cells always present in the bone
marrow, some mechanism(s) is preventing those cells from fully
differentiating into mature RBCs. Although Epo was previously considered
the major determinant in erythropoiesis, as technology has developed new
cytokines are being identified as having an important part in the
regulation of erythropoiesis, both positively and negatively. In
addition to Epo, those that react positively include Interleukin-3
(IL-3), Interleukin-9 (IL-9), Interleukin-11 (IL-11) and stem cell
factor. Negative regulatory factors include tumor necrosis factor-alpha
(TNF-a) and transforming growth factor-beta (TGF-b). Since changes were
not observed in the Epo levels postflight, it is possible that these new
cytokines may be involved, either by increasing, suppressing, or
altering the process of erythropoiesis in some form.

As the lymphocyte population decreases, the production of several
cytokines could decrease, which could contribute to the reduction in RBC
production. As new information becomes available, the enumeration of
T-cell subsets, which was the initial step in determining the role of
lymphocytes in the complex network of hematopoiesis, may greatly
contribute to the understanding of lymphocytes and erythrocytes.

Direct comparisons of data previously published by other investigating
teams with data presented in this report is extremely difficult.
Differences in the studies include length of flights, strains of rats,
postflight animal receiving times, housing (food and water included),
and general overall handling of the animals. However, previously
reported data are useful in providing a baseline and a guide to the
results other investigators acquire. Because the basic scenarios of
SLS-2 and SLS-1 were comparable, these data will be corroborated.

**Experiment 127:**\
**Effects of Zero Gravity on Biochemical and Metabolic Properties of
Skeletal Muscle**

Kenneth Baldwin\
University of California, Irvine, Calif.

On exposure to microgravity, skeletal muscle tissue types show adaptive
changes in substrate oxidative capacity as well as transformation of
myosin heavy-chain expression in muscles involved in antigravity
function and locomotor activity. Muscle tissues from mature male rats on
return to Earth from nine days in microgravity show a selective
reduction in the capacity of skeletal muscle to process long-chain fatty
acids as a fuel to provide energy to support contractile activity. The
exact mechanism for this response is presently unclear, but it appears
to involve the translocation of fatty acids to the beta oxidative
apparatus in the mitochondria. This finding could have an important
impact in the endurance capacity of muscle because the capacity to
utilize fatty acids is pivotal in reducing the fatigability of the
muscle during sustained activity.

On the other hand, in response to microgravity the expression of the two
slower myosin heavy-chain isoforms decreases and the two faster myosin
heavy-chain isoforms increase in those regions of muscle used
extensively for ground-support activity. This fact, coupled with the
atrophy that occurs in these types of muscles, reduces the effective
muscle mass to support antigravity function and locomotor activity.
These findings indicate that spaceflight could impair the normal
movement patterns associated with antigravity function and/or postural
control in both animals and humans.

**Experiment 141:\
Regulation of Blood Volume during Spaceflight**

Clarence P. Alfrey, Mark M. Udden,\
Ronald Nachtman, and Theda Driscoll\
Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Tex.

This experiment was designed to determine the effect of the microgravity
environment of spaceflight on the regulation of blood volume in the rat.
This effect was quantified by assessing changes in RBC mass (RBCM),
plasma volume (PV), RBC survival, and iron economy. The objective was to
evaluate whether the rat was a suitable animal model for further
research on the elucidation of the control mechanism responsible for the
RBCM loss that has been observed in humans after return from
spaceflight.

Radioactive tracers were used to measure PV, RBCM, and RBC survival and
iron kinetics. RBCM and PV were measured preflight, (L -- 8), on landing
day, (R + 0), and eight days after landing, (R + 8). 59Fe was injected
on\
R + 0, and its incorporation into RBCs was followed over the next eight
days. 51Cr RBC survival studies were made from L -- 8 to R + 0 and R + 1
to R + 8.

Upon landing, the mean RBCM of flight rats was significantly less than
that of synchronous ground controls, whether expressed as absolute
volume or volume normalized for body mass. PV, normalized for body mass,
was also significantly lower in the flight animals on R + 0. The 51Cr
survival data do not implicate an increased RBC destruction rate as the
cause of the decreased RBCM. The postflight decrease in 59Fe
incorporation into RBCs could indicate a decrease in RBC production in
response to either spaceflight or the decreased food intake and weight
gain of the flight animals during the postflight period.

Like the human, the rat experiences a decrease in RBCM with microgravity
exposure. Neither species shows any indication that this decrease is due
to hemolysis. The rat thus appears to be an appropriate model in which
to study the mechanisms involved in the control of erythropoiesis during
exposure to the microgravity environment of spaceflight.

**Experiment 194:\
Bone, Calcium, and Spaceflight**

Emily Holton\
NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif.

Co-Investigators:

Christopher E. Cann\
University of California at San Francisco\
San Francisco, Calif.

Stephen B. Doty\
Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, New York

W. Eugene Roberts\
Indiana University School of Dentistry, Indianapolis, Ind.

Arthur C. Vailas\
University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis.

The hypotheses tested in this spaceflight experiment were 1) the type of
housing (group vs. individual) will influence the bone response to
spaceflight and the recovery from spaceflight; and 2) the response of
bone to spaceflight will be localized and will differ not only from bone
to bone but also at different sites within the same bone. Growing male
rats were flown on SLS-1 on the shuttle Columbia. The rats were housed
in groups of five on the shuttle mid-deck or individually in the
Spacelab. The flight lasted nine days. Half of the animals were
euthanized at the end of the flight period and the other half were
allowed to re-adapt to Earth for nine days postflight. The results
suggest that housing affects response to spaceflight. The singly housed
animals showed greater

in-flight changes and a slower recovery from spaceflight than the group
housed rats. These differences occurred in bone mineralization rates,
mechanical properties, and enzyme histochemistry. Also, neither all
regions of all bones nor all bones were affected by flight; in long
bones, the periosteal surfaces showed suppression of formation while
endosteal surface showed little change, and no changes were noted in the
ribs, calvaria, vertebra, or maxilla, suggesting that the response to
spaceflight is not uniform throughout the skeleton.

**Experiment 238:**\
**Effects of Spaceflight on Gravity Sensors**

Muriel D. Ross\
NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif.

Behavioral signs of vestibular perturbation in altered gravity have not
been well correlated with structural modifications in neurovestibular
centers. The ultrastructural research conducted on gravity sensors
(maculas) of rats flown on SLS-1 investigated synaptic plasticity in
hair cells of adult utricular maculas exposed to microgravity for nine
days. Mammalian maculas are structurally organized for parallel
processing of sensory input. There are two types of receptor cells, type
I and type II hair cells, and two intrinsic microcircuits comprise the
neuronal system. Type I cells communicate only with primary afferent
nerve fiber terminals (calyx) that nearly surround them (direct
microcircuit). Type II cells lie outside the calyces. They distribute
their output to several primary afferents through feed-forward synaptic
connections, and they also receive feedback from the afferents. Many
synaptic connections are reciprocal (information flows in both
directions). Thus type II hair cells are part of the local, or
distributed modifying, microcircuit. The hypothesis was that synaptic
plasticity would be more evident in type II hair cells because they are
modulated by feedback and reciprocal connections to modify macular
output.

To test this hypothesis, hair cell synapses, called ribbon synapses,
were examined in maculas obtained from flight and control rats after
shuttle return (R + 0) and nine days later (R + 9). All rats from SLS-1
were with other investigators and, postflight, were subjected to
repeated radioisotope injections and blood withdrawals unrelated to this
experiment. Flown rats showed abnormal posture and movement at R + 0
that had essentially disappeared at R + 9. However, the rats at R + 9
had chromodacryorrhea, a sign of acute stress. After conventional
preparation of the maculas for ultrastructural study, ribbon synapses
were counted in 50 serial sections from medial utricular macular regions
of 3 rats of each flight and control group. Counts in 50 additional
consecutive sections from 1 sample in each group established method
reliability. All synapses were photographed and located to specific
cells on mosaics of entire sections. Pooled data were analyzed
statistically. R + 0 maculas had statistically significant increases in
total ribbon synapses and in sphere-like ribbons in both kinds of hair
cells, whereas in type II cells pairs of synapses nearly doubled and
clusters of\
3 to 6 synapses had increased twelvefold. All these differences were
significant (p \< 0.0001). In R + 9 flight animals, synapse counts
remained high in both kinds of hair cells. In controls, the number of
synapses was elevated in type II cells. Only counts in type I cells
showed statistically significant differences at R + 9\
(p \< 0.0163). High synaptic counts at R + 9 in both flight and control
rats may have resulted from stress due to experimental treatments. The
results of the SLS-1 experiment nevertheless demonstrate that hair cells
ribbon synapses of adult maculas retain the potential for synaptic
plasticity, permitting adaptation to the microgravity environment. Type
II cells exhibited more synaptic plasticity, but spaceflight induced
greater synaptic plasticity in\
type I cells than had been anticipated.

The results have implications for developmental studies in space and for
long-term spaceflight, since the time for recovery of more typical
synaptic patterns of distribution of hair cells remains unknown. Some
answers should be obtained from the SLS-2 experiment. SLS-2 animals used
for gravity-sensor studies were not exposed to extraneous treatments,
and tissues were collected in space as well as postflight, permitting
comparisons to be made to learn more about the time course of synapse
recovery.

**Experiment 247:\
Changes in Myosin Gene Expression in Fast and Slow Muscles of Rats
Exposed to Zero Gravity**

J. F. Y. Hoh, J. J. Males, and S. Hughes\
University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

Skeletal muscle fiber types are under neural control, and gravity
imposes a constant load on the postural slow muscles. It was postulated
that under zero gravity some slow fibers would convert into fast. This
possibility was tested in the SLS-1 mission. Juvenile Harlan Sprague
Dawley, Inc., rats were flown in the Spacelab for nine days, and their
slow soleus and fast extensor digitorum longus (EDL) muscles were
harvested upon return to Earth nine days later. Control rats
corresponding in age to the launch, flight, and postflight animals were
also studied. Muscles were analyzed immunohistochemically using
monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) against myosin heavy chains (MHC). The
results showed that a considerable proportion of control soleus fibers
expressed both fast and slow MHCs, and fibers expressing fast MHC
decreased with age. MAb 5-4D, specific for slow (type I) MHC, stained
84.1 ± 2.2 percent (s.e.) of flight soleus and

87.6 ± 3.4 percent of age-matched control soleus fibers. MAb 1A10,
specific for all fast (type II) MHC isoforms, stained 45.7 ± 1.5 percent
of flight soleus and\
26.9 ± 2.1 percent of control soleus fibers. Thus muscles of flight rats
showed a marked increase in proportion of fibers expressing fast MHC.
Using MAb5-2B specific for IIA/IIX but with a lower affinity than 1A10,
a somewhat smaller increase in fast-MHC binding fiber proportion was
detected in soleus of flight rats. These changes were sustained at nine
days postflight. Slow soleus fibers decreased in diameter 26.5 percent
while fast soleus fibers decreased by 20.2 percent, relative to
age-matched controls. Changes in fiber type distribution were not
detected in the EDL. However, EDL slow and IIA fibers showed small but
significant increases in fiber diameter. The results show that the
effects of zero gravity are muscle specific, and they confirm the
postulated shift in myosin gene expression from slow to fast in
antigravity muscles, but fiber type change is incomplete within nine
days.

**Experiment 303:\
Effects of Microgravity on the Electron Microscopy, Histochemistry, and
Protease Activities of Rat Hindlimb Muscle**

Danny A. Riley\
Medical College of Wisconsin, Marquette, Wis.

The process of skeletal-muscle deterioration induced by spaceflight was
studied in rats exposed to microgravity for nine days aboard SLS-1. On
R + 0, 15 flight rats were euthanized, approximately one every 15
minutes, permitting an unprecedented analysis of the temporal effects of
short-term reexposure to gravity. To account for the effects of the
flight caging environment and other experimental treatments, a DFPT
using a replicate set of animals was conducted in the flight cages at 1
g to otherwise simulate the mission. Spaceflight induced significant
atrophy (≠ 40 percent) of adductor longus and soleus muscle fibers and
increased expression of fast myosins (mainly types IIA and IID/X, some
IIB), which resulted in about half of slow type I fibers coexpressing
slow and fast myosin. Since alteration of myosin content is relatively
slow, expression of fast isoforms most likely represents an in-flight
change. The respiratory diaphragm, a nonantigravity muscle, showed
19-percent atrophy; this unexpected finding suggests that the weight of
viscera on Earth impacts diaphragm-muscle fiber size. The atrophic
adductor longus muscle of the flight rats showed increasing pathological
damage over the 2- to 7-hour postflight period of resumption of
weight-bearing activity. Damage included thrombosis of the
microcirculation, interstitial and cellular edema, muscle-fiber
fragmentation, sarcomere disruptions, activation of phagocytic cells,
and elevated ubiquitin conjugation. Edema was present at the earliest
time point examined (2 hours), whereas sarcomere eccentric-like lesions
did not occur until about 4 hours postflight. Compared to the L + 0
vivarium controls, involution of neuromuscular junctions was
significantly more prominent in both the flight and the other control
rats, indicating nonspaceflight effect. A partial explanation was a
vitamin B1 (thiamine) deficiency in the Teklad space food bars. The
soleus showed much fewer pathological symptoms than the adductor longus.
Inspection of the videotapes of rat behavior on R + 0 indicated a
greater resumption of loaded contractile activity by the adductor longus
relative to the soleus. These studies on rats point out the need to
develop protocols for humans to insure safe transition from microgravity
to terrestrial gravity following long-term spaceflight.

**Effects of Weightlessness on Aurelia Ephyra Differentiation**

Dear Colleague Letter\
Dorothy Spangenberg\
Eastern Virginia Medical School, Norfolk, Va.

The **Aurelia** metamorphosis test system was used to determine space
environment effects on the development and behavior of tiny ephyrae.
Polyps, which were induced to produce ephyrae following iodine or
thyroxine treatment, and Earth-developed ephyrae were flown. The purpose
of the experiment was to determine whether metamorphosis of polyps into
ephyrae could proceed in space, and if so, to determine whether ephyra
graviceptor development (including statolith formation) and
swimming/pulsing behavior inflight were normal as compared with ground
controls.

**Results:**

Numerous ephyrae formed in space during the nine-day SLS-1 mission.
These animals were essentially normal in morphology and in the number of
statoliths formed in their graviceptors. In Earth-formed ephyrae sent
into space, however, statolith numbers were significantly reduced (as
compared with controls) while they were in space, indicating that
demineralization of the calcium-containing gypsum was enhanced.

Also while in space, both ephyrae from Earth and those that developed in
space tended to swim in circles and could not orient when they stopped
swimming. Apparently, important positional cues from the graviceptors to
the neuromuscular system were affected. Upon return to Earth, swimming
ephyrae oriented according to the g vector, but six times more
space-developed ephyrae had pulsing abnormalities than controls. This
finding indicates that either the neuromuscular structures of these
animals did not form normally while in space or the animals were

unable to adapt to the 1-g environment upon return to Earth.

The metamorphosis process in the jellyfish is influenced by a hormone
(jellyfish thyroxine), which is synthesized following iodine
administration. Two groups of jellyfish polyps in space, however, formed
ephyrae without iodine administration, indicating that hormone
synthesis, utilization, or excretion was different in space-exposed
animals. Jellyfish thyroxine differences may also be linked to the
increased statolith demineralization and normal pulsing found in ephyrae
from space.

**5.3 Biospecimen Sharing Program (BSP)**

The BSP was developed to insure maximum utilization of tissues from the
limited number of rats flown on SLS-1. The initial tissue sharing
program was limited to the PIs selected for flight experiments from the
Announcement of Opportunity in 1978 (AO-78). As the SLS-1 payload was
defined, it became evident that valuable tissue samples not needed by
these investigators could be made available to the scientific community
and thus maximize the scientific return from the mission. Acceptance for
participation in the SLS-1 BSP was initially limited to an extension of
the joint United States/Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (U.S./USSR)
studies on the USSR Cosmos flights investigating metabolic, structural,
and functional changes in the rat body under the influence of a
short-term exposure to microgravity. After the incorporation of the USSR
experiments, other studies were accepted from France, Germany, Canada,
and U.S. government and university laboratories. The total experiment
complement was 31 experiments comprised of 7 AO-78 PIs, 17 primary
U.S./USSR BSP studies, and 1 Canadian,\
2 French, 1 German, and 3 U.S. secondary experiments.

**Results of U.S./USSR Joint Biospecimen Sharing Program**

Translated by Galina Tverskaya\
Lockheed Martin Missiles & Space, Moffett Field, Calif.

**Experiment SLS-1-01\
Bone Biomechanics**

A. V. Bakulin,\
Institute of Biomedical Problems, Moscow, Russia

E. Morey-Holton\
NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif.

After nine days of flight and nine days of recovery mechanical
properties and mineral content of spongy bone exposed to multiple cyclic
compressions were investigated. No significant changes in mineral
content were observed; the variations indicated only a trend toward
diminished mineralization when compared to the age-matched controls.
However, mechanical properties of rat bone significantly deteriorated.
Preliminary analysis of the cyclic-compression results revealed
significant differences in bone behavior nine days after recovery. These
changes can be attributed to an increase in the number of poorly
mineralized juvenile structures in rat bones.

**Experiment SLS-1-02\
Metabolic and Structural Changes in Bone and Systems Regulating Bone
Growth and Metabolism**

A. S. Kaplansky and I. A. Popova\
Institute of Biomedical Problems, Moscow, Russia

E. Morey-Holton\
NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif.

**I. Bone Histomorphometry**

G. N. Durnova and E. I. Ilyina--Kakueva\
Institute of Biomedical Problems, Moscow, Russia

**II. Bone and Plasma Biochemistry**

I. A. Popova and N. Yu. Fedotova\
Institute of Biomedical Problems, Moscow, Russia

**III. Bone Elemental Composition**

T. E. Burkovskaya\
Institute of Biomedical Problems, Moscow, Russia

V. M. Nazarov, M. V. Frontasyeva, and\
S. F. Gundorina\
Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, Russia

**IV. Histology and Immunocytochemistry of Thyroid Glands**

V. I. Loginov\
Institute of Biomedical Problems, Moscow, Russia

**V. Histomorphometry of Pituitary Somato-tropic Cells**

E. I. Alekseev\
Institute of Biomedical Problems, Moscow, Russia

Morphological and biochemical examinations of bone, plasma, and
endocrine systems involved in the regulation of bone metabolism were
performed using rats flown for nine days on the U.S. biomedical
laboratory SLS-1. Histomorphometric study showed that nine days of
weightlessness caused early, poorly expressed signs of osteoporosis of
the spongiosa of tibial proximal

metaphyses, viz., a decrease of bone volume in the secondary spongiosa
and an increase of the bone resorption surface. In the spongiosa of
lumbar vertebrae and cortical bone of the tibial diaphyses no signs of
osteoporosis were detected. These changes in tibial metaphyses
correlated with biochemical variations, which included a trend toward a
decline in alkaline phosphatase (an enzyme involved in bone formation)
and a trend toward an increase in tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase
(an enzyme involved in bone resorption). Neutron-activation analysis of
the bone elemental composition showed that exposure to weightlessness
was followed by a reduction of calcium, phosphorus, sodium, and
chlorine, which was in good agreement with the inhibition of thyroid
C-cells producing calcitonin required for normal mineralization of bone
matrix. An increased concentration of calcium and a decreased
concentration of phosphorus in blood indicated that mineral-balance
changes occurred in the mammalian body at early stages of adaptation to
weightlessness. The pituitary glands of weightless rats showed an
inhibition of the functional activity of somatotropic cells (decline of
the synthesis and secretion of growth hormone). This finding was
consistent with findings of previous Cosmos experiments. Nine days after
recovery most parameters under study returned to the norm. On the whole,
the changes seen in bone and endocrine organs involved in bone
metabolism regulation were similar to those observed after longer term
spaceflights; in quantitative terms, they were less pronounced than in
the rats flown for seven days on Cosmos 1667. This difference can be
attributed to the difference in the rat strains flown on SLS-1 and
Cosmos 1667 and to the difference in the experimental designs.

**Experiment SLS-1-03**

V. S. Oganov\
Institute of Biomedical Problems, Moscow, Russia

E. Morey-Holton\
NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif.

The effect of a nine-day spaceflight and a nine-day recovery period on
bone osteogenesis was investigated using induction of ectopic
osteogenesis by a demineralized matrix of femurs of flight rats
(donors). Preliminary analysis of the results has shown that in space
osteo-inductive activity of bone matrix increased but remained
qualitatively unaltered. The amount of de novo generated bone was not
large in recipient rats (less than in the controls), but the level of
its mineralization was significant. During the nine days after flight,
osteo-inductive potentials of the matrix decreased and inhibitory
activity increased; in other words, bone regenerative potentials
declined, thus stimulating osteoporosis.

**Experiment SLS-1-04\
Lipid Peroxidation and Antioxidant Protection System**

I. A. Popova\
Institute of Biomedical Problems, Moscow, Russia

A. Merrill\
Emory University, Atlanta, Ga.

A. A. Markin and O. A. Zhuravleva\
Institute of Biomedical Problems, Moscow, Russia

In order to study the effect of weightlessness and other spaceflight
factors on rat lipid peroxidation (LPO) and antioxidant protection
(AOP), the following parameters were measured in the homogenates of the
liver, kidneys, brain, skeletal muscles, myocardium, and plasma: LPO
products---diene conjugates, malonic dialdehyde, Schiff's bases,
tocopherol, and major lipid antioxidant. In addition, total
antioxidative activity was determined in plasma, and antioxidative
enzymes (superoxide dimutase, catalase, glutathione peroxidase, and
glutathione reductase) were determined in tissues.

The experiments gave evidence that the nine-day flight on SLS-1 did not
produce a significant effect on the LPO intensity or AOP system. Changes
in the LPO and AOP parameters were found only nine days after flight.
They were, evidently, associated with a high workload the organs had to
perform during re-adaptation to the Earth's gravity. The fact that the
plasma parameters remained unchanged indicated that free radical
processes in the animals were compensated for after flight.

**Experiment SLS-1-04A\
Erythrocyte Metabolism and Membrane State**

S. M. Ivanova\
Institute of Biomedical Problems, Moscow, Russia

A. Merrill\
Emory University, Atlanta, Ga.

N. E. Spitsyna and O. I. Labetskaya\
Institute of Biomedical Problems, Moscow, Russia

The present investigation demonstrated changes in cellular metabolism,
probably caused by alterations in the structure and function of cellular
membranes. Those alterations included changes in phospholipids and an
enhanced rate of the Na+, K+, Ca++-pump. These membrane changes were
required to preserve cell integrity. The changes were adaptive in
nature, because nine days after recovery the membranes returned to the
norm.

**Experiment SLS-1-05**

**Mechanism of Development of the Hypersecretory Syndrome of the
Stomach**

K. V. Smirnov\
Institute of Biomedical Problems, Moscow, Russia

R. Phillips\
Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colo.

R. A. Pechyonkina and N. P. Goncharova\
Institute of Biomedical Problems, Moscow, Russia

Exposure to spaceflight causes significant changes in the morphology and
function of the digestive system, the most significant being the
development of the hypersecretory gastric syndrome. Study of the
stomachs of rats after a nine-day spaceflight revealed an increase in
the peptic potential of the stomach, which was at its highest at day\
R + 9. The hypersecretory gastric syndrome is characterized by an
increase in the activity of the chief cells of the stomach that produce
pepsinogen and an increase in hydrochloric acid in the stomach between
digestion events. An increase in the acidic-peptic potential correlated
with an increase in gastrin, which is the primary physiological
activator of the parietal cells of the stomach. These changes taken
together facilitate enhanced aggression of gastric juice toward the
mucous membrane and stimulate ulceration.

**Experiment SLS-1-06\
Mechanism of Changes in the Exocrine Function of the Pancreas**

K. V. Smirnov\
Institute of Biomedical Problems, Moscow, Russia

R. Lazi\
Washington Medical College, St. Louis, Mo.

R. A. Pechyonkina and N. P. Goncharova\
Institute of Biomedical Problems, Moscow, Russia

Study of pancreatic function after a nine-day spaceflight revealed
changes in the activity of digestive enzymes. At day R + 9, amylolytic
activity of the pancreas increased significantly. Spaceflight produced
no significant effect on trypsinogen. At day R + 9, lipase activity
decreased substantially. The development of pancreatic insufficiency in
response to spaceflight requires further detailed study.

The function of the gastrointestinal tract is characterized by the
continuity of hydrolytic degradation of nutrients. Interaction of the
stomach, pancreas, and small intestine in the course of re-adaptation to
the Earth's gravity is an example of the self-regulatory function of the
gastrointestinal system in controlling enzyme activities.

**Experiment SLS-1-07**

**Study of the Digestion-Transport Conveyor in the Small Intestine**

K. V. Smirnov\
Institute of Biomedical Problems, Moscow, Russia

R. Phillips\
Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colo.

R. A. Pechyonkina and N. P. Goncharova\
Institute of Biomedical Problems, Moscow, Russia

Study of the small intestine after a nine-day spaceflight revealed
various changes in enzyme activities. With respect to protein hydrolysis
in the membrane, dipeptidase activity changed in the proximal and distal
segments in a different way, suggesting a compensatory nature of the
changes. Lipid changes included a lower activity of monoglyceride lipase
and a higher activity of alkaline phosphatase in the proximal segment of
the small intestine, which also pointed to compensatory-adaptive
changes. Carbohydrases remained essentially unchanged.

Changes in the digestion-transport hydrolysis of proteins, fats, and
carbohydrates were functional and reversible. The adaptive pattern of
changes in membrane digestion was indicated by the self-regulatory
activity of the digestive system in relation to the distribution of
enzyme activities.

**Experiment SLS-1-08**

**Effect of Spaceflight Factors on the Functional Activity of Immune
Cells**

**I**.V. Konstantinova and A.T. Lesnyak\
Institute of Biomedical Problems, Moscow, Russia

R.D. Lange\
Tennessee State University, Knoxville, Tenn.

G. Sonnenfeld,\
University of Louisville, Louisville, Ky.

H. Leon\
NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif.

M.P. Rykova, D.O. Meshkov, and A.A. Markin\
Institute of Biomedical Problems, Moscow, Russia

T. G. Orlova\
Gamaleya Institute of Epidemiology and Microbiology,\
Moscow, Russia

The goal of the experiment was to study the effect of a nine-day
spaceflight on the function of immuno-competent cells of rats (basal
control, R + 0, and\
C + 0 rats) and to follow the dynamics of the rats' recoveries after
return to the Earth's gravity (R + 9 and

C + 9 rats). Also, an additional tail-suspension experiment was
performed (S + 0 and CS + 0 rats).

Proliferative activity of spleen T-lymphocytes was measured in 48-, 72-,
and 96-hour tests with concanavallin A (0.1, 1.0, and 10.0 mg/ml) and
interleukin-2 (2 U/ml) with respect to the incorporation rate of
14C-uridine and\
3H-thymidine. When compared to the corresponding controls, T-cell
activity remained unchanged in the\
R + 0 rats, increased in the R + 9 rats (in the cultures containing no
mitogen, containing the mitogen in the cultures in optimal and high
concentrations, and in the cultures simulated by IL-2), and decreased in
the\
S + 0 rats (in the cultures containing no mitogen, in the cultures
containing low concentrations of concanavallin A, and in the cultures
incubated for short times).

Natural cytotoxicity of spleen and bone-marrow cells in the
membranotoxic test with target cells YAC 1 was increased in the R + 0,
R + 9, and S + 0 rats (in the latter case only in spleen cells).
Activity of spleen natural killers toward target cells K562 was also
increased (the increase was insignificant in the S + 0 rats) and that of
bone marrow was decreased (in the R + 0 rats the decrease was
insignificant and in the R + 9 and S + 0 rats it was more noticeable).

The capability of spleen-cell cultures to synthesize humoral mediators
of immunity was investigated. The production of interferon-alpha
remained essentially unaltered. The rate of interferon-gamma synthesis
decreased neither after flight nor after suspension. Activity of IL-2 in
cellular supernatants did not change in the R + 0 and\
R + 9 rats, but decreased in the S + 0 rats. Activity of TNF-alpha in
the supernatants of rat spleen cells was increased after flight (R + 0
rats) while that of TNF-beta did not change. The production of TNF-beta
declined in the S + 0 rats.

**Experiment SLS-1-09**

**Brain Primary Perceptive Structures: Their Morphology and
Histochemistry**

I. B. Krasnov\
Institute of Biomedical Problems, Moscow, Russia

N. Daunton\
NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif.

The results of electron microscopic examinations of the cortex of the
medial and lateral nodulus of the cerebellum of rats flown for nine days
on SLS-1 revealed ultrastructural changes in nerve and glial cells of
the granular and molecular layers. These changes reflect the functional
changes that occurred in orbital flight and after recovery.
Ultrastructural changes in some glomerules, granular cells, and glia of
the granular layer, as well as in axonal terminals, axo-spine contacts,
axo-dendrite synapses, dendrites, and glia of the molecular layer
indicated that in microgravity both vestibular input to the nodulus
cortex and vestibular afferent input to the Purkinje cells decreased. At
the same time, electron-microscopic changes of other structural elements
of nerve cells in the granular and molecular layers pointed to
excitation (or overexcitation and morphological signs of synaptic
transmission blockade) of vestibular input structures. The excitation in
turn reflected enhancement of vestibular afferent signals that reached
the nodulus from two to three hours after recovery, probably because of
enhanced sensitivity of the otolith apparatus in microgravity. In
contrast to structural elements of vestibular input to Purkinje cells,
no ultrastructural changes were seen in axo-dendrite synapses formed by
climbing fibers transmitting visual impulses, which were located on the
Purkinje cell dendrites. This observation showed that visual impulses to
Purkinje cells in microgravity remained unaltered. After nine days of
re-adaptation to the Earth's gravity, ultrastructural signs of a reduced
flow of vestibular signals were virtually absent; however, morphological
evidence of excitation was detectable in some granular cells and in
axo-spine contacts of the molecular layers. The flight rats showed
predominantly Purkinje cells of dark type. However, the data available
about correlations of ultrastructural and functional changes in Purkinje
cells are insufficient to make conclusions concerning their functional
state in microgravity.

**Experiment SLS-1-10\
Morphology of Neurons**

T. A. Leontovich\
Brain Research Institute, Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, Moscow,
Russia

O. Lowry\
Medical School, Washington University, St. Louis, Mo.

P. V. Belichenko, A. A. Fedorov, and M. A. Makhanov\
Brain Research Institute, Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, Moscow,
Russia

Morphometric investigation of the dendrite geometry in giant multipolar
neurons of nucleus reticularis gigantocellularis in the medulla
oblongata of rats flown for\
nine days on SLS-1 did not reveal significant differences between flown
and ground control animals. However, significant differences in the
number and mean branching of dendrites between R + 0 rats and R + 9 rats
suggested rearrangement of the dendrite tree of neurons that developed
during and after flight. Comparison of those findings with the data
obtained during similar studies in Cosmos 1667, Cosmos 1887, and Cosmos
2044 flights helped identify time-course variations of the dendrite tree
of

gigantic multipolar neurons of the reticular formation at different
stages of animal adaptation to microgravity.

**Experiment SLS-1-11\
Cerebral Cortex Ultrastructure**

L. N. Dyachkova\
Institute of Evolutionary Morphology and Ecology of Animals, Russian
Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia

O. Lowry\
Washington University, St. Louis, Mo.

Electron-microscopic examinations of the motor, somatosensory, visual,
and olfactory cortex of rats flown for nine days on SLS-1 demonstrated
ultrastructural changes in neuronal and glial cells. These findings
suggest that functional changes of the cortical structures occurred both
during and after flight. In the somatosensory and motor cortex,
ultrastructural changes pointed to the following developments in
microgravity: 1) drastic decrease of afferent flow to the cortex; and 2)
reduction of the afferent flow to large pyramidal neurons in the\
V layer. This flow reduction is evidently responsible for the
hypofunction of spinal motoneurons, which was previously detected
morphologically by other authors. At the same time, the ultrastructure
of some axonal terminals, axo-dendrite synapses, and stellate cells
indicated that the synapses and stellate cells were in the excitation
state, which was associated with an increased afferent flow to the
cortex during the first two to three hours after recovery. The
ultrastructure of the somatosensory and motor cortex nine days after
recovery indicated both an enhanced afferent flow to the cortex on Earth
and an increased functional activity of large, pyramidal neurons of the
V layer. In the visual cortex of flight rats, ultrastructural changes
were similar to those of the somatosensory cortex but less significant;
also evidenced was a slight decrease of the afferent flow to the visual
cortex in microgravity. At the same time, the high functional activity
of synapses of the IV layer of the visual cortex and that of neurons
suggested that the visual flow increased after recovery. However,
nine-day exposure of the animals to the Earth's gravity normalized the
functional state of structural elements of the visual cortex.
Ultrastructural changes of the olfactory cortex suggested a slight
decrease of the afferent flow and an increase of the functional activity
postflight. The ultrastructure of axonal terminals, dendrites, synaptic
contacts, and postsynaptic structures, the increase in number of axonal
and dendrite growth cones, the enlarged area occupied by glial cell
processes, and a greater number of capillaries in the cortical
structures of the rats flown for nine days pointed to an active
restructuring in the cortical connections, which formed the structural
foundation for the adaptation of the cerebral cortex to microgravity.

**Experiment SLS-1-12\
Cytochemistry of Neurons**

L. M. Gershtein\
Brain Research Institute, Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, Moscow,
Russia

N. Daunton, W. Mehler, and F. D'Amelio\
NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif.

A. V. Sergutina\
Brain Research Institute, Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, Moscow,
Russia

Results of cytophotometric and cytochemical examinations of acetyl
cholinesterase (ACE), monaminoxidase (MAO) and glutamate dehydrogenase
activity in the III and V layers of the somatosensory cortex and the
head of the caudate nucleus of the brains of rats flown for nine days on
SLS-1 indicate that the exposure diminished MAO in fibrillar structures
of the V layer of the somatosensory cortex and the head of the caudate
nucleus and reduced ACE in neuronal bodies of the head of the caudate
nucleus. These changes can be interpreted as an indication of a decline
of 1) the modulating effect of monaminergic structures on the
somatosensory cortex and the head of the caudate nucleus and 2) the
inhibitory effect of neurons of the caudate nucleus on globus pallidus,
n. ruber, substantia nigra, and other cerebral structures.

**Experiment SLS-1-13\
Contractility Properties of Skeletal Muscles**

V. S. Oganov\
Institute of Biomedical Problems, Moscow, Russia

D. Riley\
Wisconsin Medical College, Milwaukee, Wis.

R. Edgerton\
University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, Calif.

L. M. Murashko and O. E. Kabitskaya\
Institute of Biomedical Problems, Moscow, Russia

The effects of zero gravity on contractile properties of skeletal
muscles of rats were studied after a nine-day spaceflight and nine-day
postflight re-adaptation period. The results indicated that the greatest
changes occurred in the postural soleus muscle: the diameter of muscle
fibers diminished, and isometric tension and contraction velocity
decreased. The fast locomotor muscles, i.e., EDL and both heads of the
gastrocnemius muscle, showed a trend toward an increase in the
contractile force. EDL also showed a decrease of the contraction and
half-relaxation velocity. During the recovery period these parameters
returned to the baseline. These observations indicate that

changes in contractile properties of muscles during flight largely
depend on their functional profile.

**Experiment SLS-1-14\
Weightlessness Effect on Water and Electrolytes in the Animal Body**

L. V. Serova\
Institute of Biomedical Problems, Moscow, Russia

Yu.V. Natochin\
Institute of Evolutionary Physiology and Biochemistry, Leningrad, Russia

L. Keil\
NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif.

E. I. Shakhmatova and E. A. Lavrova\
Institute of Evolutionary Physiology and Biochemistry, Leningrad, Russia

E. V. Snetkova and S. Ya. Ivanova\
Institute of Biomedical Problems, Moscow, Russia

After a nine-day SLS-1 flight the content of water, sodium, potassium,
calcium, and magnesium was measured in the livers, kidneys, hearts,
skin, skeletal muscles, and bones of male rats. On the day of recovery
the content of water, sodium, and potassium diminished in the heart. In
other tissues no changes were seen.

**Experiment SLS-1-15\
Spinal Cord: Morphology and Histochemistry**

I. B. Krasnov\
Institute of Biomedical Problems, Moscow, Russia

R. Edgerton\
University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, Calif.

O. Lowry\
Medical School, Washington University, St. Louis, Mo.

V. I. Drobyshev and I. V. Polyakov\
Medical Institute, Voronezh, Russia

Quantitative cytochemical and histochemical analysis was made of acetyl
cholinesterase, cytochrome oxidase, and alkaline phosphatase activity in
the anterior horns of the cervical and lumbar enlargements of spinal
cords of rats flown for nine days on SLS-1 and then exposed to Earth's
gravity for two to three hours or nine days. Results indicate that the
activity of those enzymes remained unchanged at the C2--C4 level and
that the activity of cytochrome oxidase decreased at the L1--L3 level.
The latter finding suggests that, as early as nine days after exposure
to weightlessness, the function of the motoneurons in the lumbar
enlargement diminished. However, the fact that nine days after recovery
cytochrome oxidase activity in motoneurons of the lumbar enlargement
returned to the norm indicates that the changes were reversible and that
functional activity of motoneurons was easily restored. Increased
numbers of "active capillaries" in the anterior horns of the lumbar
enlargement of the spinal cord at day R + 9 points to enhanced transport
of metabolites across capillaries and suggests the development of
compensatory processes that stimulated metabolism in the spinal cord
after recovery.

**Experiment SLS-1-16\
Histochemistry of the Hypothalamus**

I. B. Krasnov\
Institute of Biomedical Problems, Moscow, Russia

R. Grindeland\
NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif.

P. Sawchenko and W. Veil\
Salk Institute, La Jolla, Calif.

Using quantitative histochemical methods, the activity of glutaminase,
the key enzyme of glutamate synthesis in the nervous tissue, as well as
the content of lipids and defatted dry substance was measured in single
fragments of freeze-dried sections (20 microns thick) of the arcuate
nucleus (AN) and medial eminence (ME) of the hypothalamus of rats flown
for nine days on SLS-1. The weight of single AN and ME fragments
dissected from freeze-dried sections was 0.2 to 1.0 mg. It was found
that glutaminase activity in AN decreased by 22.7 percent and in ME by
30.4 percent, while the proportion of lipids and defatted dry tissue
remained unaltered. Reported data about the high sensitivity of
somatoliberin-containing neurons of the AN to glutamate and the present
findings suggest that glutamate may be involved in the regulation of
growth-hormone excretion.

**Experiment SLS-1-17\
Morphology of Neurons of the Cerebral Cortex**

T. A. Leontovich\
Brain Research Institute, Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, Moscow,
Russia

O. Lowry\
Medical School, Washington University, St. Louis, Mo.

M. A. Makhanov, P. V. Belichenko, and\
A. A. Fedorov\
Brain Research Institute, Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, Moscow,
Russia

A morphometric examination of the geometry and orientation of dendrites
of pyramidal neurons of the III layer of the visual cortex of rats flown
for nine days on SLS-1 has been completed. The resultant data have been
processed using the Q factor analysis, discriminant analysis, and

K-means splitting method. The findings have shown an increase in the
length of apical dendrites located in the upper layers of the visual
cortex. These dendrites are part of pyramidal neurons of the III layer,
which have well-developed apical systems and participate in the
establishment of associative connections between various cortical
compartments. This process, which can be induced by the need of an
additional afferent input, acts as a foundation for new connections
between the visual cortex and other cortical compartments in
microgravity. An enlargement of the profile size of the body of
pyramidal neurons of the III layer, also observed after flight, can be
viewed as another indication of the restructuring of the dendrite system
of these neurons in microgravity.

**ANF-Sensitive Guanylyl Cyclase Activity in Rat Liver Tissues Flown on
SLS-1**

Jorg-Martin Heim, Ulrich Montigel, and\
Rupert Gerzer, Universität München and German Aerospace Research
Establishment (DLR)

Atrial natriuretic factor (ANF) secretion has been shown to increase if
there is a cephalid shift of body fluids, and to decrease if there is
long term elevated plasma concentration. Among the receptors, the
membrane-bound guanylyl cyclase appears to mediate most of the effects
of ANF. In weightlessness, with the known redistribution of body fluids
toward the head, it was postulated that the secretion of ANF may be
enhanced and the consequent reduction of receptors may occur. To
determine the effects of microgravity on the responsiveness of the
ANF-guanylyl cyclase system, analyses of liver tissues from\
10 rats flown on SLS-1 for nine days were made. The results were
compared to data from tissues from control animals not exposed to
spaceflight. Control tissues came from 10 rats sacrificed at the time of
launch and a flight control group of 10 maintained on the ground in
flight equipment exposed to the environment experienced by the flight
rats with the exception of the stresses of lift-off, microgravity, and
recovery. Guanylyl cyclase activity was measured in the liver-membrane
fraction, and enzyme activity was stimulated by the following ANF
analogs: ANF-(99-126) (ANF), ANF-(95-126) (urodilatin), ANF-(103-123)
(AP 1) and C-type natriuretic peptide (CNF). Formed cyclic guanosine
monophosphate (GMP) was measured by radioimmunassay. All analyses were
done in blinded fashion. In all samples analyzed, the ANF-stimulated
guanylyl cyclase activity was about twofold. The samples from the flight
and control groups were almost identical. In contrast, samples from
launch control samples were twofold higher than the "flight" groups.
Stimulation with the various analogs showed the same response pattern
for all three groups. These identical patterns indicate that there is no
apparent altered receptor subtype distribution during weightlessness.
This project also showed that:\
1) measurement of ANF-sensitive guanylyl cyclase activity has been
successfully performed in a multinational BSP; 2) the inclusion of
appropriate groups has contributed considerably to the proper evaluation
of in-flight samples; and 3) the activity of the guanylyl cyclase is
unaltered in tissues exposed to microgravity. Conclusions of this study
indicate that the cellular response to circulating ANF is unaltered
during spaceflight.

**Norepinephrine Content in Discrete Brain Areas and Neurohypophseal
Vasopressin in Rats after a\
Nine-Day Spaceflight**

**ANP Binding Sites in Choroid Plexus of SLS-1 Rats**

C. Gharib, J. Fareh, J. M. Cottet-Emard,\
J. M. Pequignot, and G. Gauquelin\
Université de Lyon, Lyon, France

J. Gabrion, S. Herbute, J. Oliver, and J. Davet\
Université de Montepellier, Montepellier, France

R. W. Ballard, G. Jahns, and J. Meylor\
NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif.

M. Viso and D. Vassaux\
Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales, Paris, France

Two studies, concerning norepinephrine (NE) and vasopressin (AVP)
contents (ref. 16) and atrial natriuretic peptide (ANP) binding sites
(ref. 17) were performed on brains and neurohypophysis obtained from
SLS-1 rats, which were orbited for a nine-day spaceflight and compared
with eight control groups.

The NE content was significantly decreased in the locus coeruleus of
flight rats (2.9 ± 0.3 vs. 8.9 ± 0.7) pmol.structure--1, p \< 0.001),
and was restored at the control level after a nine-day recovery period.
The NE content remained unchanged in A2 and A5 brainstem nuclei. The AVP
content was increased in the posterior pituitary of flight animals (1.47
± 0.1 vs. 0.86 ± 0.1 g structure--1, p \< 0.01) and was significantly
decreased in their hypothalamus (8.95 ± 2.20 vs. 2.2 g structure--1,\
p \< 0.05). The authors conclude that the NE depletion in locus
coeruleus and the alteration of AVP release were consistent with an
acute stress occurring during and/or after landing, which tended to mask
the neuroendocrine modifications caused by microgravity.

In parallel, ANP binding sites were analyzed by autoradiography.
Computer-assisted micro-densitometric image analysis was used, in
choroid plexus and meningia of the same rats flown for nine days on the
mission STS-40. ANP binding sites were significantly increased in
choroid

plexus of lateral and third ventricles of flight rats compared with
control rats (413 ± 43 vs. 163 ± 69 fmol.mg prot. --1, p \< 0.01 and 457
± 14 vs. 292 ± 47 fmol.mg prot. --1, \< 0.05, respectively). No
significant differences in binding affinity were observed at the level
of these structures. Choroid plexus from the fourth ventricle displayed
changes in neither binding capacity nor affinity after spaceflight.
Meningia from the flight rats demonstrated no significant modifications
in the number of ANP binding sites, but displayed a significant increase
in Kd values (0.462 ± 0.062 vs. 0.102 ± 0.045 ⋅\
10--9 M--1, p \< 0.01). This finding suggested a reduced affinity of the
meningeal ANP receptors after a nine-day spaceflight. The authors
conclude that atrial natriuretic peptide might be involved in the
regulation of fluid and electrolyte fluxes in the brain during
adaptation to microgravity. The modification is evidenced in the
expression of specific, high-affinity receptors, mainly choroid plexus
from forebrain or in meningia.

**Effect of Microgravity on the Relations Between Microbiological and
Epithelial Tissue and Functions of the Gastrointestinal Tract**

O. Szylit, I. Nugo-Baudon, and C. Andrieux\
Laboratoire Ecologie et Physiologie du Système Digestif, France

R. Ravisse,\
Unite d'Histopathologie Institut Pasteur, Paris, France

(no final report)

**Atrial Natriuretic Factor (ANF) Changes in the Heart**

A. J. Debol\
Canadian Space Agency, Montreal, Canada

(no final report)

**Effect of Spaceflight on Cardiac Enzyme Activities Involved in Energy
Metabolism**

F. W. Heineman\
National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, Bethesda, Md.

(no final report; investigator had left the NHLBI before the tissues
were delivered)

**Histologic Examination of Lung Tissue**

A. Elliot\
University of California at San Diego, San Diego, Calif.

(no final report)

**Growth Hormone Releasing Factor (GRF) Binding Sites of Pituitaries
Obtained from Spaceflight**

A. K. Malik\
San Jose State University, San Jose, Calif.

Richard Grindeland\
NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif.

Growth-hormone secretion is compromised during exposure to actual or
simulated (rat hindlimb suspension) microgravity. Further,
growth-hormone secretions in response to GRF are markedly reduced in
pituitaries of suspended rats. These data suggest that GRF receptors may
be reduced by microgravity, in number or binding affinity. Thus this
study was designed to determine whether or not the GRF binding sites are
altered in terms of their number (binding capacity) or affinity upon
exposure to microgravity. Radiolabeled GRF (human) was used as a
radioligand and, with rat GRF as a cold competitor, the receptor assay
was performed on the pituitary homogenates prepared from male albino
rats flown on the SLS-1. No specific (receptor) binding was found,
presumably because of the severe desiccation of the glands. In contrast,
homogenates prepared from freshly dissected glands, using the same
procedure, provided a dose-response curve.

**6.0 References and Publications**

1\. Second Report of the ad hoc Committee on Standards for Nutritional
Studies. J. Nutrition, vol. 110, 1980, p. 1726.

2\. Report of the ad hoc Committee on Standards for Nutritional Studies.
J. Nutrition, vol. 107, 1977, pp. 1340--1348.

3\. Josephson, E. S.; and Thomas, M. H.: Nutritional Aspects of Food
Irradiation: An Overview (Effects on Protein Quality, Lipid and
Carbohydrate Constituents). J. Food Processing and Preservation, vol. 2,
no. 4, 1979, pp. 299--313.

4\. Dean, J.; and Edwards, D. G.: The Nutritional Value of Rat Diets of
Differing Energy and Protein Levels when Subjected to Physical
Processing. Laboratory Animals, vol. 19, 1985, pp. 311--319.

5\. Mossel, D. A.; van Schothorst, M.; and Kampelmacher, E. H.:
Comparative Study of Decontamination of Mixed Feeds by Radicidation and
Pelletisation. J. Science of Food and Agriculture, vol. 18, no. 8, 1967,
pp. 362--367.

6\. Kennedy, T. S.: Studies on the Nutritional Value of Foods Treated
with Gamma-Radiation.\
J. Science of Food and Agriculture, vol. 16, 1965, p. 433.

7\. Coates, M. E.; Ford, J. E.; Gregory, M. E.; and Thompson, S. Y.:
Effects of Gamma-Irradiation on the Vitamin Content of Diets for
Laboratory Animals. Laboratory Animals, vol. 3, 1969,\
pp. 39--49.

8\. Human Research Policy and Procedures for Space Flight Investigation.
NASA Document\
JSC 20483, Johnson Space Flight Center, 1988.

9\. Fast, T.; Grindeland, R.; Kraft, L.; Ruder, M.; Vasquez, M.;
Lundgren, P.; Scibetta, S.;\
Tremor, J.; Buckendahl, P.; Keil, L.; Chee, O.; Reilly, T.; Dalton, B.;
and Callahan, P.: Rat Maintenance in the Research Animal Holding
Facility during the Flight of Spacelab 3. The Physiologist, vol. 28, no.
6, 1985,\
pp. S187--S188.

10\. Ushakov, A. S.; Smirnova, T. A.; Pitts, G. C.;\
Pace, N.; and Smith, A. H.: Effects of Weightlessness on Body
Composition in the Rat. In Final Reports of U.S. Rat Experiments Flown
on the Soviet Satellite Cosmos 1129, M. H. Heinrich and K. A. Souza,
eds., NASA\
TM-81289, 1981, pp. 415--426.

11\. Grindeland, R.; Fast, T.; Ruder, M.; Vasques, M.; Lundgren, P.;
Scibetta, S.; Tremor, J.; Buckendahl, P.; Keil, L.; Chee, O.; Reilly,
T.; Dalton, B.; and Callahan, P.: Rodent Body, Organ and Muscle Weight
Responses to\
Seven Days of Microgravity. The Physiologist, vol. 28, no. 4, 1985, p.
375 (abstract 83.1).

12\. Callahan, P. X.; Schatte, C.; Grindeland, R. E.; Funk, G. A.; and
Lencki, W. A.: Ames Research Center Life Sciences Payload: Overview of
Results of Spaceflight of 24 Rats and 2 Monkeys.\
AIAA-86-0583, AIAA 24th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Jan. 6--9, 1986.

13\. Nicogossian, A. E.; Huntoon, C. L.; and Pool, S. L., eds: Space
Physiology and Medicine. Lea and Febiger, Philadelphia, Pa., 1989.

14\. Baker, H. J.; Lindsey, J. R.; and Weisbroth, S. H.: Housing to
Control Research Variables. In The Laboratory Rat, Vol. 1, H. J. Baker,
J. R. Lindsey, and S. H. Weisbroth, eds., Academic Press, 1979, p. 169.

15\. Antipov, V. V.; Davydov, B. I.; Verigo, V. V.; and Svirezhev, Y.
M.: Combined Effects of Flight Factors. Chapter 17 in Foundations of
Space Biology and Medicine, Vol. II, Book 2, Ecological and
Physiological Bases of Space Biology and Medicine, Calvin M. and O. G.
Gazenko, eds. NASA publication, Washington, D.C., 1975, pp. 639--667.

16\. Fareh, J.; Cottet-Emard, J--M.; Pequignot, J--M.; Jahns, G.;
Meylor, J.; Viso, M.; Vassaux, D.; Gauquelin, G.; and Gharib, C.:
Norepinephrine Content in Discrete Brain Areas and Neurohypophysical
Vasopressin in Rats after a 9-Day Spaceflight. Aviation, Space, and
Environmental Medicine, vol. 64, no. 6, June 1993,\
pp. 507--511.

17\. Herbute, Serge; Oliver, Jacques; Davet, Julian; Viso, Michel;
Ballard, Rodney W.; Gharib, Claude; and Gabrion, Jacqueline: ANP Binding
Sites Are Increased in Choroid Plexus of SLS-1 Rats after 9 Days of
Spaceflight. Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine, vol. 65, 1993,
pp. 134--138.

In addition to reference 17, the following publications were generated
as a result of the studies performed on SLS-1:

18\. Allebban, Z.; Ichiki, A. T.; Jones, J. B.; Gibson,\
L. A.; Irwin, C.; Congdon, C.; and Lange, R. D.: Regulation of
Erythropoiesis during Space Flight. Experimental Hematology, vol. 20,
no. 6, 1992, p. 792.

19\. Allebban, Zuhair; Ichiki, Albert T.; Gibson,\
Linda A.; Jones, Jimmy B.; Congdon, Charles C.; and Lange, Robert D.:
Effects of Spaceflight on the Number of Rat Peripheral Blood Leuko-cytes
and Lymphocyte Subsets. J. Leukocyte Biology, vol. 55, no. 2, 1994, pp.
209--213.

20\. Baldwin, Kenneth M.; Herrick, Robert E.; and McCue, Samuel A.;
Substrate Oxidation Capacity in Rodent Skeletal Muscle: Effects of
Exposure to Zero Gravity. J. Appl. Physiology,\
vol. 75, no. 6, 1993, pp. 2466--2470.

21\. Fareh, Jeannette; Cottet-Emard, Jean-Marie; Pequignot, Jean-Marc;
Jahns, Gary; Meylor, John; Viso, Michel; Vassaux, Didier; Gauquelin,
Guillemette; and Gharib, Claude: Norepinephrine Content in Discrete
Brain Areas and Neurohypophysical Vasopressin in Rats after a\
9-Day Spaceflight (SLS-1). Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine,
vol. 64, 1993,\
pp. 507--511.

22\. Fareh, Jeannette: Peptide Atrial Natriuretique et Noradrenaline
Centrale et Périphérique après une Microgravité Simulée de Jours chez le
Rat. Comparison avec une Microgravité Réelle\
(SLS-1). Presentés devant l'Université Claude Bernard-Lyon-1 pour
l'obtention du Diplome DE Doctorat. 182 pages and supplements, 1993.

23\. Gibson, L. A.; Alleban, Z.; Irwin, C. W.; Ichiki,\
A. T.; and Lange, R. D.: Hematological Effects of Spaceflight in Rats.
Blood, vol. 80, no. 10, Supplement 1, 1992, p. 285A.

24\. Haddad, Fadia; Herrick, Robert E.; Adams,\
Gregory R.; and Baldwin, Kenneth M.: Myosin Heavy Chain Expression in
Rodent Skeletal Muscle: Effects of Exposure to Zero Gravity. J. Appl.
Physiology, vol. 75, no. 6, 1993,\
pp. 2471--2477.

25\. Heim, Jorg-Martin; Montigel, Ulrich; and Gerzer, Rupert:
ANF-Sensitive Guanylyl Cyclase Activity in Rat Liver Tissues Flown on
SLS-1. Fifth European Symposium on Life Sciences Research in Space,
Arachon, France, 1993 (Abstract).

26\. Morey-Holton, E.; Cone, C.; Doty, S.; and\
Vailas, A.: Biomineralization and Spaceflight. American Soc. of
Gravitational and Space Biology, vol 6, no. 6, 1992, p. 99.

27\. Riley, D. A.; Ellis, S.; Slocum, G. R.; Sedlak, F. R.; Bain, J. L.
W.; Krippendorf, B. B.; Macias,\
M. Y.; and Thompson, J. L.: Spaceflight and Reloading Effects on Rat
Hindlimb Skeletal Muscles. Mol. Biol. Cell, vol. 4, 1993, p. 386a.

28\. Riley, D. A.; Ellis, S.; Slocum, G. R.; Sedlak, F.R.; Bain, J. L.
W.; Krippendorf, B.B.; Macias,\
M. Y.; and Thompson, J. L.: Spaceflight and Reloading Effects on Rat
Hindlimb Skeletal Muscles. American Soc. of Gravitational and Space
Biology, vol. 7, 1993, p. 81.

29\. Ross, M. D.: Synaptic Changes in Gravity Sensors of Space-Flown
Animals. Proceedings. of the 14th Annual International Conference of the
IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society, vol. 4, 1992, pp.
1304--1305.

30\. Ross, M. D.: Morphological Changes in Rat Vestibular System
Following Weightlessness. Proceedings of the Barany Society, Symposium
on Space Research, Prague, Czechoslovakia, 1992. J. Vestibular Res. vol.
3, no.3, 1993,\
pp. 241--251.

31\. Ross, M. D.: Synaptic Plasticity in Utricular Maculas of Rats
Exposed to Microgravity. American Soc. of Gravitational and Space
Biology Bulletin,\
vol. 6, no. 1, Oct. 1992, p. 100.

32\. Spangenberg, D. B.: Effects of Microgravity on Jellyfish
Development and Behavior. American Soc. of Gravitational and Space
Biology Bulletin, vol. 6, no. 1, 1992, p. 100.

33\. Spangenberg, D. B., et al.: Developmental Studies of **Aurelia**
(Jellyfish) Ephyrae which Developed During the SLS-1 Mission. Advances
in Space Res. vol. 14, no. 8, 1994, pp. 239--247.

34\. Spangenberg, D. B.: Graviceptor Development in Jellyfish Ephyrae in
Space and on Earth. Advances in Space Res., vol. 14, no. 8, 1994,\
pp. 317--325.

35\. Udden, Mark M.; Driscoll, Theda B.; Gibson,\
Linda A.; Patton, Cynthia S.; Pickett, Mark H.; Jones, J. B.; Nachtman,
Ronald; Allebban, Zuhair; Ichiki, Albert T.; Lange, Robert D.; and
Alfrey, Clarence P.: Blood Volume and Erythropoiesis in the Rat during
Space Flight. Submitted to Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine,
1992.

36\. Spacelab Life Sciences-1 90-Day Report, Space Life Sciences
Payloads Office, AR-01449, NASA Ames Research Center, 1992.

**APPENDIX 1**

**ARC Space Life Sciences Payloads Office Overview**

**APPENDIX 2**

**Hardware Activities Post SLS-1**

**APPENDIX 3**

**Summary Food and Water Consumption Data**

[^1]:   \*Lockheed Martin Missiles & Space, Moffett Field, Calif.

[^2]: \*\*Veterans Administration Medical Center, San Francisco, Calif.

[^3]: 1A porous filter made by Villdeon Filter, San Diego, Calif.

[^4]: 2Made by 3M Filteration Products, St. Paul, Minn.

[^5]: 3Designed by scientists from Teklad, Inc., Madison, Wis.; Harlan
    Sprague Dawley, Inc., Madison, Wis.; and the National Institutes of
    Health (NIH), Bethesda, Md.

[^6]: 4A fabric made by DuPont Fiber Division, Richmond, Va.