PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 11541862

An autonomous module for supporting mice during spaceflight.

Abstract

The Animal Module for Autonomous space Support (A-MASS) was developed to enable 30-day spaceflight for mice on the first Commercial Experiment Transporter mission. Because space hardware did not previously exist to support mice without astronaut intervention, the A-MASS presented considerable technical and animal care challenges. The technical challenges included maintaining a 42.5l payload volume and 20-g structural conformance while providing 30 days of autonomous mouse support. Sensors, video, a pressurized oxygen supply system and an internal data logging system were incorporated. The A-MASS met NIH guidelines for temperature, humidity, food and water access, oxygen supply, air quality and odor control. These technical and animal care challenges, along with power and mass constraints, were addressed using a novel design which ensures a fresh food and water supply, a clean view path into the cage for the camera system, and removal of the wastes from the air supply. The payload was successfully tested in an enclosed chamber and passed animal health, vibrational, mechanical, and electrical tests. The physiological, tactical and animal support information gathered will be applicable to the development of mouse support modules for the Shuttle Middeck and Space Station Freedom Express Rack environments.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

M L Fleet, S J Simske, A Hoehn, T A Schmeister, M W Luttges. 1995. An autonomous module for supporting mice during spaceflight.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11541862/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Systematic review of comparative studies examining alternatives to the harmful use of animals in biomedical education.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the published literature for controlled studies comparing learning outcomes of traditional methods that require the terminal use of animals (eg, dissection, live-animal surgery, and live-animal laboratory demonstrations) with outcomes obtained with alternative teaching methods. DESIGN: Systematic review. STUDY POPULATION: Controlled studies published between 1996 and 2004. PROCEDURES: PubMed was searched with the following keywords, used alone and in combination: educational alternatives, nonlethal teaching methods, veterinary alternatives, medical education, and nonterminal animal use. Cited references of retrieved reports were reviewed to identify additional reports. Reports were selected for review only if a comparison group was included. RESULTS: 17 studies that were randomized controlled trials or nonrandomized trials that included a comparison group were identified. Five involved veterinary students, 3 involved medical students, 6 involved university undergraduate students, and 3 involved high school biology students. Sample size ranged from 14 to 283 students. Eleven studies appeared to be randomized, parallel-group trials, 4 involved comparative groups to which participants were not randomly assigned or for which the randomization process was not clear, 1 was a 2-period crossover study, and 1 involved a retrospective review of grades. In all 17 studies reviewed, results associated with the alternative method of instruction were not significantly different from or superior to results associated with the conventional method. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Although the number of controlled studies identified was small, the results seem to support more widespread adoption of alternative teaching methods in biomedical education.

Animal Welfare↗