BIOSPHERE 2: A CLOSED BIOREGENERATIVE LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEM, AN ANALOG FOR LONG DURATION SPACE MISSIONS J. Poynter and D. Bearden Paragon Space Development Corporation 810 Fast 47th Street, Suite #104 ‘Tucson, Arizona, 85714, USA. ABSTRACT. This paper examines the Biosphere 2 Agriculture System, a two year experiment in the design and operation of a closed system agriculture. Several problemschallenges associated with bioregenerative life support system design are presented and discussed with repect to their applicability to long duration space missions such as would be required (o establish and maintain a human presence on Mars or the moon. Specific examples as experienced during the Biosphere 2 experiment are presented including health effects ofa low fa, calorie restricted, yet nutrient dense diet that resulted from a lower-than-expected crop production. Medical problems associated with oxyzen depletion in Biosphere 2 are also discussed, Biosphere 2 is an interesting case study for closed bioregenerative life support systems and has many lessons to be leamed for space exploration 1, Manned Space Mission Life Support Requirements Many problems and challenges have been identified in life support and production of food in closed systems for long periods of time in a remote and hostile environment. such as on a moon base. Some of these pertain t0 the design of a system, such as appropriate planting schedules to provide the required nutrients in a varied diet, pest and pathogen exclusion, recycling of inedible biomass and return of nutrients to the growing, ‘medium. Some may be encountered during a mission, such as lower than anticipated yields for a variety of reasons ranging from unexpected pest problems to reduced light levels. Such problems my lead to components of the det being low or inadequate forthe crow, such as fat and calorie intake Many of these challenges were considered during the design and operation ofthe 2,000 m? Agriculture Systems in Biosphere 2 that supported the erew of 4 men and 4 ‘women living and working inside the structure. Also, several problems arose during the first two year manned mission of the project, similar to those that could be encountered con Jong mission in space where food is being produced in sit 263 E Got fae), Plam Production i Cloged Ecosystems, 263.277 {6 1997 Kliwer Acadomic Publishers Prive inthe Neterand264 LLL. SysteM CLAssiFte TION From space mission standpoint, humans are eonsidered as entities that absors products Afood. water, oxygen) and reject other products (urine, feces, perspiration, and carbon ioxide). While specific requirements for life support systems can vary dramatically ‘based on environment and mission phase, typical levels for inputs and outputsare showwa in Figure 1 {In gencral, life support systems for space mission applications are discussed in terms. of their degree of closure (unclosed, partially closed, closed) and the type of process, if any, used (0 regenerate products (physical, chemical, biological). Water management and reclamation is usually large driver for life support systems design since the amount of water required {both hygienic, e.g, showers, washing, laundry. and potable, eg. food preparation. drinking) is large relative to other expendables. Three basic life support systems options are briefly discussed here along with technologies typically used to accomplish major functions: 1) Open loop; 2) Physicochemical regeneration; and 3) Bioregeneration. Tapas Dry Food! Oxygen: Water Domestic Water Hygiene suog Teale 500 Wash: 13500 a Figure 1. Human daily requirements Open loop systems utilize stored supplies and provide no regeneration. Waste is stored or expelled. Open loop life support systems are usually not attractive for maintaining a long-term remote presence in space due to the difficulty and expense in providing sufficient supplies at regular intervals, Physicochemical life support systems regenerate oxygen and water while storing food and solid waste. For example, potable water can be recovered from humidity condensate from the atmosphere, 1n some systems multi-fikration process is used265 ‘where water is purified by flowing it through filters and packed beds to remove particles by filtration, remove organics by adsorption, and remove salts by ion exchange, Carbon dioxide removal and air revitalization might be accomplished using molecular sieve for carbon dioxide removal, a Sabatier reactor for carbon dioxide reduction and a static feed water electrolysis system, Waste treatment is often accomplished using wet oxidation, Trace contaminant contfol is often accomplished using carbon absorption beds combined with catalytic oxidizer and charcoal regeneration system. Physicochemical systems are feasible for manned missions to nearby planets or for maintaining a manned space station where resupply missions arrive at regular intervals, Bioregenerative systems regenerate oxygen, water and food utilizing biological systems, Possible ways to achieve this are growing plants, mictobial cultures in bioreactors, or microbial cultures as a part of a physicochemical system. Plant growth units are often utilized to generate oxygen, produce food and act as biologieal waste ‘water treatment systems to purify domestic water utilized by humans, Hygienic waste water is fed to the plants and potable water recovered 1.2. SUBSYSTEM INTER-RELA THONSHPS ‘The conditions under which life isto maintained (eg. Moon base vs Space station vs, Mars base) may lead to diferent solutions regarding the fulllmen of specific requirements. For example a filly closed bioregenerative system might not be required fora Mars surface habitat, compared toa Moon base, since in-situ resources may exist for water and oxygen. As-a specific example, if we Were to begin establishment of 2 “Moon base. skeleton crew might be putin place with established favltes and nominal living supplies, such a8 ai, food and water. This initial crew would likely consist of people skilled in the construction of large space structures and the colony might be intially dependent upon shipments fiom Earth for living supplies (Le. open loop) Logistics support would be tailored to supporting the build-up and initiation of th base Once the base was established, you might envision a seenrio where addtional colonists ‘would continuously join the group at a desired population growth rae. Trade studies indicate that the break-even point in terms of mass for utilizing open vs. closed life Support system is around $0 days (Intemational Space University, 1991) It might then be desirable to include colonists with skills inthe production of consumable supplies to make the colony more self-sufficient and evolve toward a closed life support system. A new, more appropriate logistics practice might be employed fora growing and more Giverse population providing the proper min of maintenance and production of living supplies to minimize costs and enable the population growth, while ensuring the well being of the inhabitants, If one were to attempt to model the development and imaincnance of the moon colony, @ causal loop digram as shovn in Figure 2 might apaly266 Causal Loop Diagram ttt : saline \ So biting oo Production of Supplies Fagsiies —— Facies sf Na t / ‘> Waste, ee coe Frilies 7 es Figure 2. Causal Loop Diagram for a Representative Partially-Closed Life Support System For this particular ease, system variables are number of colonists, colony population required growth rate, living supplies inventory (ie, food, water, air), construction materials, facilities (habitats, storage), colonist labor, maintenance/production of facilities, production of living supplies, launch vehicles, supply delivery ratefailures, cast, excess inventory above available storage (ie. waste). Beyond the broad array of potential difficulties associated with establishing and maintaining such a colony, itis, Apparent from the causal loop diagram that the interactions of the humans with their environmentlife support system become very important. The desired reference behavior is to maintain the living supply inventory atthe desired level while never letting it drop below the minimum requirement. The inventory must be robust against delivery failures or shortfalls in production. ‘The facilities and production capability should grow to the desired level, avoiding an overshoot and collapse ofthe system. The amount of living supplies produced on the base should inerease with time. Waste and cost should be minimized, While simulations and design studies of Moon/Mars base developmentmaintenance are relatively easy to come by, there are very few real-world experiences that possess the right mix of elements to be considered representative of manned space missions. Some recent experiments of 14 to 30-day confinement in an advanced life support system test chamber were recently performed at NASA's Johnson Space Center, The experiment is, part of a long-term effort under way to develop biological as well as mechanical and.‘chemical means of sustaining future occupants of a lunar base or explorers destined for Mars (Gahheau, 1996). Future tests are planned in which solid wastes as well as water and air will be recycled, using plants as well as chemical and mechanical treatment systems, OF paramount importance is research regarding compatibility, performance and synergism of various life support technologies. Of the three options discussed above, bioregencrative life support systems are certainly the least understood, The generation of electricity for lighting represents a major cost to bioregenerative life support systems and attention must be given to the collection of solar energy, the transmittance inside habitats and the diffusion for plant use (MacElroy, R.D., 1990), Other main biological areas requiring research are the processing of edible biomass into food and the biological degradation of natural and xenobiotic contaminants, oxidation of waste materials and hazards due to accumulation of chemicals during recycling, and evolution of ecosystems inaclosed environment. The experience of Biosphere 2 addresses some of these issues, It provides insights into the challenges associated with several areas related to plant growth for food/oxygen production, human dietary requirements, and nutrient recycling, among others. But more generally. the Biosphere 2 experiment is a valid analog rich in data and lessons leamed for extended space missions using bioregenerative life support 2. Description of Biosphere 2 Biosphere 2 is a privately financed, closed ecological system, located near Tucson, Arizona, Biosphere 2 supported eight humans and over 3000 documented species of plants and animals, in seven biomes ~ rainforest, savanna, desert, marsh, ocean, intensive agriculture and a human habitat ~ for two years During the two manned missions there was within the human habitat a kitchen, apartments. analytical laboratory, workshop, library, command room, animal bay. storage, medical facility, recreation and living rooms, Biosphere 2 has a foot print of 14 thousand square meters with an atmospheric volume of 184 thousand culbic meters. A. stainless steel liner seals the structure from below, while the space frame and glass lazing above contain the atmosphere and allow sunlight to enter. Two variable volume chambers compensate for variations in atmospheric volume due to changes in temperature, etc. In this materially- closed environment food was grown and essentially all the air, water and human, animal and plant wastes were recycled and purified by plants, microorganisms and some physical/chemical systems during the two year ‘experiment. With a leak rate of less than ten percent per year, Biosphere 2 was operated as essentially materially closed while open to energy and information, so that data (computer, video. etc.) electricity, light and heat go in and out as needed, A two year exploration or test run of Biosphere 2 was completed on 26 September, 1993. Biosphere 2 was operated by a crew of people that lived inside the structure without leaving for the duration of the mission, with the exception of certain emergencies. The crew ‘maintained, operated and depended on Biosphere 2 to support their lives, while using268 Biosphere 2 as a tool for ecological research and for studies of possible future applications in space, Currently Biosphere 2 does not sustain human populations. but rather is used for global change and biogeochemical experimentation, 3. Lessons Learned from Biosphere 2 3.1, AGRICULTURE AND CALORIC RESTRICTION ‘The Intensive Agriculture Biome inside Biosphere 2, shown in Figure 3, covers an area ‘of approximately 0.2 hectare to produce the food for the 8 person crew. It was designed to be a reyenerative, non-polluting, intensive, soil-based agriculture system, providing a fully nutvtious diet, witha wide variety of crops to provide for a varied cuisine. ‘The area ‘was divided into 20 small plots with each growing approximately 3 crops per year. A. crop rotation plan was designed in accordance with the time of year, dietary requirements year round and pest control. Tere were also several areas of fruit trees and other perennial crop plants. The principal crops grown were: rice, sorghum, wheat, sweet potatoes. white potatoes, peanuts, lablab beans, 18 different vegetable crops (ereen beans, beets, bell pepper, carrots. chili peppers. cabbage, cucumber, eggplant, kale, letuce, onion, pak choi, snow pea, winter and summer squash, swiss chard, and tomatoes), bananas and papayas. Herbs and spices were grown, and a small amount of coffee was harvested (enough for approximately one cup per biospherian per month). Approximately 85% of the food consumed by the erew was produced inside Biosphere 2 luring the wo years, The remainder came from stored beans and wheat and seed stock, Light was one of the main limiting fuctors to crop production in the Biosphere 2 agriculture. ‘The structure admits 40-50% of the ambient light, and excludes almost all, the UV light, Daylengths ranged from 9.5 to 14.5 hours per day according to the time of year, In addition, the two winters of the first two year mission, 1991 and 1992, were affected by the El Nino Southern Oseillation, bringing an inereased amount of cloudy ‘weather (Nelson etal, 1993). There were no artificial lighting systems in place during the First mission, These low light levels directly affected crop production and also promoted increased pest problems due to lowered resilience of some of the plants. Light received. in the Agricultural Biome over the course of year and four months is shown in Figure 4 ‘To supplement the light high pressure sodium lights were installed in some areas of the agriculture biome before the second crew entered Biosphere 2 in 1994, During the 8 month second mission 100% of the food was produced for the seven person crew,269 Figure 3. Floor plan of Agriculture Biome TAB Total Monthly Quantum Light (E/m2) 00 10 00 500 ry 300 200 100 ° OND FMAMUJA'S'OND JE ‘Months beginning October 1991 Figure 4. Light received in the Intensive Agriculture Biome, 26 September 1991 to 28 February 1993 (monthly totals)20 “The yields from the crops grown inside Biosphere 2 are shown in Table 1. They do not compare favorably with those accomplished by scientists working in conjunction with NASA on the Advanced Life Support System and other laboratories working on high-yield wheat crop systems, World record yields of wheat are 1450 g/m? for a rowing period of approximately 120 days: Dr. Bruce Bugbee has demonstrated yields of 1200 gim? over a growing period 56 days using saturated light conditions 24 hours/day. More typical field yields are 300-700 gim® (Eckart, 1994), The low yields evidenced in Biosphere 2 as outlined in Table I are due mainly to the low light levels, encountered - light transmittance was impeded by the structural layout -- compounded by shorter day lengths. There were some areas within the plant growth area where almost nothing was produced because of shading from the structure. Other contributing factors were pathogen infestation on roots and selection ofa less-than-optimum growing, medium, The soil texture was not optimal for maximizing nutrient delivery. With improvements in environmental control and soil composition. perhaps including the addition of zeolite (Hossner et al, 1991), further advances in cultivars and exclusion of insect pest species, the area required to produce the food for a crew of 8 people would be dramatically smaller than the Biosphere 2 agriculture area. Also, the wilderness areas are not needed for life support. With appropriate crop rotations and staggering plantings ‘of erops such that a new crap was in rapid growth phase while others senesced, CO» and (Op in the atmosphere can be controlled (MacCallum et al, 1995). The cultivars grown were chosen for disease and pest resistance, production, palatability, ease of cultivation and processing. There were seeds from a wide variety of ccultivars in storage ready to replace erops that failed due to an unforeseen pest, disease ‘orenvironmental problem, Disease and pests were also controlled by the use of manual intervention, non-toxic sprays, environmental manipulations and introductions of predatory and parasitic inseets, ‘The following pests and plant diseases were present i the Biosphere 2 agriculture during the first wo year mission: two spotted spider mite, broad mite, thrip, mealy bug, aphid, leaf miner, powdery mildew, root knot nematode. fusarium fungus, pill and sow bug and cockroach. In spite of an introduction of two predators in Qctober of 1992, Neosetulus californicus and Amiysefus barkeri, and four other mite predators in March 1993 (Euseius stipulatus, Galendromus annectens, Typhlodromus rickeri and Typhlodromas porresi) the broad mite proved to be the most damaging pest, This lead to the majority of white potato crops being replaced by sweet potato, Other beneficial insects introduced prior to closure in 1991 were: Hyppodamia convergens, Lysophlaebus sp., Leptomastix dactylopti, Chrysoperta rusilabris, Nasomia vipripennis, Cryptolaemus montouzieri, Diglyphus isaea, Metaphycus helvolus, Aphytis melinus, Ambiyseius melinus, Phytoseiulus persimilis, Encarsia formosa, Oris ysticolor and Metaseiulus occidentalis. Also, in March 1993 two generalist predators were introduced, Geocoris pallens and Labidura riparia, After 18 months of closure there were few beneficial insects remaining (Nelson, 1993),‘Table 1: Biosphere 2 Agriculture First Year Crop Harvests, Sept 91 to Sept 92. ee Jom Ya ae Gam fom gmt Renny aay | eeyy Ry aa Seen ome ome be wa sos) eo) aaa a Saris Sa hg er oer Sw mags aon eps aa ae, ose [emcees eres cee ee ae eg ee ae ee = ta ma aos rome #86, Tags aa Syee newyears [bites ons ms) ete was me mis ee ssa oe ete a3 ie tga dom ocece wa mesmo asta ows Soke ma ems’ wae tain tee as a see gl egg] apse SN on 21, ants ee aaa oat ta ‘ag aig og aa, ea ae (coe tS ge 39) ae oma eee be Ss Ba ose ot = i toes lt eT] tote ina ost ao ea ata ne non ee) che yan oa aw oma Sew + Sina a ea ae Soties = oom tm as {steered aa ag teat [urcnet ts, iene pa as oath [rotate ea By ates — alii jee, Mawr Sqaat es) nets ws) ates dase a gaa oe 8 iia sak 9a re 5 sins am tone ‘Son o foo, ago foe e em tea toe a oy ert i ae a eT ns a sos) em trae her rh oe ano asa acrameren Sen tas) as sal leeee [tu Sanaa Pet se age ae ra te (02) aaa ea rem a et eer ey (tient ume tae (ret od ase * Calculated using Dr. Roy Walfos national software, The Diet Planerm Human intervention included manual removal of pests and diseased vegetation, washing with water and pruning of infected leaves. Sprays included sulfur and soap sprays, Bacillus thuringiensis and horticultural oil. The horticultural oil was the most suceessfil method for controlling the broad mite, The relative humidity was ‘manipulated to remain generally below 45% to help control the broad mite infestations. ‘A domestic animal system included African pygmy goats, Jungle Foul/Japanese Silky hen crossbred chickens and Ossabaw Feral Swine, and tilapia fish were grown in the rice paddies. ‘The milk. meat and eggs provided approximately 50% of the daily fat intake of the biospherians. The animals were fed erop residues that the humans ould not constime, such as the sweet potato vines and above ground biomass of peanut plants. While the domestic animals, particularly the goats, were a valuable part of the Biosphere 2 agriculture, a food production system could be readily designed that excluded them. The waste from the domestic animals and inedible crop residues were composted. Due to the COs/Oy problem little of the compost was added to the soil as originally envisioned, but stored dry so as to prevent the production of CO; through the process of decay. The human waste was processed through an anaerobic digester and subsequently through a microbial/plant marsh lagoon system, The processed water was used in the agriculture irrigation water. During the first 1wo year mission all essential nutrients were provided by the primarily vegetarian diet. with the exception of calcium and vitamins B12 and D, which ‘were supplemented. Calorie intake, however, was low. During the first 6 months 21 random samples of calorie intake during a 24 hour period had an average of 1780 kealories per biospherian. The kealorie intake was increased for the remainder of the mission to approximately 2200 kilocalories per biospherian per day. Weight loss was considerable: 16% average decrease for the men and 11% average decrease for women, Mean total cholesterol decreased (Irom 191 += [1 before closure to 123 +/-9 mg/dl after closure). as did fasting serum glucose, mean total leukocyte count, mean blood pressure and blood urea nitrogen concentration. These findings are reported in full by Dr. Roy Wallrd in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (Walford et al, 1992). ‘The weight loss contributed to low energy levels and the “irritability” ofthe crew. There ‘was also food stealing (Alling and Nelson, 1993), a phenomenon that has been experienced in the Antaretic bases even where food supplies were not short (North, 1992). Dreams and fantasies were filled with memories of food and plans of meals to be eaten upon exiting Biosphere 2 (Alling and Nelson, 1993), Clearly not only adequate tivod supplies but also a varied diet is important to maintaining crew health, morale and productivity ‘The Biosphere 2 agriculture was an essentially sustainable food production and ‘waste recyeling system using only biological methods, It was particularly successful with the improvements made during the transition period between the two manned missions. With weeater control of light duration and intensity, humidity, temperature, the exclusion of pest species and domestic animals, and improved cultivars. the next generation of research agricultural systems for the lunar or Martian surface would require a dramatically reduced area to produce all the food for the crew. Further testing‘would be required to see if 85% of food required for a four-person crew could be produced on the 81m? allowed for in the NASA Advanced Life Support Chamber. (Dooley etal, 1995), Pathogenic bacterial and fungal infections would be of Although hygienic methods of cultivation alleviate the problem of disease, the erew of a Jong duration space mission must be prepared to tackle such problems. A soil ecosystem containing a vigorous consortium of microfauna and flora is less likely 10 succumb 10 rapid colonization by a pathogenic species, as invasive species of microbiota are generally kept in check by competition and predation, Most microbiologists favor introduction of a diverse population of microbes to lunar soil (Stotsky. 1989). Outbreak of disease is of concem in both hydroponic and solid media agriculture systems. ‘Therefore there must be cultivars and species included other than those generally grown which have a range of disease resistance and environmental requirements to replace problematic crops in the event of such an outbreak. ‘There would also be the eapacity 10 pasteurize the growing medium. This was sorely lacking inside Biosphere 2, and would have undoubtedly helped with some of the diseases encountered, particularly the Pithium sp. and root knot nematode. ‘Much significant work has been conducted internationally on many aspects of food production and waste recycling systems for space habitation, using several types of growth media (Hossner etal, 1991; Eckart, 1994). Building on this experience, the time has come for complete rezernerative life support systems to be subjected to series of tests nd improvements integrating the work of individuals and laboratories from around the globe. 3.2. NUTRIENT AND WareR RECYCLING The Biosphere 2 agriculture system was designed to be fully reeyeling, without necessary inputs of plant nutrients, or the export of waste. Tt was in @ closed nutrient loop with the human habitat. Human and domestic animal waste was treated in anaerobic digesters and aerobic lagoon systems, The system was developed at NASA Stennis by Dr. W. Wolverton, The human waste, shower and wash water and the washdown from the domestic animals was first treated in anaerobic digesters. This resulted in primary decomposition of the particulates. The effluent then cycled in batches through an aerobic marsh lagoon system. Here several species of aquatic plants and their associated microbes reduce the mutrient load of the water by utilizing it for rapid growth, and further break down particulates. After the batch is completed the water is mixed with condensate water low in nutrients, and used as irigation water in the agricultural area, The plants growing in the waste recycling system are periodically harvested and fed tothe goats for roughage. The waste from the animals that is cleared daily from the floor of their pens, was mixed with the compost to be decomposed and returned tothe fields as necessary. ‘The crop residues that are not edible by either bumans or the domestic animals were also composted.4 ‘The soil in the Biosphere 2 agricultural area was approximately 4 feet deep (unnecessarily deep for anything other than some fruit trees). ‘The soil contained 15% peat moss and 15% compost by volume, added at introduction of the soil. Soil was used as the growing medium as we were trying to get 100% nutrient loop closure, with all the biomass being added back to the medium. This is difficult with hydroponics. Full closure is not necessary where resupply or manufacture of the hydroponic salts is possible, The soil was not sterilized or treated in any way to irradicate both beneficial and pest organisms prior to installation. Pithiwm and root knot nematodes became problematic during the first wo year closure, with no effective way to significantly reduce the infestations available to the crew. While crops were chosen that were resistant to such infestations, some species did succumb. ‘The water within Biosphere 2 was recycled. Evapotranspiration puts moisture into the air which condenses onto coils within the large air handlers that heated and cooled the air within Biosphere 2. This water is then collected in holding tanks and treated with UV sterilization and hydrogen peroxide where necessary. Neither of these treatments were used other than for routine equipment testing as the water remained below acceptable levels of contaminants. The water is then available for drinking, cooking, ‘washing and irrigation of the plants. The waste water was treated in the waste recycling, system deseribed above, before being returned to the plants via the irrigation system. In Biosphere 2 the water loop was complicated by the atmosphere being continuous throughout. Thus, water from the agriculture was entrained in the air and traveled to the wilderness, where it was then utilized by the wildemess plants, or rained down into the ‘ocean, Water could also be pumped to the wildemess area from the agriculture when required 3.3. MEDICAL ISSUES The Biosphere 2 sealed environment was humid in many parts of the structure, there was aa wide variety of species living inside. and underneath the organic ecosystems lay a large amount of industrial equipment. The medical team anticipated that four major medical problems would become evident during the two year mission: infection and allergies; ‘rauma: toxic exposure from build up of outgassing and organic emissions; and adverse psychological reactions (Walford et al, 1996). No significant infections occurred, and the few allergies encountered were treatable, A partial amputation of a digital phalanx whieh occurred during the first month of closure was the only acute trauma, No trace gas contaminants were ever measured that exceeded permissible levels. No formal psychological screening or psychomettic testing ‘was done either before or during the mission, with the exception of one examination towards the end of the two year stay. The crew received the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, revised version (MMPI2) which was scored atthe Arizona Center for Clinical Management, by Michael Berren. No psychological pathologies were evidenced by the MMPI2 test. (Walford etal, 1996). However, several crew members reported that the psychology of groups in Isolated Confined Environments such asBiosphere 2, was one of the more difficult aspects of living inside the enclosure for two Unanticipated medical challenges were faced, however. that were eaused by a life support system that was not adequately functioning, Because of the lower than expected yields in the agriculture as deseribed above, the diet was low in fat and calories. Calorie imake was approximately 1800 keals/person/day for the first six months, which was subsequently increased to 2200 keals during the remainder of the two year closure. Fat intake accounted for approximately 12% of the keals. Weight loss was considerable. By 8- LO months the men had lost 18% of their total body weight, and the women lost 10%, Mean body fat, measured by skin-fold measurements, indicated 8% for the men and 13% on average for the women. No significant weight gain or increase in body fat ‘was measured even with the inerease in calories (Walford et al, 1996). Most of the Biospherians commented on feeling hungry and irritable a good deal of the time, and somewhat fatigued from the low calorie dict (MacCallum and Poynter, 1995), Despite this the crew continued to work 60-70 hour weeks. Dr. Walford has proposed that Siunifieant health effects ean be had through a calorie restricted dict, provided that all necessary nutrients are provided (Walford et al, 1992). However, itis the authors” ‘opinion that the low calorie dict as experienced in Biosphere 2 only added tothe stressful situation for reasons mentioned above, possibly reducing erew safety and efficiency Another medical problem experienced during the Biosphere 2 experiment, which hopefully would not occur during a manned space mission where few fll-back options \would be available, was oxygen deprivation, During the first 16 months of elosure the (Ozin the atmosphere of Biosphere 2 decreased from the ambient 21% to 14%. Less than ‘of the total “missing” Os could be accounted for through respiration that resulted in an inerease of the atmospheric COs concentration (which never rose above 4.500 parts, per million) or by production of COs that was subsequently sequestered by a chemical CO, scrubbing system. This eft an oxygen 1os5 of approximately 588. kmoles unaccounted for, (MacCallum et al, 1995), A positive correlation was found between the concentration of CO> and the rate of oxygen loss, The rate of O: depletion was greatest at times when the CO» was at the highest concentration. Also carbon isotope data, sol gas and atmospherie analysis determined tha a significant unidentified sink for CO: existed within Biosphere 2. Analysis of the internal concrete structure revealed that significantly inereased formation of CaCO» had occurred. The total increase in the formation of CaCOp was enough to account for the missing CO: and the isotopic composition of the CaCO; in the concrete indicated that it was the previously tnidentified CO; sink, (Severinghaus etal, 1994), The dectine in O> was slow, equivalent to approximately 750 ft ‘month in elevation The drop continued to 14.2%. or 15.000 ft elevation (although pressure remained constant) after 17 months of closure, At this time symptoms of oxygen deprivation were considerable and the crew physician, Dr. Rey Walford. directed O> to be injected into the Biosphere, increasing the level to 19%. Symptoms included fatigue, decreased work capacity and sleep disorders caused by "periodic breathing”, all similar to those experienced under high-altitude sickness. It was expected that erew members would.26 adapt to the lowered oxygen levels, but normal adaptations were not observed. The symptoms became significantly increased below 15 - 16 % (Walford et al, 1996). The lowering oxygen levels led to hypoxia in several of the biospherians, who reported fatigue, sleeplessness and shortness of breath (Leigh, 1993: Alling and Nelson, 1993), Other effects of hypoxia are difficulty in clear thinking and lack of judgment (Ward et al, 1989), both of which were reported by several biospherians when the ‘oxygen was at its lowest of 14%, The causes of the O> loss and the means by which photosynthesis can be made to balance respiration could have been determined during the conceptual design phase of the project if more extensive total system ‘experimentation had been carried out. This is one of many examples of problems that do not become apparent until subsystems begin to be used together. Certainty this finding has implications for the use of lunar concrete in building habitats on the moon as well as the O2 /CO» balance in a regenerative life support system. 4. Summary While physicochemical systems have been the primary subject of life support research, an increasing emphasis on biological systems is emerging for long term space missions. Biological components of a life support system are being developed using plants and microbiota, that take advantage of the multiple uses of each component (eg. plants grown for food also transpire water that can be sequestered for drinking water). Closed Toop life support systems become necessary where supplying a long tem or remote base isnot economical, such ason the Moon or Mars. Biosphere 2is an example of system, intended to be 100% bioregenerative The first two year manned mission of the project bore out the viability of biorcgenerative sysiems as the primary life support system for a space base. The 10 principal problems during the mission, oxygen loss and inadequate food production. albeit serious problems that compromised the successful 100% closure of the mission, can be avoided in future systems with improved designs. They demonstrate the necessity for iterative, total system testing. While many challenges ean be anticipated, itis not until testing of total systems over extended periods of time are condueted that certain problems come to light, such as the oxygen loss in Biosphere 2, Conversely, some ‘expected 10 be problems do not become so, such as trace gas contaminants building up t0 dangerous levels, infection and allergies, and other anticipated medical problems that «did not materialize 5. References Alling, A., Nelson, M. (1993). Life Under Glass: the inside story of Biosphere 2 ‘Arizona: The Biosphere Press.Dooley. H. A., Drysdale, A. E,, Sager. J.C. and Brown CS. (1995), Bioregenerative Life Support System Design. Proceedings of the 25th Intemational Conference on Environmental Systems. San Diego: SAE Intemational Eckart, P., (1994). Life Support and Biospheries. Germany: Herbert Utz Publishers, Gahheau, M. (1996). Crew returns to outer limits: Astronauts end monthlong test in chamber. Houston: Houston Chronicle Hossner, L. R., Ming, D. W., Henninger, D. L., Allen, E.R. (1991), Lunar Outpost Agriculture. Endeavor, New Series, Vol 15, No.2. Great Britain: Pergamon Press. International Space University (1991), International Mars Mission, Toulouse, France: International Space University Press. Leigh, L.S. (1993) Linda's Journal - Oxygen, Biosphere 2 Newsletter, Vol. 3. No. 1 Space Biospheres Ventures, Arizona MacCallum, TK, Poynter, JE. (1995). Factors Affecting Human Performance in the Isolated Confined Environment of Biosphere 2. Proceedings of the Third Annual Mid-Adantic Human Factors Conference, Virginia, MacCallum, T., J. Poynter, J. Johnson-Freese. (1995) Biosphere 2: Two Years in an Isolated Confined Environment. Proceedings of InSpace 95, Tokyo Japan, Macklroy. R.D. (1990), Artificial Ecological Systems: Activities in the U.S. and Japan, Workshop on artificial evological systems, Marseille Nelson, M., Silverstone. S., Poynter, J. (1993). Biosphere 2 Agriculture: Test Bed for Intensive, Sustainable, Non-Polluting Farming System, Outlook On Agriculture, Vol 22, #3, 167-174, UK, North, R., (1992). Personal communication, Severinghaus, J.P., Broeker, W.S.. Dempster, W.F.. MacCallum, T.K., Wahlen, M. (1994) Oxygen Loss in Biosphere 2, EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, Vol. 75, No. 3. Stotsky, G, (1989). Microorganisms and the growth of higher plants in lunat-derived soils. In D. W. Ming and D. L, Henninger (eds), "Lunar Base Agriculture: Soils for Plant Growth", 131 = 127. Madison: American Society of Agronomy. Walford. R. L., Harts. S. B..Gunion, M. W. (1992). The calorically restricted low-fat nnutrient-dense diet in Biosphere 2 significantly lowers blood glucose, total leukocyte count, cholesterol, and blood pressure in humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, Vol 89, 11533-11537, Walford, R. L.. R. Bechtel, T. MacCallum, D. E. Paglia, and L, J. Weber. (1996), "Biospheric Medicine” as Viewed from the Two-Year First Closure of Biosphere 2. Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, Vol 67, No. 7 Ward, M.P., Milledge, J.S., West, J.B. (1989) High Altitude Medicine and Physiology. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia,