LVII International Astronautical Congress, Valencia (Spain), October 2-6, 2006

IAC-06-B4.4.05

A MULTI-PURPOSE ASTRONAUT SHOWER FOR LONG-DURATION

MICROGRAVITY MISSIONS
Marco C Bernasconi1, Meindert Versteeg2
MCB Consultants, CH-8953 Dietikon, Switzerland
Roland Zenger3
HTS AG, Wallisellen, Switzerland

Abstract -- An initial study for An Advanced Kind Of Shower (AKOS) has attempted to describe both
need and advantages, as well as a concept, for an astronaut's shower. Relying on past studies, on flight
experiences, and on the ensuing critiques, and building on an interdisciplinary approach, this study
defined a modular piece of equipment that -- using parts inspired by commercially-available products --
that for the first time could satisfy different functions for the hygiene, well-being, and health support of
the crew members.

1. Introduction requirements and the outline of a development

A definite need exists for a bathing facility in
space (“whole-body cleansing”), especially on
long-duration missions and especially in
association with heavy exercising regimes.
Specific research sponsored by NASA in the early
1970s determined that showering in orbit
represented a technically viable solution,
amenable to a low water consumption, and
effective for controlling microbiological organism
on the human skin. However, NASA did not
include a permanent showering facility in Skylab
-- for advocated cost reasons. The astronauts had
the choice between putting up with a long
routine for making ready a deployable shower
(Belew & Stuhlinger, 1973), drying it up, and
stowing it again – or making doing with wet
towels. Not surprisingly, more than half of them
choose the path of least resistance (Compton &
Benson, 1983). They got stuck with towels not
only for the (relatively) short Shuttle flights, but
also for the Space Station – notwithstanding the
human engineering specialists' continued
affirmation of the significance of appropriate
facilities for the crew's motivation and well-
being.
As part of the initial studies for ESA's “Space
Haven” inflatable habitat, our team had to define
a crew shower, including the formulation of its
plan identifying any technology drivers for early
demonstrators -- on ground or in flight.
We began by reviewing past development
work in the US (the early 1970s and the late 1980s
efforts), as well as a number of sporadic studies.
Results of human factors studies, particularly as
part of isolation living facilities (Connors,
Harrison & Akins, 1985), supplemented the data
base for assessing need, opportunity, and
technological requirements for an appropriate
“whole-body cleansing” facility.
2. Previous Work
2.1 General: Isolation Studies
Connors, Harrison & Akins (1985) raised the
question of the (historically) limited bathing
facilities and of their difficult use in relation with
issue of exercising in space, underlining that
“The success of any serious exercise program in
space will require that shower equivalents be
available on demand and easy to use. This means
an adequate water recycling system.”
In more general terms, Connors, Harrison &
Akins (1985) also pointed out that “under
conditions of isolation and confinement,
relatively minor luxuries and conveniences [such

1
Proprietor; IAA Member, Section 4; mcb@ieee.org.
2
Architecture consultant.
3
Project manager; HTS AG now is RUAG Aerospace Wallisellen.

1
 Marco C Bernasconi, Meindert Versteeg & Roland Zenger

as a prolonged shower or the use of a private Helppie, 1987) of space showers for astronaut
room] may assume high value.” Also Bluth and crew under microgravity conditions.
Helppie (1987) reaffirmed the importance of
showers in helping maintain psychological
comfort and for easing tension, remarking that 2.2.1 Skylab
“In evaluating living conditions in an
The Skylab shower (Figures 1 and 2) remains
experimental chamber, out of 19 irritating factors
the best-known concept for such a device. As
of life in a small restricted space the cosmonauts
mentioned in the preceding Section, it was
rated the absence of water for washing as one of
included at the insistence of the program
the four most irritating factors.
management to serve at least for a first evaluation
Connors, Harrison & Akins (1985) reviewed of such a bathing possibility. In this sense, it
requirements for long-duration missions and clearly showed the very limited suitability of a
noted – concerning the present issue: “Related to “set-up and tear-down” arrangement.
the question of exercising in space is the problem
Skylab's zero-gravity shower compartment
of limited bathing facilities and the difficulties
(from e.g. Belew, 1977) was collapsible, consisting
astronauts have experienced in using them. Even
of a cylindrical cloth enclosure that was folded
on Skylab with its more advanced hygienic
flat when not in use, located in the experiment
arrangements, astronauts experienced difficulty
in rinsing wash rags, collecting water after and work area of the workshop.
showers, etc. The success of any serious exercise
program in space will require that shower
equivalents be available on demand and easy to
use. This means an adequate water recycling
system.”
In summarizing more recent habitability
experiments on ground, Mount (2002) collected a
number of assessments that one must qualify as
surprising – not in that the crew formulated
them, but that it was possible to enter an
experiment with a facility of such clear sub-
standard design. With respect to the shower
facility, following point were raised:
• the shower water temperature was Figure 1: The Skylab “shower compartment” unfolded
unacceptable, being often too hot initially by technicians for inspection: the cylindrical cloth
and slow to readjust to an adequate level; enclosure was folded flat when not in use. The bottom
ring (not shown) contained foot restraints; a flexible
• this resulted in wasting a lot of the hose with a hand held shower head were contained in
restricted water allocation (6 lb – 2.7 l); the upper ring. (MSFC photograph 7028737).
• the amount of water was not an issue
WHEN the shower temperature was good.
The resulting recommendation included (i) to
reduce the hot-water-tank temperature to a level
below scalding or near scalding, or (ii) redesign
how the water is delivered. The second option
seems clearly preferable, since it does separate
the shower usability from water storage issues.
Further, it was found that:
• the shower head was too short, forcing the
user to stand right up against the stall wall
• the water pressure was low.

Figure 2: Technicians during a checkout of the

2.2 Flight Experience Metabolic Analyzer (background, center) and of the
Ergometer (foreground). The shower compartment is
We reviewed actual flight experiences (on the disk on the floor, at right. (MSFC photo 7030134).
Skylab and on the Soviet space stations -- Bluth &

2
 LVII International Astronautical Congress, Valencia (Spain), October 2-6, 2006
The bottom ring of the shower was fastened to
the floor and contained foot restraints. The upper
ring contained the shower head and flexible hose.
To use the shower, an astronaut filled a
pressurized portable bottle with heated water
and attached the bottle to the ceiling. The
astronaut then pulled the cylindrical shower wall
into position and bathed, using liquid soap. Both
soap and water were carefully rationed, having
been pre-measured for economical use. Rayon
terrycloth towels and washcloths -- stitched with
an identifying color coded for the individual
crewman -- served both for personal hygiene and
for general cleaning purposes.
Belew & Stuhlinger (1973) had further
described the process as follows. “A body shower
will be taken by each crewman about once a
week, the limit being set by the water storage
capacity on Skylab (six pints [about 3 l] per
shower). [...] Showers will be taken inside a
cylindrical compartment. The floating water
droplets will be driven into a water collection
system by air flow. Towels and tissues will be
supplied as well as antiseptic cleaning agents.”
The first to test the shower in flight was
astronaut Paul Weitz, on the Skylab 2 mission,
who reported that "it took a fair amount longer to
use than you might expect, but you come out
smelling good." But, as related later by Compton
& Benson (1983), “Wet washcloths were the
principal means of bathing, since a shower
required about an hour. The first crew showered
once a week and seemed not to mind vacuuming
up the excess water. Later crewmen settled for a
daily scrubbing with washcloths.”
Noteworthy seems also the observation that
“The bathroom's size precluded more than one
occupant at a time a limitation which posed some
scheduling difficulties in the first hour. Paul
Weitz eased the problem by shaving at night;
Carr and Pogue of the third crew [Skylab 4]
eventually quit shaving altogether. Bean's team
[Skylab 3] found sufficient time by extending
their preparations into the breakfast hour”
(Compton & Benson, 1983).
Disher (1985) resumed the Skylab experience
thus: “The portable spray shower... was favorably
regarded. However, because of the time required
to set it up and clean up after use, it was not used
universally. A more convenient shower would
have been much appreciated...”
Any issues related to the water droplets' and
films' behaviour in microgravity seem to have
been reported in a rather anecdotal manner.
3
2.2.2 Soviet Space Stations
On the Soviet side, Salyut 3 apparently
included a shower among its equipment. Later,
on the first Salyut 6 long flight, the crew
members noted that the water clung to the walls
of the shower cubicle. They had to use towels to
mop it up. Water also accumulated on the skin
and formed a layer that was hard to remove.
Popov and Ryumin (185-Day Mission) were the
first to try a specially designed toweling fabric for
after shower drying. It fully absorbed the beads
of water on their bodies and the shower cubicle
walls.
According to Bluth & Helppie (1987), Salyut 7
included an improved shower, but the general
situation did not change in any major way. “June
12 was bath day on Salyut 7, the day the Elbrus
crew was permitted its first monthly shower.
Showering was a complicated process — so much
so that the showers, which were expected to be
completed by noon, lasted until after 6 p.m. [...]
In between showers, cosmonauts wipe
themselves with hygroscopic towels that have
been wetted with hot water.” (Bluth & Helppie,
1987). They describe the Salyut shower (Figure 3)
as follows:
“On the ceiling of the station is a light disk
placed horizontally. On it are white spherical
vessels, each containing five liters of water.
Cosmonauts switch on the electrical heating
system and then lower the polyethylene cylinder
from the disk to the floor. The shower booth is an
elastic cylinder with two end caps that contain
devices for mixing and spraying hot and cold
water, supplying hot air, and removing the
expended mixture of gas and liquid. The booth
has a waterproof zipper seal. Atomizers from
above feed directed water into the stall. Warm air
is pumped through the stall. carried into a
collector. As a result, the water is carried into a
collector.
“Fastened at the bottom of the shower are
rubber slippers to keep the cosmonaut from
floating upward. Above the cosmonaut's head
are cellophane bags containing napkins and a
towel. The cosmonaut will put a pipe that leads
outside the chamber into his mouth and put a
clip (like a snorkel) on his nose before turning on
the water. Then he opens a package that contains
a soap-filled cloth and switches on the water.
Water comes out in a fine needle-like spray. The
water air aerosol passes through holes in the floor
and into the waste container.
 Marco C Bernasconi, Meindert Versteeg & Roland Zenger
“Afterwards, the cosmonaut rubs himself and
the cabin walls dry. When all the cosmonauts are
finished, the shower is then raised up accordion
fashion to the ceiling. Showers are about 15
minutes long.”
Figure 3: Arrangement of the shower within the
Salyut’s aft compartment; an image of the facility
“during testing.”
Further, they note that Ryumin -- in reporting
that with Lyakhov they had decided to postpone
their shower – complained: “When you begin to
think of all the preparatory operations you have
to do, and then how many post-shower
operations you have to perform, the desire to take
a shower diminishes. You have to heat the water,
in batches, no less. You have to get the shower
chamber, set up the water collectors, attach the
vacuum cleaner... it takes nearly the entire day
just for that shower” (Bluth & Helppie, 1987). No
wonder, then, that Lyakhov observed: "It would
be a good thing to have... a shower on [a separate
module]... a special shower which is always
assembled and ready for use" (Bluth & Helppie,
1987).
4
Such advice was eventually followed for the
Mir station, where the shower was included in
the Kvant 2 module. The shower cabinet is build
on a metal compartment through which warm air
circulates.
Water is supplied through a sprayer. A “gas-
liquid separator” siphons used shower water to a
regenerator, which processes the water for reuse
(the latter is part of the dehumidifier system
which recycles water from the air).
Eventually, the Mir shower was demolished to
make place for a “gyrodyne” CMG, as the
original station's equipment was failing. During
the previous two years, it had been used mostly
as a dry sauna cabinet.
2.3 Development Activities
2.3.1 Early NASA Space Station
Apart from the just-mentioned developments,
the subject of the on-board shower for orbital
vehicles has apparently received only sporadic
attention. Early in the 1970s, NASA awarded a
number of contracts to Martin Marietta (Denver,
Colorado) to study space showers, in preparation
for long-duration missions. Rosener & colleagues
(1971) assessed a number of aspects related to the
habitability of zero-g showers. They defined and
designed a shower (Figure 4), verifying a number
of parameters by zero-gravity testing with the
KC-135 aircraft. Their main conclusions included
the following points:
• “A whole-body shower in a zero-gravity
environment is feasible. ... there are no
major technological problems preventing
the provision for a whole-body shower in
a space environment”
• “Water removal from the body... solely by
means of high velocity air is not
practicable”
• “The optimum shower stall configuration
is a right cylinder... tapered to a smaller
diameter at the bottom. Inside walls
should be as free from obstructions, joints,
and intersecting walls as possible, to
facilitate moving the water along the walls
to the outlet duct.”
• “The amount of water required for a
complete shower is small, averaging about
[2 l]... The optimum water temperature is
in a [5°C] range centering around [40.5°C].
 LVII International Astronautical Congress, Valencia (Spain), October 2-6, 2006

within the established criteria and

substantiate earlier research.”
• “Personal comfort parameters can be
adequately controlled to insure that the
showering environment achieves crew
acceptance.”

Figure 4: Air-drag zero-gravity shower concept (from

Rosener & al, 1971)

Figure 5: The Martin Marietta shower assembly (from

Schumacher & Lenda, 1974)

Planning for the (Post-Apollo) space station,

NASA continued to support the development
work at Martin Marietta, and Schumacher &
Lenda (1974) actually reported about the “design,
fabrication & acceptance testing of a zero gravity
whole body shower” (Figures 5 & 6), listing
among others following conclusions:
• “The zero-gravity whole body shower has
demonstrated the ability to provide a safe,
comfortable environment in which a
crewman can cleanse his entire body.” Figure 6: Inside of the Martin Marietta shower stall:
upwards and downwards looks (from Schumacher &
• “The water, power and time required to Lenda, 1974).
perform the showering operations are well

5
 Marco C Bernasconi, Meindert Versteeg & Roland Zenger

2.3.2 ISS Habitation Module

With the exception of some follow-on technical
work, there seems to have rested the
development for about ten years. The Space
Station program brought activities on water
recovery systems, in which the shower waste
water received explicit mention. In 1985, Johnson
Space Center initiated a program for the
development of a Whole Body Shower (WBS) for
the Space Station Freedom (SSF). This work
researched crew interfacing aspects, looking at
design parameters related to stall configuration,
displays and controls, consumable quantities,
operation time-lines and showering/ cleaning
protocols. Biomedical investigations covered also
the identification and control of micro-organisms
introduced by human usage, as well as study of
potential effects of biofilm forming within the
shower facility.

Figure 8: Parabolic-flight test of the WBS stall: drying

oneself at the end of a shower and (bottom) cleaning
the stall (from Mohanty and co-workers, 1997)

As part of the experimental activities, a

Figure 7: Parabolic-flight test of the WBS stall: spraying
the body and (bottom) preparing a towel for washing
(from Mohanty and co-workers, 1997)
prototype of the shower stall flew on NASA's
KC-135 for microgravity testing on usability of
the layout: Figures 7 and 8 (from Mohanty & al,
1997), show test persons going through various
showering actions: wetting themselves with the
shower head spray, applying soap to washing
towels, drying themselves, and cleaning the stall
after ending the shower. Fourteen “test subjects”
in total (7 males and 7 females) participated in
the WBS (ground) evaluations: they allowed the
investigators to evaluate the man-machine
interactions, and to gather information on the
users' preferences and personal responses, which
“proved very beneficial in meeting the overall
program goals.”
This ought to have eventually led to a Full
Body Cleansing Compartment (FBCC -- Figure 9)
for the Station's Habitation Module -- originally
defined as providing six-person habitation
facilities, including personal hygiene (waste

6
 LVII International Astronautical Congress, Valencia (Spain), October 2-6, 2006
management, full body shower), as well as crew
health care and galley facilities.
To date, the ISS does not possess such an item,
and the FBCC remains part of the still future
Habitation Module.
2.4 Studies
In a short article, Myer (1972) described two
showers designs. In one concept, the stall takes
the form of an assembly of two truncated cones,
joined at their larger diameter. The user washes
inside a “miniature cyclone” created by water
injected tangentially by many nozzles, located at
mid-height, and aimed peripherally upwards or
downwards into the two conical volumes.
Similarly, for drying nozzles inject a tangential
air stream that would entrain the droplets against
and along the walls, for extraction by centrifugal
separation at appropriate scoop ports.
Figure 9: The Space Station’s Habitation Module’s
toilet and shower accommodation (NASA picture).
The second concepts relies on a flexible
enclosure in the form of a mummy bag. Washing
and drying proceed “mechanically” by:
• injection of detergent solutions to fill a
sponge shell interfacing with the user
• washing, by action of the liquid's pressure
and of peristaltic motions of a pressurized
expulsion bladder
• injection of rinsing water & rinsing, in a
similar way
• drying, by forcing out the water through
pressurization of the expulsion bladder.
A similar process would serve to sterilize the
bag, using suitable chemical solutions. Although
7
one has to note that already Myer (1972)
mentioned the mummy bag shower as a “backup
system” for “extremely cramped quarters”, the
concept flies against the human engineering and
psychological rationale for a shower and
appropriate hygienic facilities.
A student participating in a NASA-supported
design activities once remarked that items related
to the support of the crew's wellbeing look like
last-minute add-ons to the Space Station layout.
In any case, NASA seems to relegate discussion
of issues like showering mainly to its K-12 offices
– with older students providing the greatest
amount of technical concepts.
In 2001, a group of students of the Technical
University Darmstadt started an investigation of
the need, and of the technical options, for a space
shower (Rösch, Kirchner, Vetter, Schweizer, &
Banse, 2004). To support development of a zero-g
shower, in which water drops would nonetheless
move from the top to the bottom of the stall, they
studied the physics of droplets in an electric field,
including two parabolic flight campaigns under
ESA sponsorship. They found that rather strong
fields would be necessary to properly accelerate
the water drops.
Most recently, a team of ISU students has
discussed a concept for a Whole Body Cleansing
System using a shower (Rogers, Aprea & Bittner,
2005). Addressing some of the critiques by
Mohanty and colleagues (1997), they emphasize
the flow control through vacuuming, the
temperature adjustment of the stall air and, in
particular the use of water-repellent coatings
(“Lotus Effect” superhydrophobic surfaces) to
minimize cleaning work. These concepts all
concur with those advocated by the present study
(see Section 4.2 below).
2.5 Statement of Need
In assessing the need for an astronaut shower
facility both a hygienic-medical and a more
personal level deserve consideration. Compton &
Benson (1983) report that JSC’s medical experts
were satisfied that sponge baths would suffice to
keep down serious dermatological problems
during the Skylab flights (lasting up to 76 days).
However, both Dr GE Mueller and WC Schneider
insisted to include “a lightweight, low-cost
'whole-body bather' ... which would permit the
concept to be evaluated.”
Accordingly:
 Marco C Bernasconi, Meindert Versteeg & Roland Zenger
• while medical reasons alone may not
mandate adequate bathing facilities on
shorter missions, including them represent
– at the very least -- good operating
practice;
• as one attempts to impose heavy
exercising routines on astronauts engaged
in long mission, good bathing facilities
become mandatory; and
• it appears imperative – for both practical
and ethical reasons – to accommodate
such facilities with sufficient ease of use,
sufficient associated free volume, and
sufficient privacy, just as projects must
allocate increasing fractions of habitat
space for habitation purposes to reduce
the crew's sense of confinement.
3. Critique
3.1 Assessment
While various authors have drawn up a long
list of drawbacks from past experiences with
space showering facilities, one can summarize the
basic complaint thus (Table 1 gives a point by
point listing):
• the stall clean-up work was quite time
consuming – occupying the astronaut for
20-30 min typically
• water and stall temperature control
seemed poor; this can be extended to
heating towels (both wet and dry)
The major concerns addressed:
• the need to dry, clean, disinfect the stall
• best ways for the astronauts to dry
themselves
• the poor, monotonous, or questionable
quality of the detergents (soap, shampoo,
but also wet towels)
• safety aspects related to inhalation of
water mist, droplets, or blobs.
On the other hand, it emerges that the
experiences drawn from Skylab and from the
Soviet stations are in part simply not comparable,
especially as they come to the interaction with the
habitat’s atmosphere. Mohanty & colleagues
(1997) mention that Skylab’s was quite dry, while
Mir’s ran RH levels above 80%. Obviously, both a
crew’s perceptions and the facilities needs change
quite radically when boundary conditions vary
that much.
8
Mohanty and co-workers (1997) do not
provide a critique of the 1980s Space Station WBS
concept, and base their further assessment mainly
on the analyses of the issues with the Skylab and
the Soviet stations shower concepts.
3.2 Reevaluation
Analysis of the critiques against the shower
concept came to support a conclusion that any
development effort must focus on usability,
rather than on technological and operational
aspects -- whose feasibility past missions had
largely demonstrated (Disher, 1985). Measures
suggested to directly address existing criticism
are highlighted in Table 1 below.
Accordingly, we formulated requirements and
a first-cut outline for a facility named AKOS – An
Advanced Kind Of Shower – that ought to
provide a good, safe, and salutary experience to
its users (without burdening them with excessive
maintenance chores). Through our involvement
with the assessment of the crew health
equipment, as well as the research for space
shower experiences, we came to observed that
AKOS could fulfill some additional functions,
like sauna, steam bath, cold exposure treatment
and, possibly, decontamination shower.
A rapid review of current industrial
capabilities to supply the consumer market with
compact and capable devices for different
functions, revealed a wide range of products that
can both inspire and actually support
development of a compact and economic item.
4. The AKOS Concept
4.1 Requirements Summary
As mission designers attempt to define a
continuum for a spectral dimension: “work –
exercising – health maintenance – medical
measures,” they clearly need to give increased
attention to the “work – washing – relaxation –
body care – health support – therapy” dimension.
We defined AKOS as the Space Haven habitat's
shower accordingly, and with following aims:
• to provide a good, safe, and salutary
experience to users, while burdening them
with a minimal load of core maintenance,
e.g. through
 LVII International Astronautical Congress, Valencia (Spain), October 2-6, 2006

☑ permanent shower stall positions, ☑ sauna

accessible at all times (including ☑ steam bath
contingencies)
☑ decontamination shower
☑ a design reducing as much as possible
direct crew involvement in tender ☑ cold exposure treatment
activities (water fetching/ heating, stall ☑ to allow frequent usage (typically
drying/ cleaning, etc) daily showering, also depending on
• to fulfill a primary function as shower: the crew size; Hanford (2004) indicates
2.7 kg/d of shower water per crew
☑ whole-body cleansing member).
☑ hair washing Issues like quality and supply of detergents,
☑ personal grooming towels, body care products (including herein
• to serve a number of further uses items for treating skin, hair, hands, nails, etc) do
(relaxation, treatment, and contingency), not fall directly within the purview of this task,
including: they nonetheless shall have to be addressed as
part of future developments in this area.

Table 1: Criticism of space shower facilities and responses as design guidelines.

Issue Skylab Soviet Stations Other designs Comments & Measures
SL design was intentionally limited; no
Water temperature Long wait, poor control Long wait, technology issue. Use appropriate
interfaces & integrated heater
s.a. Provide appropriate allocation &
Water quantity No control ?
information display.
?? no great differences from ground. Ease
45 min “from start to
Shower time need 20 min some constraints through hygiene
finish” – too long
compartment design.
Unclear: toweling's major issue is humidity
Vacuum too long? /
Drying options Toweling only burden to cabin's air. Make both options
toweling
available.
Design issue. Use self-cleaning wall
Clean-up time 30 min – too long 20 min – too long Too long
finishes, etc.
inadequate for Design issue. Provide sufficient suction
Vacuuming power Not available
drying margin.
Design issue of drying process; poor stall
Difficult water
temperature control; procedural aspect. S.a.;
Clean-up conditions astronaut gets cold removal, dirt
offer good temperature control in hygiene
accumulation
compartment & stall.
too much water Breathing hose – not Better flow control; breathing mask may
Floating water safety
floating around used serve contingency purposes.
Too concentrated, stick
Detergents quality Acceptable? Clearly, an area for more work!
& stinks on skin
Stall temperature Cold on touch Facility design issue. S.a.
?? A general, obvious recommendation:
Cabin conditions Dry, no sweat (high humidity)
operate cabin at low RH (50%).
Blower failure (water
Reliability water leakage
contamination?)
No medical need for Not needed for up Relative validity;and longer durations need
Need assessment --
76 d to 90 d consideration

4.2 Initial Shower Concept surface in connection with a slender spine

The AKOS concept centers on an integrated
shower stall (Figure 10), providing a minimum
internal diameter of 0.82 m and a internal height
of 2.05 m -- measured between the inner surfaces
of base and roof modules -- joined to a “standard
IHAB rack” (2.049 x 0.762 x 0.482 m) housing the
technical equipment. A semi-flexible, transparent
member (housing harnesses) forms the side wall.
The transparent element -- being the one
sustaining more interaction with user and water
-- may need period replacement for both hygienic
and practical reasons.
Water would come from a spray shower head,
with flexible hose for hand use, but adaptable to

9
 Marco C Bernasconi, Meindert Versteeg & Roland Zenger

a mounting position from which the spray cone • lower limit: 37°C
could cover most of the stall's volume. A suction • upper limit 43°C
head, also with flexible hose and connected with
the vacuuming part of the flow circuit, would • most desirable 40.5°C
help to remove water from specific spots. Various
hand- and foot-holds serve as locomotion aids for
entry into, and egress from the stall, further as
restraints to help the user in positioning the
body.
The water preparation circuit, interfacing with
the habitat's freshwater distribution system
regulates the pressure (with the help of a local
booster pump) and the temperature of the water,
controlling it around the user-requested value, in
the range of 35-40°C (Figure 11).

4.2.1 Water Preparation Circuit

The water preparation circuit (hosted in part in
the roof module) conditions and distributes the
water according to the needs of the user and for
the cleaning of the stall after the shower, and
includes:
• a direct interface to the operative
environment's freshwater system
• local pressure booster and regulator
• water heater (and vapour generator) and
temperature controller
• plumbing and valves
In preparation for a future space station
prototype (SSP), Rosener & colleagues (1971) and
Schumacher & Lenda (1974) studied several
parameters for zero-g shower habitability. On
that basis, they selected a nozzle creating a 25°
full-cone spray pattern, operated at 239-kPa (20
psi) pressure for water conservation reasons
(resulting in a flow rate of 0.022 l/s). Similarly,
the lowest water consumption resulted using a
hand-held shower head in combination with a
flexible hose and an on/off water valve.
A manifold arrangement – with a series of
fixed nozzle spraying the body from multiple
directions simultaneously seems wasteful for
washing purposes, and also more complex in
implementation than the flexible hose-nozzle
case. Use of a fixed nozzle location requires a
continuous repositioning of the body to wet skin,
and also leads to excessive water use.
Regarding the water temperature, Rosener &
colleagues (1971) reported on (1-g) tests done to
determine a range suitable for crew comfort (with
an assumed skin temperature of 34°C):
Figure 10: Basic configuration of the AKOS stall, with
outfitting showing a riser bar with different holding
points for the hand-held spray nozzle, suction head,
controls, lighting, stowage spaces.
A fixed shower facility can connect directly to
the habitat's potable water distribution system.
Preparation of the warm water at the desired
temperature can occur directly within the shower
– as in commercial elements labelled “electric
showers.” They draw water directly from a cold
supply and heat it as it is used: this minimizes
energy losses for storage, transport, and for any
unused water. Under such assumption, the
capability to adjust temperatures up to 40°C
(with a main interval for washing between for 35-
40°C) appears well compatible with the
capabilities of commercial equipments.
All these elements (including pumps if needed
to locally boost insufficient water lead pressure)
are marketed today for ground usage. The
integrated device shown in Figure 12 has a rating
power of 9 kW at 230 V: to bridge a 20°C water
temperature gap at the above mentioned flow
rate, however, some 2 kW would suffice, with
less than 3 kW required against a 30°C
temperature difference; as the acceptable cold-
water head pressure ranges between 0.8-100 kPa,

10
 LVII International Astronautical Congress, Valencia (Spain), October 2-6, 2006
this device does not fit on normal mains, for
which dedicated boost pumps are otherwise
available.
Figure 11: The AKOS crew shower basic block diagram
Figure 12: Commercial integrated showers provide
both pressure boost and temperature control.
4.2.2 Air Management Complex
An air management circuit -- partly located
within the roof and base modules and
encompassing the whole shower stall enclosure --
regulates the flow rate and the temperature of the
air moving through the shower stall enclosure,
using a heater and a number of blowing fans. Air
would be drawn directly from the operative
11
environment atmosphere -- with the stall's CO2
concentration controlled through an amount of
fresh air bled continuously into the circuit -- and
eventually returned into that atmosphere after
having been conditioned well within its
prescribed parameters in terms of temperature
and relative humidity.
Air temperature deserves consideration, also
for two specific reasons. As air circulation
ensures the removal of water, one needs to
control its temperature to avoid chill effects. Also
– given the small size of the enclosure, the
astronaut will come in contact with the side wall:
Skylab crew members reported the the side wall
felt cool. This sensation may be reduced by “pre-
heating” them via the air circulation mechanism.
This need is born out by the observation that
the comfort temperature for air (for the same
flow velocity) decreases as the relative humidity
increases; e.g., it would grow from some 32°C for
a person with dry skin (at about 50% RH) to 40°
C after the skin was wetted (and the RH increase
to 70%); alternatively, one could probably
compromise by running the entrainment air at
36-37°C – obviously in dependence of the air
velocity.
Energy conservation requires ducting the
heated air, after removal of the entrained water
and filtering, back into the stall; to avoid an
excessive of the carbon dioxide concentration, a
fraction of the circulated air is bled into the cabin
and replaced with a fresh air quantity (Figure 11).
Addition of provision for a breathing mask seems
advisable: although its usage under normal
condition does not appear mandatory, some crew
members may wish to adopt it. Moreover, when
the facility operates in contingency modes, the
ability to supply breathing air directly to the
patient appears necessary.
4.2.3 Water Collection
The used water is collected by air flowing
inside the shower stall: water drops can be
entrained with the flow, sucked-in by vacuuming
effects, or evaporated into dry air. According to
Rosener & colleagues (1971), for air to move
effectively typical shower droplets, a velocity of
0.3 m/s (about 1.1 km/h) represents a lower limit:
to help remove water along the surfaces, speeds
around 10 m/s were used. Accordingly, a
combination of methods will lead to the
collection of the shower water:
 Marco C Bernasconi, Meindert Versteeg & Roland Zenger
• a fraction of the injected water will
evaporate and circulate with the air; it will
be condensed out and collected in the air
dryer/ conditioner stage;
• water drops entrained in the air current
will be extracted and collected in the
liquid/ gas separator that:
☑ interfaces with the stall enclosure and
the vacuuming line
☑ regulates returned air's temperature
and humidity
☑ filters and returns air back to the
operative environment atmosphere
☑ interfaces with the habitat's grey water
circuit and cooling loop
• drops adhering to the stall's wall will be
removed by vacuuming during the drying
procedure (the water-repellent, self-
cleaning wall definition should served to
reduce this fraction).
The present concept uses a number of fans to
blow the air into the enclosure and to generate
the vacuuming suction. Depending on the design
analysis, they could be traded against a central
blower.
4.2.4 Stall
By analogy with past designs, a circular cross
section recommends itself. While tapered shapes
– reducing the section's area towards the base –
do support the air flow velocity in that part of the
volume, it seems that a simpler cylindrical shape
may suffice; replacements for cylindrical side
walls will probably be more compact in stowage,
too. A short assessment of advantages and
drawbacks of different design options for the
stall's access door point to the single sliding door
as the one most advantageous; more design work
is needed, however, to ensure a waterproof cabin,
easy to clean.
The integrated shower stall serves as primary
structure for this part of the facility (base module,
roof module, a semi-flexible side wall (with a
limited life time), and a “spine” member housing
harnesses.
Under an assumed cylindrical shape, internal
dimensions of the stall are a 0.82-m diameter and
a height of 2.05 m. Transparent walls of a suitable
polymer resin are recommended, as they reduce
illumination problems, and as obviously personal
privacy must extend over a wider volume than
just the stall. On the other hand, should the
12
shower facility come to use for contingency
reason or for therapeutic purposes, transparent
walls allow a direct observation of the patient by
helpers outside the enclosure. The current design
assumes a clear polycarbonate wall with a sliding
door, but many other design options remain
feasible, depending also on crew requests.
As Figure 10 illustrates, quite a few
equipments find place inside the stall. One hand-
held spray nozzle and a vacuuming suction head,
with flexible hoses, use the connection bar as riser
with discrete positioning points to hold them; a
mounting position allowing the shower spray
cone to cover most of the stall's volume. The
suction head connects with the vacuuming part
of the flow circuit, and serves for localized water
removal. Additionally, a breathing mask supplies
fresh air to the stall’s occupant -- to be used if so
desired or for particular contingency cases.
The end modules carry the air inlets and
outlets, hand/ foot restraints, and sensors, but
also potentially sources of light, steam heads,
loudspeakers, etc.
Figure 13: Details of door guidance
The most important function of the door
guidance (Figure 13) is, apart from a comfortable
handling, to provide a complete sealing of the
unit in order to prevent excessive release of water
into the Space Haven environment. We set an
initial leakage limit by analogy with the amount
of water release associated with the opening of
the stall and the egress of the showering person.
For an air mass of about 2 kg, with a
corresponding water content of 50 g (5 cl), the
upper limit for water leakage was set to 50 g as
well.
 LVII International Astronautical Congress, Valencia (Spain), October 2-6, 2006
Figure 14: Details of the end modules.
4.2.5 Holding Spaces
Volumes and dispensers located inside the
stall hold different consumables, covering at
least:
• body detergents
• washing towels
• small implements (comb, scissors, ...)
• stall cleaning and disinfection media
4.2.6 Restraints and Handholds
A set of hand- and foot-holds act as
locomotion aids for entry into, and egress from,
the stall, as well as restraints to help the user in
positioning the body.
Foot restraint straps on the base module of the
shower stall have been used generally (Figure
14), and they seem not to have been commented
negatively upon. For the single sliding door
solution, two pair of handholds (one each on the
base and on the roof module) may suffice for
aiding entrance into, and exit from the stall.
Because of the small stall’s size, each pair can
consist of an element outside and one inside the
enclosure, thus also supporting maintenance
functions. Further items and their positioning
will result from development testing, assessed
under consideration of human engineering
factors, and in cooperation with crew
representatives.
13
4.2.7 Control Panels
The control system of the AKOS facility would
interface with the users via an internal and an
external panel, while also collecting and
transmitting technical parameters to the habitat's
monitoring system. The internal panel is used
during the shower to control
• the primary user functions (water on/off;
water jet force; water temperature; water
allocation indicator),
• selection different mode options (sauna,
steam, etc -- see below),
• additional items, like lighting or sound
A suggested innovative approach would
combine a hand or foot restraint with a selector
panel, as sketched in the concepts for rotating
foot restraint (Figure 15).
The external panel initiates and controls
cleaning/ vacuuming switches, maintenance,
drying, disinfection, test processes (e.g.
adjustment and checkout of water pressure, air
temperature and velocity, etc), as well as for
contingency modes.
Figure 15: 12: Foot restraint/ control panel concept
4.2.8 Drying and Cleaning
A cleaning and drying cycle shall follow every
usage of the AKOS facility: to ensure an hassle-
free operation, it should ideally not require any
crew involvement except for actuation,
supervision, and checking of the conditions upon
conclusion of said cycle. Design, materials,
finishes, and installed capabilities (e.g. secondary
water flows, heated air flow) shall support self-
cleaning and passive drying of the AKOS stall,
e.g. by eliminating water accumulation or
retention. The selection of detergents for these
operations shall result from an appropriate
development and demonstration activity.
Use of smooth-surface side walls, possibly
with the addition of non-wetting and self-
cleaning surface coatings, should reduce both
time and energy usage for this cycle.
 Marco C Bernasconi, Meindert Versteeg & Roland Zenger
Vacuuming residual water pockets seems
more efficient than mopping them up, so the
facility has to include a vacuuming device (as
present already on Skylab).
Cleaning cycles will also be run after a
prolonged lack of use of the facility, after a
contingency usage, or upon demand by a crew
member.
4.2.9 Disinfection
The shower shall provide levels of visible and
microbiological cleanliness well-suited to the use
by crew members totally exposed to it.
The hot (60°C) air “disinfection” cycle of the
Salyut/ Mir shower seems questionably far from
any “sterilization” potential. As AKOS would
include a steam generator, one could suggest
using steam for disinfection purposes. We did
not baseline this approach for several reasons:
• general safety issues: to act for disinfection
purposes, steam ought to be applied with
significant temperature and pressure,
values that seem to be go beyond accepted
bounds. (For the same reason, the sauna
temperature remains at the 60°C level
used by the Soviets)
• practical issues, with respect to the steam
generator: for bathing functions, this
would need capabilities in terms of
temperature, flow rate, and pressure in a
low range, that may not make suitable for
disinfection usage (e.g. some commercial
steam generators rely on the hot water line
to supply a steaming environment with
temperature in the 60°C to 70°C range)
• practical handling issues: to apply steam
topically, one needs an appropriate hose
with a connection near the generator,
again introducing safety considerations
(connection, hose insulation, etc.), but also
issues related to the access space, etc.
• finally, we felt that this AKOS exercise
should not somehow predetermine the
selection of the disinfection method (e.g.
water peroxide, modern disinfectant or
steam), which ought to result from
development activities conducted in
harmony with the needs of other, related
habitat elements.
The use of steam for cleaning and disinfection
purposes does hold a clear attraction. However,
the generator for the steam bath seems
14
underpowered (in term of temperature and
pressure) for the purpose. Any such use ought
accordingly to receive attention in an integrated
approach to the disinfection processes.
The generally advocated use of hydrogen
peroxide (of sufficient concentration) appears as a
sensible approach – especially within a “wet”
facility designed to control water – as it relies on
a basic chemical biocide. Automatic insertion of
peroxide, as well as reverse flow of sump
volume, and other measures (including UV
irradiation) deserve careful investigation at the
design stage.
Storage and supply of hydrogen peroxide for
the long-term, long-duration, no-resupply
missions does not seem to have been addressed
yet. As for the cosmetics, the disinfection issue
seems to have lacked attention, and a look at
current practices may well be necessary.
Design, materials, finishes, and installed
capabilities (e.g. disinfectant dispensers) shall
support automatic disinfection of the AKOS stall,
minimizing any needed direct crew intervention;
disinfection will be implemented after a
predefined number of utilization cycles,
following a contingency usage, or after
microbiological sampling determines a risk of
contamination. To this end, the AKOS surfaces
are be included in the microbiological analysis
measured planned for the habitat.
4.3 Multiple Functions
The Mir shower was reportedly used as a dry
sauna for two years. The commercial bath
industry offers a wide range of steam baths
products, as self-contained devices, or as add-on
components to, e.g. showers installations. The
review of medical issues for the Space Haven
missions identified a need for a sauna-like device,
to help fight astronauts’ cold exposure. Other
authors have suggested consideration be given to
having something like a decontamination shower
capability. All these fact suggest researching the
possibility to incorporated all these of functions
in a single device.
4.3.1 Dry Sauna
As the Mir example showed, realizing a dry
sauna requires only the ability to run a heated air
flow separately from the washing function. Thus,
it calls for few additional components, focusing
on:
 LVII International Astronautical Congress, Valencia (Spain), October 2-6, 2006
• extending the air heater's capability
• adding a water-vapour generator
• extending controls & interfaces
If appropriately dimensioned, the same air
heater can serve all functions, as most probably
the facility would run with a lower air-circulation
speed than in the shower mode, when the air
must entrain the water drops. Even with a flow
rate of 0.175 kg/s, the needed heating power in
continuous operation amounts to roughly 7 kW
times the air bleeding fraction – i.e. probably well
below 1 kW. Smallest ratings for domestic
sauna's heaters begin at 2.5-3 kW.
The baseline AKOS provides for a crew sauna
(specific values shall be adjusted on the basis of
cultural inputs) with:
• the air heaters control temperature within
the stall up to 60°C
• a steam generator injects water vapor to
adjust humidity along a defined profile
• temperate water is available on user's
demand
4.3.2 Steam Bath
A steam bath is the wet version of a sauna, i.e.
this mode definitely requires a vapour generator.
Steam showers, apparently use one of two basic
options: the atomizer and the vapour generator.
The first approach generates a water vapour
through a number of atomizer heads that
subdivide hot water (at least 60°C) into an ultra
fine steam mist (with droplets smaller than 50 µm
in diameter) that transform themselves into
vapour within the cabin. This process creates an
enclosure temperature around 40°C, with a
swirling, not scalding steam current. A
commercial element based on this approach
advertises a hot-water consumption of only 0.016
l/s – i.e. lower than the value indicated above for
the shower proper. While this method does not
use any power within the atomizing device, its
obvious drawback comes from the associated
need to upgrade the shower heater, to enable it to
exceed the 60°C output level – roughly doubling
the power requirement.
The more common alternative relies on water
generators that only require power and access to
the cold-water main. Mainstream steam
generators use between 3.5 – 10 kW, but the very
small volume of the AKOS stall – and its
lightweight wall design – lets the smallest device
seem sufficient to the task (0.483 x 0.375 x 0.172
m, or 31.2 l).
15
4.3.3 Therapeutic Uses
A facility capable to operate with controlled
temperature and humidity levels (and equipped
with a breathing mask) can serve different
therapeutic purposes, beginning with the
treatment of cold exposure, but also extending to:
• hyperthermia (asserted to stimulate the
cardiovascular system as well as immune
system)
• stress relaxation,
• reduction of muscular fatigue after a
workout
• treatment of respiratory conditions by
steam inhalation.
Building on the steam bath, with or without
the ability to release therapeutic or relaxation
essences (whose use still requires assessment
through appropriate development activities), the
therapeutic mode require but few additional
components. It calls for a modified sequencer,
controlled from the external panel by the on-
board surgeon or by her representative.
4.3.4 Decontamination Shower
A decontamination shower function -- against
the case of a crew member suffering of external
exposure to toxic substances -- impacts both the
air filtering and the water disposal capabilities.
For safety reasons, this function needs special,
separate enabling from a protected switch in the
control panel external to the stall. Main design
measures include:
• a separate container for retaining the used
water, with diversion control valves
• an external-panel’s dedicated override
• appropriate control software extensions.
4.4 Technologies
4.4.1 Motion Study
As part of research independent from the
Space Haven work, one of the author (MEV) has
studied the spatial envelope in a shower: while
undertaken under Earth gravity, it can help to
define environment under zero-gravity. In the
accompanying figures, blue marks visualize the
position of shoulders, elbows and hands, while
the green marks point to the position of hips,
knees and feet.Figure 16i and ii illustrate the case
of a central, overhead hand restraint. Positioning
the body is possible by using either hand and by
using one or both foot restraints. In the
 Marco C Bernasconi, Meindert Versteeg & Roland Zenger
experiment, such a central location of the body
restraint element was found inconvenient. It
seems quite difficult to find a stable body
position using the overhead restraint: “It gives a
feeling of painting the ceiling above your head.”
Frames iii-vi in Figure 16 show the possibilities
with hand restraints placed laterally and
symmetrically within the stall roof. This layout
helps to control the flow of the body.
Figure 17 shows motions of the different
actions while taking a shower. A horizontal
movement of the torso is shown in Frame i.
Figure 17 ii and iii document motions of the arms
reaching the back of the body, using the whole
width of the stall. Point A (Figure 17 ii) marks a
vertical hand restraint allowing to control the
motion of the body. This restraint can be the one
from the sliding door or an extra support point
within the shower stall. The use of lateral hand
restraints eases the control of the body's
movements and allows a better use of the
dimensions of the shower stall (Figure 17 iv).
The hand restraint on the control panel makes for
an easier use of the panel and, for instance, to
take soap from its holder (Figure 17 v, point B).
4.4.2 Terrestrial Heritage
Study and adaptation of industrial technology
(e.g. “electric shower” concept, water-pressure
Figure 16: Central and symmetrical hand restraint within the shower stall.
Figure 17:Simple movements and their relation to spatial envelope.
16
boost pumps) to the space and microgravity
usage appears to hold good promise of economic
returns. Also, assessment of current products for
body cleaning and cure, as well as for facility
cleaning, maintenance and disinfection is highly
recommended.
4.5 Development Approach
One can argue that the physical technology for
the different components (water heating and
distribution, air flow control, vortex separator for
the liquid/ gaseous phases, etc) has long existed
(see Schumacher & Lenda, 1974). Thus, an initial
development plan for AKOS could build upon
those experiences -- as well as upon the huge
technology store within the relevant industry. On
the other hand, it appears that the specific issues
for a proper space habitat's shower relate to the
definition of a design that truly enables a high
degree of habitability, in particular with respect
to the most critiqued points, i.e. drying and
cleaning of the facility. Study and adaptation of
terrestrial technologies (e.g. “electric shower”
concept, water-pressure boost pumps) to the
space and microgravity usage appears to hold
good promise of economic returns.
 LVII International Astronautical Congress, Valencia (Spain), October 2-6, 2006
5. Design Aspects
5.1 Transport
For launch and transfer, the AKOS stall is
stowed in a compacted form, consisting of the
(rolled) side walls, the (joined) base and roof
modules. Technical equipment, including all
plumbing elements needed to interface with the
operative environment utility lines and with the
stall, is located within a support rack.
5.2 Installed Configuration
At the station, AKOS is installed within the
operative environment’s hygienic compartment
(TBD), and connected through them to the fresh
and waste water circuits, to the power lines, and
to the data net (as needed).
Air is drawn from the operative environment’s
atmosphere, and returned to it filtered, and with
temperature and relative humidity values
restored to within the nominal range.
The operative environment provides resources
(e.g., water, power) to the support rack. Harness
inside the stall's “spine” may pass power and
data from the roof to the base module.
The base module passes the exhausted water/
air mixture to the technical equipment inside the
support rack: warm air recovered after the
liquid/air separator is fed back to the stall
circulation, as long as this operates; a small
addition of fresh cabin air controls the CO2
concentration therein. The dumped warm air
(after appropriate filtering and temperature/
humidity conditioning) is returned directly into
the cabin's atmosphere.
6. Conclusions
In summary, this initial AKOS study has
attempted to describe both need and advantages,
as well as a concept, for an astronaut's shower.
Relying on past studies, on flight experiences,
and on the ensuing critiques, and building on an
interdisciplinary approach, this study defined a
modular piece of equipment that -- using parts
inspired by commercially-available products --
that for the first time could satisfy different
functions for the hygiene, well-being, and health
support of the crew members.
We have summarized the needs for, the
development history of, and the experience with
17
astronaut “whole-body bathing” facilities; we
have traced a basic concept for such a facility
within IHAB, and derived elements of
preliminary functional and technical
specifications therefor. Finally, we have
identified an outline of a development plan,
deducing from it a set of justified demonstration
activities to support the development effort.
The integration of the shower facility within
the habitation spaces, and in particular with
• other hygienic facilities
• the individual astronaut's private space,
• health support equipment and location
ought to receive special attention. This
includes consideration of common or extended
use between the hygienic end and more medical
purposes.
Acknowledgements - The work reported herein
was supported in part by the ESA contract 18257,
"Inflatable Habitat Conceptual Design Study," with
Scott Hovland as the Agency Technical Officer. Research
work performed by MEV was done as an IR&D study.
Your comments, suggestions, and queries on this
theme are welcome at: prudence@bathome.org
Picture credits – NASA (1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9); Martin
Marietta (4, 5, 6); Elite (12); Authors (10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16,
17).
7. References
Leland F Belew (Editor) (1977). Skylab, Our First
Space Station. NASA SP-400.
Leland F Belew & Ernst Stuhlinger (1973). Skylab: A
Guidebook. NASA EP-107.
MC Bernasconi, M Versteeg, & R Zenger (2005).
System Concept Options for Space Haven Equipment.
Report IHAB-HTS-TNO-0002, Issue 3.
M.C. Bernasconi (1988). Inflatable, Space-Rigidized
Antenna Reflectors: Flight Experiment Definition.
Paper IAF- 88- 049 presented at the 39th International
Astronautical Congress, Bangalore (India), October 8-15.
BJ Bluth & Martha Helppie (1987). Soviet Space
Stations as Analogs. NASA CR-180920 Second Edition.
W David Compton & Charles D Benson (1983). Living
& Working in Space: A History of Skylab. NASA SP-
4208.
Mary M Connors, Albert A Harrison, & Faren R Akins
(1985). Living Aloft -- Human Requirements for
Extended Spaceflight. NASA SP-483.
 Marco C Bernasconi, Meindert Versteeg & Roland Zenger
John H Disher (1985). Skylab. Progress Astronautics &
Aeronautics 99, 11-38.
AJ Hanford (2004). Advanced Life Support Research
& Technology Development Metric -- Fiscal Year 2003.
NASA CR-2004-208939. (April)
Susmita Mohanty, Michael J Rycroft, Michael Barratt
(1997). Design Concepts for Zero-G Whole Body
Cleansing on ISS Alpha -- Part II: Individual Design
Project. NASA CR-2001-208931.
Frances E Mount (2002). Habitability: An Evaluation /
Chapter 3.2 in: Helen W Lane, Richard L Sauer, &
Daniel L Feeback, Editors (2002). Isolation: NASA
Experiments in Closed-Environment Living --
Advanced Human Life Support Enclosed System /
Final Report. AAS STS-104.
Jon H Myer (1972). Two Zero-g Showers. Astronautics
& Aeronautics 10[06], 68-69.
Damian Rogers, Julio Aprea, & Tobias Bittner (2005).
Experimental Design Concept for a Microgravity
Whole Body Cleansing System -- An ESA Student
18
Parabolic Flight Campaign Experiment. International
Space University, Personal Assignment - Masters
Program.
M Rösch, M Kirchner, G Vetter, N Schweizer, C Banse
(2004). Do We Need a Spaceshower? (in German).
Paper presented at the DGRL Deutscher Luft- &
Raumfahrtkongress, Dresden (Germany), September
21.
Arthur A Rosener, Duane M Parker, Scott C Harris, &
alius (1971). Space Shower Habitability Technology.
Paper AIAA-71-873 presented to the AIAA/ ASMA
Weighlessness & Artificial Gravity Meeting, Williamsburg
(VA), August 9-11; also: JSR 9[07] (1972), 529-534.
EA Schumacher & JA Lenda (1974). Design,
Fabrication & Acceptance Testing of a Zero Gravity
Whole Body Shower. Paper ASME 74-ENAS-51
presented at the Intersociety Conference on Environmental
Systems, Seattle (WA), July 29-August 1.
PPH-05-052