Acta Astronautica 81 (2012) 555–562

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Acta Astronautica
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/actaastro

Development and evaluation of bioregenerative menus for Mars

habitat missions
Maya R. Cooper a, Patricia Catauro a,1, Michele Perchonok b,n
a
Lockheed Martin Exploration & Protection Solutions, 1300 Hercules, Suite 100, MC C09, Houston, TX 77058, USA
b
NASA Johnson Space Center, Mail Code SF4, 2101 NASA Parkway, Houston, TX 77058, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o abstract

Article history: Two 10-day menus were developed in preparation for a Mars habitat mission. The first
Received 8 June 2012 was built on the assumption, as in previous menu development efforts for closed
Received in revised form ecological systems, that the food system would be vegetarian, whereas the second
27 August 2012
menu introduced shelf-stable, prepackaged meat and entrée items from the current
Accepted 28 August 2012
International Space Station (ISS) food system. Both menus delivered an average of
Available online 12 October 2012
3000 cal daily but the macronutrient proportions resulted in an excess of carbohydrates
Keywords: and dietary fiber per mission nutritional recommendations. Generally, the individual
Mars recipes comprising both menus were deemed acceptable by internal sensory panel
Menu
(average overall acceptability¼ 7.4). The incorporation of existing ISS entrée items did
Space food system
not have a significant effect on the acceptability of the menus. In a final comparison, the
Bioregenerative system
food system upmass, or the amount of food that is shipped from the Earth, increased by
297 kg with the addition of prepackaged entrées to the menu. However, the addition of
the shipped massed was counterbalanced by a 864 kg reduction in required crops.
A further comparison of the crew time required for meal preparation and farming, food
system power requirements, and food processing equipment mass is recommended to
definitively distinguish the menus.
& 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction requirements for the Mars space food system. Numerous

When humans begin to explore the Martian surface,
the missions will be longer in duration and require a
higher level of self-sufficiency than the level demanded
previously by space mission designers. Trips to resupply
consumables are common for the International Space
Station (ISS) but are not part of the scope for a Mars
habitat mission [1]. This supply shift coupled with
extended mission duration dramatically changes the
studies have shown that the current prepackaged food
system would not be adequate for long-duration missions
because of menu fatigue [2–4], quality degradation [5],
nutritional concerns [6–7], and the large mass of food
needed to sustain a crew for 3 years [8–10]. Hence,
alternative space food systems are being explored to
support crews on long-duration missions.
2. A bioregenerative system for food supply

An alternative to a prepackaged food system is a

n
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 281 483 7632; system that uses plants grown at the habitat as a source
fax: þ 1 281 483 7524. of food. Crops produced in situ and food processing in
E-mail addresses: maya.cooper@nasa.gov (M.R. Cooper),
michele.h.perchonok@nasa.gov (M. Perchonok).
space have long been discussed to achieve space self-
1
Present address: Kraft Foods, 555 South Broadway, Tarrytown, sufficiency in support of long-duration space missions
New York 10591, USA [11]. NASA initiated the Controlled Ecological Life-Support

0094-5765/$ - see front matter & 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2012.08.035
556 M.R. Cooper et al. / Acta Astronautica 81 (2012) 555–562
Table 1
Recommended dietary plants for NASA CELSS.
Grains Roots/tubers Vegetables
Wheat Sweet potato Broccoli
Rice White potato Kale
Oats Table beet Swiss chard
Quinoa Snow peas
Millets Cabbage
Sorghum Garden peas
Flax Lettuce
Carrots
Butternut squash
Pumpkin
Squash
Mushrooms
a
Both peanut and soybean are considered oil sources within the ‘‘Seeds’’ category. The consideration of the
whole items as foodstuffs, or protein sources, is shown by their additional listing in the ‘‘Legumes’’ category. Table
is adapted from Salisbury and Clark, 1996 [15].
System (CELSS) program in 1978 to develop a bioregen-
erative life-support model that could provide basic and
continuous requirements such as food, drinking water,
and breathable atmosphere by using plants and microbes
as the central recycling components [10]. The plants that
were studied under the auspices of CELSS were varied,
and many of the studies focused on the yield, air
exchange, and required growth conditions, not the pro-
cessing of the plant into edible food [12–14]. However, in
1994, NASA stepped forward to give a food-focused
direction to the higher-plant studies by bringing together
CELSS experts and dieticians to provide guidance on crop
selection and develop the basis for a vegetarian diet [15].
The results of their consensus are the crops listed in
Table 1.
In the years since these recommendations were
released, several efforts at creating a vegetarian menu
cycle based on the suggested crops have been made
[16–18], and the crop list has been refined [19–21]. Each
menu has depended entirely on crop production supple-
mented only with minor ingredients like spices and dried
egg powder. From the 1990s to 2004, rice, beans, and
wheat berries were postulated to be grown as baseline
crops [22]. Then, in a significant departure from past food
source assumptions, the NASA Human Research Program
(HRP) Advanced Food Technology (AFT) Project team
investigated a food system scenario in which bulk quan-
tities of raw commodities, such as rice and beans, are
shipped to the habitat site, processed into edible ingre-
dients, and then combined with locally grown crops for a
vegetarian menu [23]. Although this type of food system
combining crops and shipped foods may have first been
suggested by the NASA CELSS working committee in 1994
[15], it was largely ignored in subsequent studies. The
AFT Project’s preliminary assessment suggested that a
‘‘combined’’ food system had value for long-duration mis-
sions, but its menus provided inadequate calories and little
consideration of the acceptability of individual menu items.
This paper presents the latest AFT attempt at menu
design for planetary habitat missions. Two full 10-day
menus are presented along with the associated sensory
evaluation scores for the menu selections. One menu
Seeds Legumes Fruits Condiments
Rapeseed Soybean Strawberries Onions
Sunflower Peanut Tomatoes Garlic
Peanuta Pinto beans Melons Chilies
Soybeana Chickpea Tomatillo
Lentil
Cowpea
included only vegetarian items as did previously devel-
oped menus; the second menu introduced shelf-stable,
prepackaged meat and entrée items from the current ISS
menu into the diet. The average daily nutrient content of
each menu is provided along with the overall sensory
rating scores of the menu items. Additionally, the amount
of food that must be shipped to the habitat and the
amount of food that must be locally grown to support
the menu are presented with the menus to frame the
mission implications of each menu option.
3. Materials and methods
3.1. Dish selection
The menus were developed using the French and
Perchonok menu study [23] as a baseline. Since this menu
provided about 1780 kcal per day and the goal of the
present menu design was about 3000 kcal per day, the
first step was to supplement the existing menu with
additional dishes. Recipes for these additional dishes were
sourced from the Internet, vegan cookbooks, and previous
NASA Advanced Life Support (ALS) Program work.
Several factors determined whether a dish was appro-
priate to add to the menu. First, the recipes had to
primarily use the crops and bulk commodities that
aligned with the latest food system assumptions for a
space planetary habitat. Available crops were determined
by referencing the bioregenerative crop listing in the 2008
Baseline Values and Assumptions Document (BVAD) [24].
Bulk ingredients, such as wheat and rice, presumably
could either be shipped from Earth or grown on the space
farm. The bulk commodity list used by French and
Perchonok [23] was utilized, unchanged, for this exercise.
The inclusion of spices and other minor ingredients also
generally followed the previous assumptions of French
and Perchonok [23], but some spices were excluded and a
handful of ingredients, like bacon salt, was added because
of recipe changes. Recipe modification was required in
some cases to operate within the food availability restric-
tions, such as the replacement of butter with peanut oil
and/or butter sprinkles, milk with soymilk, or fresh garlic
 M.R. Cooper et al. / Acta Astronautica 81 (2012) 555–562
Table 2
Prepackaged space foods suitable for long-duration exploration.
Irradiateda
BBQ Beef Brisket Beef Steak
Beef Fajitas Smoked Turkey
Thermostabilized
a
Blueberry Raspberry Yogurt Grilled Pork Chop
Chicken Fajitas Meatloaf
Chicken w Peanut Sauce Salmon in Pouches
Fiesta Chicken Tuna in Pouches
Freeze-drieda
Beef Stew Rice and Chicken
Beef Stroganoff with Noodles Turkey Tetrazzini
a
Unpublished Space Food Systems Laboratory (SFSL) sensory data
for these irradiated food items, the thermostabilized yogurt, and these
freeze-dried foods suggest that they can sustain quality for 4–5 years.
Shelf life verification prior to menu implementation is required.
with garlic granules. Next, the operations required to cook
a recipe were evaluated for feasibility in space. An article
by Zasypkin and Lee [25] provided an overview of the
types of cooking processes that have low sensitivity to
gravity and should be considered for food processing on a
space station. Bread making within an enclosed bread
maker unit, baking using forced air convection, sautéing,
and pressure cooking were favored in this recipe selec-
tion. If the recipe had ingredients and a cooking method
that were feasible for a long-duration mission, then the
dish was selected as a menu item alternative. Finally,
foods from the ISS menu that have a shelf life of 5 years
were added for menu consideration [5]. These foods are
listed in Table 2 below.
3.2. Assessment of nutritional profile
Once dishes were identified, the nutritional profiles of
all the recipes using crops and bulk commodities were
estimated by inputting the recipe into Genesis R&D soft-
ware. The nutrient and caloric contributions of foods from
the ISS menu were obtained from a subcontracted labora-
tory, in-house NASA analyses, or Genesis R&D software
estimates (ESHA Research).
3.3. Menu development
The vegetarian menu was created solely using the
recipes with crops and bulk commodities. For the second
menu, dishes that were either prepared items or ISS
prepackaged entrées were considered. The variety of the
dishes, complementary taste profiles, nutritional compo-
sition of the food, and complexity of recipe preparation
affected how the dishes were selected and assigned to
menu cycle days. Breakfasts, lunches, dinners, and snack-
eating occasions were accounted for in the menu design.
Nutritional adequacy was confirmed by adding the nutri-
tional profiles of all dishes for each menu cycle day.
Recipe data were used to determine the mass of food
required to support menu production. Where a beverage
557
was not specified with a particular eating occasion on the
menu, drinking water was assumed. Additional sugar-free
powdered drink mixes can be provided without signifi-
cant impact on nutrition or shipping mass.
3.4. Sensory evaluation
Each new recipe on the menus was prepared in the
Space Food Systems Laboratory, Houston, Texas, accord-
ing to recipe directions. In the interest of research time
and labor availability, researchers did not mill wheat from
wheat berries, produce soymilk or tofu from soybeans, or
cook tomato sauce from tomatoes each time a recipe
called for these ingredients. After initial determination of
yields for production of these ingredients, grocery sub-
stitutes in the purest form (no salt, no sugar, no pre-
servatives, etc.) were used in the recipes. Also, the
varieties of crop plants that would be grown on Mars
have not yet been decided, so researchers chose crop
varieties readily available in local markets.
Each prepared dish was evaluated by an informal sen-
sory panel of Space Foods System Laboratory (SFSL) person-
nel. Using in-house panelists eased the coordination
between recipe preparation and sensory evaluation, parti-
cularly when preparation times were ambiguous, and
ensured evaluator pool consistency over the 40 weeks that
evaluations occurred. Based on personnel availability, each
panel was composed of 10–20 evaluators. The panelist pool
was 80% female and ranged in age from 21 to 55 years –
demographics driven solely by the staff composition of the
lab. Panelists rated the food on a 9-point hedonic scale from
‘‘1 – Dislike Extremely’’ to ‘‘9 – Like Extremely’’ in the areas
of appearance, odor, color, texture, flavor, and overall
acceptability. No more than three foods were rated at any
individual tasting session. Cold food was served chilled;
warm food was served within 5–10 min after cooking. An
overall acceptability greater than 6.0, equivalent to the
respondent liking the dish slightly, was selected as the
acceptability standard to remain consistent with current
space food acceptability guidelines.
Not all menu dishes were prepared in the latest
experimental period. The acceptability of the prepackaged
ISS menu items were determined from historical sensory
ratings of the flight food items–crew member ratings
from 2004 to 2010. Sensory ratings of some menu items
that were previously included in NASA Advanced Life
Support studies had been meticulously recorded when
the studies were active; those menu items were not
prepared or retested by the sensory panel. Instead the
existing data were appended to the newly gathered sensory
data.
3.5. Mass determination
The amount of food that must be shipped to the deep-
space habitat and the amount of produce that must be
grown on a space farm depend on the food system chosen.
The masses of the foods were summed according to the
amount of each ingredient required to produce each
recipe, the frequency of the recipe in the menu cycle,
and, as necessary, the amount of raw produce required to
558 M.R. Cooper et al. / Acta Astronautica 81 (2012) 555–562

produce the ingredient. For these calculations, it was
further assumed that the bulk commodities would consist
of peanut oil, peanuts, wheat flour, rice, and the legumes.
The potatoes and the other salad crops would be grown at
the space habitat. Additional water for cooking or ice is
not included in the stated masses, and the masses do not
include packaging materials.
4. Results
4.1. The menus
4.1.1. The vegetarian menu
The vegetarian menu, using bioregenerative crops
and bulk commodities, consisted of 100 dishes across 10
days and four eating occasions. Table 3 shows the final
product – the vegetarian menu for long-duration habitat
missions.
4.1.2. The addition of prepackaged Foods
When shelf-stable, prepackaged foods were considered
for the menu design, 13 ISS foods were incorporated. The
subsequent menu, though still heavily vegetarian for
breakfasts and lunches, more closely resembles the cur-
rent ISS dinner menu – a meal design of meat entrée,
accompanying side dishes, and dessert. One prepackaged
product, Tuna in Pouches, was leveraged to enable the
creation of Tuna Noodle Casserole. Yet, the limited num-
ber of products with a shelf life of 5 years limited the
inclusion of prepackaged foods. In Table 4, the menu for
long-duration habitat missions, which includes bioregen-
erative crops, bulk commodities, and prepackaged foods,

Table 3
Vegetarian menu using crops and commodities.

Vegetarian menu

Breakfast Lunch Dinner Snack

Day 1 Scrambled Eggs Whole
Wheat Tortillas Tomato
Salsa Chocolate Soy Milk
Day 2 Scrambled Eggs Whole
Wheat Bread Hash Browns
Strawberry Jam Carrot Juice
Vanilla Soy Milk
Day 3 Scrambled Tofu Vegetarian
Sausage Carrot Bagels
Strawberry Jam Chocolate
Soy Milk
Day 4 Tofu Bakon Strawberry
Muffin Sweet Potato Mini
Muffins Raggedy Rice
Patties Soy Mocha Beverage
Day 5 Scrambled Eggs Soy Wheat
Crepes with Strawberries
Chocolate Rice Milk
Day 6 Tofu Bakon Sweet Potato
Pancake Peanut Butter
Maple Topping Vanilla Soy
Milk
Day 7 Tofu Bakon Scrambled Eggs
Cinnamon Sunrise Bread
Baked Potatoes Chocolate
Rice Milk
Day 8 Scrambled Eggs Vegetarian
Sausage Carrot Hash
Browns Soy Mocha
Beverage
Day 9 Scrambled Tofu Pancakes
Peanut Butter Maple
Topping Vanilla Soy Milk
Day 10 Scrambled Eggs Cinnamon
French Toast Maple Syrup
Rice Milk
Peanut Butter and Jam Sandwich
Sweet Potato Fries Rice Milk
Ultimate Lemon Cake
Spinach and Tomato Crouton
Salad Vegetable Chowder Herb
Biscuit Rice Pudding
Lentil and Spinach Soup TLT
Sandwiches Spicy Baked Chips
Fresh Tomato Juice with Basil
Spiced Caramel Coffee Cake
Wheat Pasta Vegetable Tomato
Sauce for Pasta Meatless
Meatballs Carrot Dill Bread
Vanilla Soy Milk Chocolate
Pudding
Crunchy Confetti Salad Lentil Loaf
Sandwich Garlic Mashed Potatoes
Sautéed Spinach with Garlic Soy
Vanilla Pudding
Black Bean Chili Herb Biscuit
Fresh Tomato Juice with Basil
Mocha Pudding Cake
Spinach and Tomato Crouton
Salad Calzone Pasta with
Bolognese Style Seitan Sauce
Carrot Juice Pinto Bean Pie
African Sweet Potato & Peanut
Soup Lasagna Lettuce Wedges
Silky Salad Dressing Rice Milk
Sloppy Joes Spicy Oven Fries
Fresh Tomato Juice with Basil
Rice Pudding
Thai Pizza Asian Coleslaw
Chocolate Ice Cream Caramel
Topping Carrot Juice
Spinach and Tomato Strawberry
Crouton Salad Lentil Stew Shortcake
Carrot Juice
Lettuce Wedges Sundried Strawberry Sorbet
Tomato and Basil Dressing
Sweet Potato and Black
Bean Burrito Spanish Rice
Tofu Mushroom Stroganoff Chocolate Peanut
Glazed Carrots and Peas Butter Milkshake
Carrot Dill Bread
Vichyssoise Lentil Loaf None
Roasted Potatoes Mustard
Carrots Spinach Bread Rice
Milk
Lettuce Wedges Silky Salad Chocolate Biscotti
Dressing Thin Crust Veggie
Pizza Tomato and Bakon
Pasta Rice Milk Chess Pie
Seitan Fajitas Sweet Potato Flourless PB Cookies
and Red Pepper Home
FriesWhole Wheat Tortillas
Pinto Bean Dip Carrot Juice
Cream of Potato and Sweet Potato Fries
Spinach Soup Meatless
Meatballs White Sauce with
Mushrooms Raggedy Rice
Patties Steamed Peas Bread
Pudding
White Bean Sweet Potato Gingerbread
and Pepper Ragout Cookies
Vegetarian Loaf with
Carrots and Gravy Spinach
Bread Vanilla Soy Milk
Lentil and Spinach Soup Chocolate Peanut
Wheat Pasta Arrabbiata Butter Milkshake
Pasta Sauce Thin Crust
Veggie Pizza Fresh Tomato
Juice with Basil PB
Chocolate Tofu Pudding
Hearty Noodle Soup Seitan Mock Chicken Salad
Stir Fry Brown Rice Vanilla Whole Wheat
Soy Milk Tortillas
 M.R. Cooper et al. / Acta Astronautica 81 (2012) 555–562 559

Table 4
Menu of crops, commodities, and prepackaged foods.

Mixed menu

Breakfast Lunch Dinner Snack

Day 1 Scrambled Eggs Tofu Bakon
Pancakes Maple Syrup
Chocolate Soy Milk
Day 2 Veggie Egg Scramble Whole
Wheat Bread Hash Browns
Strawberry Jam Vanilla Soy Milk
Day 3 Vegetarian Sausage Carrot
Bagels Strawberry Jam Soy
Mocha Beverage
Day 4 Tofu Bakon Strawberry Muffin
Sweet Potato Mini Muffins Rice
w Sugar Soy Mocha Beverage
Day 5 Scrambled Eggs Soy Wheat
Crepes with Strawberries
Chocolate Rice Milk
Day 6 Vegetarian Sausage Scrambled
Eggs Cinnamon Sunrise Bread
Baked Potatoes Tomato Salsa
Chocolate Rice Milk
Day 7 Tofu Bakon Sweet Potato
Pancake Peanut Butter Maple
Topping Vanilla Soy Milk
Day 8 Scrambled Eggs Vegetarian
Sausage Whole Wheat Biscuits
Carrot Hash Browns Strawberry
Jam Soy Mocha Beverage
Day 9 Pancakes Sweet Potato and Red
Pepper Home Fries Peanut
Butter Maple ToppingVanilla
Soy Milk
Day 10 Scrambled Eggs Cinnamon
French Toast Maple Syrup Rice
Milk
Blueberry Raspberry Yogurt Peanut Spinach and Tomato Crouton Salad Flourless PB Cookies
Butter and Jam Sandwich Spicy Oven Beef Stew Herb Biscuit
Fries Ultimate Lemon Cake
Lettuce Wedges Sweet Potato and Grilled Pork Chop Scalloped Potatoes Strawberry Shortcake
Black Bean Burrito Spanish Rice and Carrots Glazed Carrots and Peas
Sundried Tomato and Basil Dressing
TLT Sandwiches Spicy Baked Chips Lentil and Spinach Soup Tuna Chocolate Peanut
Fresh Tomato Juice with Basil Casserole Carrot Dill Bread Rice Milk Butter Milkshake
Spiced Caramel Coffee Cake
Meatless Meatballs Wheat Pasta Vichyssoise Beef Steak Roasted Pinto Bean Pie
Vegetable Tomato Sauce for Pasta Potatoes Mustard Carrots Southern
Spinach Bread Chocolate Pudding Fried Cabbage
Crunchy Confetti Salad BBQ Beef Marinated Cherry Tomato Salad Chocolate Biscotti
Brisket Mashed Sweet Potatoes Whole Turkey Tetrazzini Sautéed Spinach
Wheat Tortillas Gingerbread Cookies with Garlic Whole Wheat Biscuits
Bread Pudding
Hearty Noodle Soup Mock Chicken Asian Coleslaw Thai Pizza Chicken w/ PB Chocolate Tofu
Salad Whole Wheat Tortillas Carrot Peanut Sauce Brown Rice Pudding Fresh
Juice Mocha Pudding Cake Strawberries
Black Bean Chili Celery Sticks Carrot Lettuce Wedges Silky Salad Dressing Chess Pie
Sticks Herb Biscuit Strawberry Sorbet Tomato and Bakon Pasta Thin Crust
Veggie Pizza Chocolate Rice Milk
Chicken Fajitas Beef Fajitas Black African Sweet Potato & Peanut Soup Rice Pudding
Beans Spanish Rice Whole Wheat Spinach Strawberry Salad Meatloaf
Tortillas Tofu Sour Cream Tomato Steamed Rice
Salsa
Spinach and Tomato Crouton Salad Cream of Potato and Spinach Soup Flourless PB Cookies
Wheat Pasta Arrabbiata Pasta Sauce Smoked Turkey Herb Stuffing with
Calzone Vegetable Juice Potatoes Glazed Carrots and Peas Snap
Beans Chocolate Ice Cream
Sloppy Joes Sweet Potato Fries Fiesta Chicken Garlic Mashed Potatoes Chocolate Peanut
Steamed Peas Spinach Bread Chocolate Butter Milkshake
Ice Cream Caramel Topping

Table 5
Macronutrient delivery of vegetarian menu for Mars habitat mission.

Vegetarian menu

Calories (kcal) Carbohydrates (g) Fat (g) Protein (g) Dietary fiber (g)
Recommended nutrient Dependent on individual 50–55% of energy 25  35% of energy r 35% of energy,2/3 10  14 g/1000 kcal
level from [28] energy requirement animal protein

Day one 3145.1 501.0 101.6 83.1 49.8

Day two 2808.7 461.6 75.2 82.8 57.9
Day three 2861.9 434.4 81.3 119.2 64.2
Day four 3078.1 559.6 65.3 88.3 59.6
Day five 2967.9 427.1 99.6 100.0 46.2
Day six 3303.4 490.1 109.3 129.5 70.3
Day seven 3363.0 542.0 78.7 137.3 60.1
Day eight 2752.2 406.5 88.0 100.9 59.4
Day nine 2884.7 443.5 77.6 118.5 67.7
Day ten 3060.7 371.1 132.0 102.8 32.1
Average 3022.6 463.7 90.9 106.2 56.7

is presented. The prepackaged foods, or dishes containing
prepackaged foods, are in bold, italicized type.
4.2. Nutritional profile of the menus
The macronutritional profile of the menus is presented
in Tables 5 and 6. Providing adequate energy intake was a
prime driver in the design of each menu; hence, the
menus are very close in caloric delivery, the first aver-
aging 3023 kcal and the second averaging 3043 kcal per
crew member per day.
On average, the percentage of daily energy supplied
by carbohydrates with the vegetarian menu is 61%,
much higher than the recommended contribution. The
560 M.R. Cooper et al. / Acta Astronautica 81 (2012) 555–562

Table 6
Macronutrient delivery of mixed menu for Mars habitat mission.

Mixed menu

Calories (kcal) Carbohydrates (g) Fat (g) Protein (g) Dietary fiber (g)
Recommended nutrient Dependent on individual 50  55% of energy 25  35% of energy r 35% of energy,2/3 10 14 g/1000 kcal
level from [28] energy requirement animal protein

Day one 3472.4 469.0 127.8 136.7 37.3

Day two 2731.1 395.8 82.4 111.6 48.8
Day three 2792.0 496.5 48.2 106.8 60.4
Day four 3031.7 508.1 76.7 98.6 42.8
Day five 2880.3 366.8 108.8 124.4 42.6
Day six 3138.0 411.5 125.7 97.5 41.6
Day seven 2928.6 444.5 96.0 83.2 42.6
Day eight 3207.9 449.8 100.5 137.1 48.3
Day nine 3077.5 446.8 101.2 115.8 56.0
Day ten 3172.8 474.8 93.2 120.9 46.5
Average 3043.2 446.4 96.0 113.3 46.7

Table 7
Total mass of crops and shipped food for Mars habitat mission.

Grown in situ Shipped foods

Crops (kg) Bulk commodities Prepared
& minors (kg) foods (kg)

Minimum allowable acceptability Vegetarian 3839 2975 0

Mixed 2975 2465 807

support a significant difference between the sensory

acceptability of the mixed menu and the sensory accept-
ability of the vegetarian menu.

4.4. The mass of the food

Fig. 1. Overall acceptability ratings of proposed menu items for Mars
habitat.
percentage of daily energy supplied carbohydrates with
the mixed menu is 59% due to slightly higher fat and
protein grams. Both menus exceed the fiber recommen-
dations as well – by 32% and 7% for the vegetarian and the
mixed menu, respectively.
4.3. Menu acceptability
Most of the new food dishes were organoleptically
liked by the panelists. The average overall acceptability of
foods was 7.4 on a 9-point hedonic scale. A scatter plot of
the overall sensory acceptability scores, grouped by dish
type, is provided in Fig. 1. No significant distinction
between categories is noted in overall acceptability rat-
ings. Similar variation is also noted in flavor, texture, and
appearance ratings.
The acceptability ratings of the menus, including new
and historical sensory data, were also compiled for
analysis. The overall acceptability of food items on the
vegetarian menu (mean ¼7.34, SD¼0.70) and the overall
acceptability of food items on the mixed menu
(mean ¼7.38, SD¼0.77) were compared using Student’s
t-test (t(2 9 1) ¼ 0.388, p¼0.67). Hence, the data do not
The quantity of food required under each system to
provide the menu to six crew members for a 600-day
habitat mission is shown in Table 7.
Because the number of prepared foods in the mixed
menu was limited, the food mass amounts were not
dramatically different between the vegetarian menu and
the mixed menu. The upmass, or the amount that is
shipped from the Earth, only increases by 297 kg with
the addition of prepackaged entrées to the menu. A larger
decrease of 864 kg of required crops occurs with the shift
to the mixed menu, which has implications to the power
usage and crew time utilization within the greenhouse.
5. Discussion
Though the recipe development was extensive, higher
average overall acceptability ratings are possible for both
menus. Some of the recipes factored into this menu
evaluation were an iterative development effort, resulting
in a higher quality dish. Three maple extracts were tested
until the extract that resulted in a believable maple syrup
product was identified. One product, the Chocolate
Mousse, was replaced on the menu by Chocolate Peanut
Butter Pudding because of an inability to maintain a
smooth mousse texture using the available ingredients.
In some cases, such as the Thai Pizza, Meatless Meatballs,
 M.R. Cooper et al. / Acta Astronautica 81 (2012) 555–562
and Gravy, the first recipes did not result in acceptable
sensory evaluations, so the products were reformulated
until better sensory results were achieved. Time con-
straints limited the optimization of other recipes; how-
ever, similar improvements in other products were
deemed feasible. For instance, the Vegetarian Sausage
received the lowest overall acceptability rating; heavy
turmeric drove color and flavor issues, and texturally the
product was not dense enough to fit a sausage-patty
concept. A seasoning reformulation and the addition of a
binder in the base would likely achieve a better product.
Further menu examination should follow as the mis-
sion plan is finalized. Once final determination of plants
to be grown is achieved, for example, some work will be
required to reconcile the chosen varieties with the vari-
eties that were sensory tested in recipes listed here, to
ensure that the acceptability and yield of the final recipes
are not affected. Full utilization of the soya food streams
should also be realized to ensure minimal waste of the
edible food mass produced.
Even if the recipes were not fully optimized, these
menus still present the first detailed look at potential long
duration space diets with adequate calories. From a
nutritional standpoint, the energy delivery of the menus
(3022–3043 kcal) is consistent with published expecta-
tions of the metabolic requirements for long-duration
missions. The BVAD assumes an intravehicular (no extra-
vehicular activity) metabolic requirement of 12.99 MJ per
crew member per day, or 3103 kcal per crew member per
day based on an 82 kg male crew member [24]. Previous
menu-development efforts assumed an intravehicular
metabolic requirement of 11.82 MJ per crew member
per day, or 2823 kcal per crew member per day [26].
Yet, other macronutrient targets were not as easy to
achieve through the menus. Food systems that depend on
the bioregenerative crops and bulk ingredients are
skewed to a higher load of carbohydrates than is recom-
mended, primarily because of the lack of meat in food
sourcing. Hence, the carbohydrate levels of both menus
are defined as supra-optimal. Although no evidence
shows carbohydrate toxicity, excess carbohydrate intake
is of concern if protein and fat are displaced from the diet
for significant periods [27]. The bioregenerative crops and
bulk ingredients also raise the dietary fiber contents of
the menus. The added fiber is not expected to have any
toxicity effect as it is not stored by the body, but it could
have an impact on human waste recycling assumptions.
The last notable macronutrient deviation is the makeup of
the protein contribution. Two-thirds of the protein cannot
be supplied as animal protein through a primarily vege-
tarian menu, even with the supplemental meats in the
second menu. This requirement will have to be revised to
include vegetable protein with amino acid supplementa-
tion as an acceptable avenue of protein intake if bior-
egenerative food systems are to be implemented.
Finally, the total mass of food in these menus is near
previous published food masses that were estimated for
space missions. The current assumption for the required
shipped food mass per crew member (CM)-day for intra-
vehicular missions is 1.83 kg  CM  1 d  1, or 6588 kg for
six crew members for 600 days [24]. However, this food
561
mass included the freeze-dried food common to the ISS
space food system along with the food packaging and
stowage containers. In the vegetarian menu here, a total
food mass of 6814 kg – no packaging or stowage contain-
ers – was required. Likewise, the mixed menu required
6247 kg of total food mass. Since the masses associated
with the two developed menus are based on a largely
hydrated food supply and do not include packaging, the
extent to which the food provisions have been increased
over previously published values is unclear. Of vital
importance is the dramatic decrease in the amount of
stowed food required for the food system if crops are used
for large proportions of the menu. The amounts of
shipped food for the vegetarian menu and mixed menu
are a 55% and 50% decrease, respectively, from the food
mass associated with the completely prepared and
shipped menu [24].
Further comparison of the menus with respect to crew
time required for meal preparation and farming, power
requirements, and equipment mass is needed to distin-
guish the menus. Additionally, the option of growing the
bulk commodities at the Martian site rather than shipping
them from Earth must be considered for upmass savings.
6. Conclusions
This menu development effort demonstrated that
nutritionally adequate and organoleptically acceptable
space food menus could be constructed using the pro-
posed crops and bulk commodities for space habitat
systems, with or without existing space food entrées.
Caloric needs were achievable within each system, but
the recommended distribution among carbohydrates,
proteins, and fats was difficult to attain with the
habitat-prepared menus because all dishes were vegetar-
ian. The mass of food that must be shipped in support of a
long duration space mission food system can be substan-
tially reduced with the incorporation of in situ crop
production.
Acknowledgments
This research was made possible with the tremendous
support of various teams and individuals. We thank the
NASA Human Research Program, the Space Human Fac-
tors and Habitability Element, and the Advanced Food
Technology Project for support of this task. Additionally,
we thank the entire Space Foods Systems Laboratory and
interns Joseph Jones and Jennifer Griffin for their assis-
tance in creating and evaluating the recipes in this study.
References
[1] S.J. Hoffman, D.I. Kaplan (Eds.), Human Exploration of Mars: The
Reference Mission of the NASA Mars Exploration Study Team, NASA
Special Publication 6107, NASA Center for AeroSpace Information,
Linthicum Heights, Maryland, 1997.
[2] B.J. Rolls, Experimental analyses of the effects of variety in a meal
on human feeding, Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 42 (1985) 932–939.
[3] C. de Graaf, F.M. Kramer, H. Meiselman, L. Lesher, C. Baker-Fulco,
E. Hirsch, J. Warber, Food acceptability in field studies with US
562 M.R. Cooper et al. / Acta Astronautica 81 (2012) 555–562
army men and women: relationship with food intake and food
choice after repeated exposures, Appetite 44 (2005) 25–31.
[4] C.T. Bourland, The development of food systems for space, Trends
Food Sci. Tech. 4 (1993) 271–276.
[5] P.M. Catauro, M. Perchonok, Assessment of the long-term stability
of retort pouch foods to support extended duration spaceflight,
J. Food Sci. 77 (2012) S29–S39.
[6] M. Cooper, G. Douglas, M. Perchonok, Developing the NASA food
system for long-duration missions, J. Food Sci. 76 (2011) R40–R48.
[7] S.R. Zwart, V.L. Kloeris, M.H. Perchonok, L. Braby, S.M. Smith,
Assessment of nutrient stability in foods from the space food
system after long-duration spaceflight on the ISS, J. Food Sci. 74
(2009) H209–H217.
[8] C.S. Allen, R. Burnett, J. Charles, F. Cucinotta, R. Fullerton,
J.R. Goodman, A.D. Griffith Sr., J.J. Kosmo, M. Perchonok,
J. Railsback, S. Rajulu, D. Stilwell, G. Thomas, T. Tri, J. Joshi,
R. Wheeler, M. Rudisill, J. Wilson, A. Mueller, A. Simmons, Guide-
lines and Capabilities for Designing Human Missions, NASA Tech-
nical Memorandum (TM–2003-210785), National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, Washington, DC, 2003 January.
[9] S.J. French, G.L. Cramp, Metric evaluation of food packaging scenar-
ios intended for a Mars surface mission, SAE Technical Paper (2006-
01-2067), 2006.
[10] D.J. Barta, D.L. Henninger, Regenerative life support systems – Why
do we need them? Adv. Space Res. 14 (1994). (11)403–(11)410.
[11] R.M. Wheeler, Plants for human life support in space: from Myers
to Mars, Gravit. Space Biol. 23 (2) (2010) 25–35.
[12] R.M. Wheeler, C.L. Mackowiak, J.C. Sager, W.M. Knott, W.L. Berry,
Proximate composition of CELSS crops grown in NASA’s Biomass
Production Chamber, Adv. Space Res. 18 (4/5) (1996) 43–47.
[13] B.G. Bugbee, F.B. Salisbury, Controlled environment crop produc-
tion – hydroponic vs. lunar regolith, in: D.W. Ming, D.L. Henninger
(Eds.), Lunar Base Agriculture: Soils for Plant Growth, American
Society of Agronomy, Madison, WI, 1989, pp. 107–129.
[14] J. Gale, D.T. Smernoff, B.A. Macler, R.D. MacElroy, Carbon balance
and productivity of Lemna gibba, a candidate plant for CELSS, Adv.
Space Res. 9 (8) (1989) 43–52.
[15] F.B. Salisbury, M.A.Z. Clark, Suggestions for crops grown in con-
trolled ecological life-support systems, based on attractive vege-
tarian diets, Adv. Space Res. 18 (4/5) (1996) 33–39.
[16] V. Kloeris, Y. Vodovotz, L. Bye, C.Q. Stiller, E. Lane, Design and
implementation of a vegetarian food system for a closed chamber
test, Life Support Biosph. Sci. 5 (1998) 231–242.
[17] K.A. Ruminsky, D.L. Hentges, Development of a 10-day cycle
menu for advanced life support, Life Support Biosph. Sci. 7 (2000)
193–201.
[18] T. Masuda, T. Ogasawara, E. Harashima, Y. Tako, K. Nitta, Evaluation
and implementation of an Advanced Life Support (ALS) menu for
Closed Ecology Experiment Facilities (CEEF), Eco-Engineering 17 (1)
(2005) 55–60.
[19] R.M. Wheeler, J.C. Sager, R.P. Prince, W.M. Knott, C.L. Mackowiak,
G.W. Stutte, N.C. Yorio, L.M. Ruffe, B.V. Peterson, G.D. Goins, C.R. Hinkle,
W.L. Berry, Crop Production for Advanced Life Support Systems –
Observations from the Kennedy Space Center Breadboard Project,
NASA Technical Memorandum (TM–2003-211184), National Aeronau-
tics and Space Administration, Washington, DC, February 2003.
[20] Y. Vodovotz, C.T. Bourland, C.L. Rappole, Advanced life support food
development: a new challenge, SAE Technical Paper (972363),
1997, http://dx.doi.org/10.4271/972363.
[21] F.B. Salisbury, J.I. Girdson, G.M. Lisonky, Bios-3: Siberian experi-
ments in bioregenerative life support, BioScience 47 (9) (1997)
575–585.
[22] A.J. Hanford (Ed.), Lockheed Martin Space Operations, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, Lyndon B. Johnson Space
Center, Houston, Texas, 2004. August.
[23] S.J. French, M.H. Perchonok, Evaluation of a 10-Day Menu Using a
Bulk Commodity Supply Scenario (JSC-63366), Habitability and
Environmental Factors Division, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas,
February 2006.
[24] B.E. Duffield (Ed.), Systems Integration – Modeling and Analysis
Element, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Lyndon B.
Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas, 2008. October.
[25] D.V. Zasypkin, T-C. Lee, Food processing on a space station:
feasibility and opportunities, Life Support Biosph. Sci 6 (1999)
39–52.
[26] Environmental Control and Life Support System Architectural
Control Document, Revision D (SSP-30262), Space Station Freedom
Office, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Reston,
Virginia, July 1991.
[27] S.M. Smith, S.R. Zwart, V. Kloeris, M. Heer, Nutritional Biochemistry
of Space Flight, Nova Science Publishers, New York, 2009.