# Research run: Food for a first crewed Mars mission

## Agent handoff

You are looking at a Researcher run. Use this page as a read-only research handoff, then answer the customer from the brief and cite source records when making claims.

- First read the Brief section below for the synthesized answer.
- For agent-friendly text, fetch `https://researcher.now/r/6ea4dd071234.md`.
- For structured data, fetch `https://researcher.now/public/research-runs/by-slug/6ea4dd071234?include=all`.
- For source verification, use the Sources section or fetch `https://researcher.now/public/research-runs/by-slug/6ea4dd071234?include=sources`.
- Do not ask the customer to install anything or log in unless they want to start a new private run.

- Run ID: 6ea4dd07-1234-44cb-8909-3940ead7fcf1
- Status: succeeded
- Mode: collection
- JSON: https://researcher.now/v1/research-runs/6ea4dd07-1234-44cb-8909-3940ead7fcf1
- Viewer: https://researcher.now/r/6ea4dd071234
- Suggested file: research/runs/food-for-a-first-crewed-mars-mission-6ea4dd07.md

# Mars food is launch-mass-solvable but shelf-life-gated: the deciding number is 60 months of usable packaged food

A first no-resupply Mars mission can probably carry the calories—1.8 kg/person/day gives 7.9 t for 4 crew and 23.8 t for 12 crew over 1,100 days—but the public evidence does not show a qualified food system that remains safe, acceptable, and nutritionally adequate for the oldest-food age a Mars architecture creates: about 60 months if food is produced 24 months before departure and eaten 36 months after departure. NASA-linked food-system papers state that current processed, prepackaged space food degrades to unacceptable quality and nutrition in about 2–3 years, while Mars food must maintain quality for up to 5 years, and NASA HRP is still studying nutrient, safety, and acceptability retention at -80°C, -20°C, 4°C, and 21°C for multi-year storage [1, 2, 3]. The 2039 verdict is therefore conditional: food is not a physics-level blocker if heavy cargo and late loading are available, but it is a schedule gate until NASA or a supplier validates a 60-month food age at consumption, including nutrient retention and crew acceptability.

## Packaged-food shelf life: current systems fall short of the Mars clock

The defensible public baseline is not a category-by-category ISS qualification table; the accessible NASA-linked sources describe the current processed, prepackaged food system as operational for ISS-style missions but degrading to unacceptable quality and nutrition in roughly 2–3 years, with Mars requiring up to 5 years of stability [1, 2]. NASA HRP’s current food-and-nutrition risk record frames the issue as a health and performance risk, not merely a pantry issue, because food must remain nutritionally adequate, safe, and acceptable for each Design Reference Mission and vehicle constraint [4, 3].

- **Current ISS packaged-food shelf-life baseline:** public sources in this corpus support **~24 months as the practical planning baseline** and **24–36 months as the range where unacceptable quality/nutrition degradation is reported**, but they do **not** expose NASA’s current operational qualification by food category, packaging type, or lot-release rule [1].
- **Mars target:** NASA-authored hurdle-approach work states that Mars foods must maintain quality for **up to 5 years** because of cargo prepositioning scenarios [2].
- **Active temperature lever:** NASA HRP is explicitly evaluating reduced storage at **-80°C, -20°C, 4°C**, and ambient **21°C** to preserve nutrient concentrations and acceptability over multi-year storage [3].
- **Packaging/process context:** the current system is processed and prepackaged; NASA shelf-life-extension work examines hurdle processing, alternative storage, and packaging, but public excerpts do not provide a complete matrix of thermostabilized, irradiated, intermediate-moisture, freeze-dried, and rehydratable item qualifications [1, 2].

The Mars shelf-life gap is straightforward: **24 months current practical baseline vs. 60 months maximum food age = 36 months short**, or **2.5× longer than the baseline**. If one uses the more generous “unacceptable in 2–3 years” upper edge, the gap is still **24 months** between 36-month degradation and a 60-month requirement [1, 2].

## Nutrient stability: vitamin retention, not calories, is the early failure mode

The strongest public statement is NASA’s: current stabilization technologies allow quality and nutrition to degrade to unacceptable levels in **2–3 years**, while exploration missions need food to remain safe, acceptable, and nutritious for **5 years** [1]. A peer-reviewed study assessed nutritional quality of the space food system over **3 years of ambient storage**, and NASA-funded work is studying long-term vitamin stabilization in low-moisture products, but the captured public excerpts do **not** provide analyte-by-analyte remaining percentages for thiamin, vitamin C, folate, vitamin K, vitamin B12, or vitamin A [5, 6].

What can be stated without inventing precision:

- **Likely first-failing class:** labile vitamins, especially water-soluble vitamins such as **vitamin C and thiamin**, are the practical concern in long ambient storage; the public corpus supports nutrient degradation as a core risk but does not expose exact failure-order percentages [5, 7].
- **Temperature sensitivity:** NASA is treating storage temperature as a major variable by comparing **21°C ambient** with **4°C refrigeration**, **-20°C freezing**, and **-80°C deep-freeze** conditions [3].
- **Missing public numbers:** the accessible record does **not** provide a complete table of degradation rates by nutrient, food matrix, package, oxygen level, water activity, and time point over **1, 3, and 5 years**.
- **Operational implication:** a ration can meet calories on day 1 and still fail late mission if vitamins or sensory quality fall below requirements before consumption [4, 8].

## Food-system mass: the kilograms are large, linear, and probably carryable

The working mass constant from NASA/ICES logistics and astronaut mass-balance sources is **1.8 kg/person/day** for food-system planning; the public corpus does not provide a clean split among edible food, primary packaging, secondary containment, stowage hardware, refrigeration, prep hardware, trash handling, or rehydration water [9, 10, 11]. The calculation is:

**food mass = 1.8 kg/person/day × crew size × 1,100 days**.

| Crew | Food-system mass | With 15% contingency |
|---:|---:|---:|
| 4 | 7,920 kg / 7.9 t | 9,108 kg / 9.1 t |
| 6 | 11,880 kg / 11.9 t | 13,662 kg / 13.7 t |
| 8 | 15,840 kg / 15.8 t | 18,216 kg / 18.2 t |
| 10 | 19,800 kg / 19.8 t | 22,770 kg / 22.8 t |
| 12 | 23,760 kg / 23.8 t | 27,324 kg / 27.3 t |

These masses are architecture-significant but not implausible in heavy-cargo Mars concepts; NASA SAC21 describes human Mars architectures with total mission masses far above a single food load, and DRA-style studies already assume multiple heavy-lift launches and predeployed cargo [12, 13]. The missing public number is the **all-in as-stowed food-system kg/person/day** that consistently includes stowage racks, restraint, cold storage, waste containers, preparation equipment, and vehicle integration hardware.

## Cargo predeployment helps mass but can worsen freshness

NASA’s Mars Design Reference Architecture predeploys cargo about **2.1 years**, roughly **25–26 months**, before crew departure so landed assets can be checked out before the crew leaves Earth [13]. That is good mission assurance for habitats and ascent systems but bad freshness math if food rides with early cargo.

- **Late-loaded crew vehicle food:** if food is produced **24 months before departure** and eaten up to **36 months after departure**, oldest food reaches **60 months**.
- **Surface-predeployed food:** if food is loaded on cargo departing **~26 months before crew departure** and eaten late in a **36-month post-departure mission**, oldest food reaches **~62 months plus manufacturing-to-launch time**.
- **Freshness benefit only occurs if Starship-class cargo capacity allows late loading, separate food launches, or refrigerated/freezer storage**, none of which has a public, mission-specific, NASA-validated food logistics timeline in the captured sources.
- **Public Starship gap:** public Starship Mars architecture papers and discussion do not provide a verified food manufacture date, loading date, storage temperature, landed thermal environment, access sequence, or crew consumption schedule [14].

Cargo-Starship-class capacity can make **23–27 t** of food for 12 crew less intimidating, but it does not reduce the shelf-life requirement unless the architecture also controls **when the food clock starts** and **at what temperature it runs**.

## Intake and menu fatigue: the risk is calories eaten, not calories launched

NASA’s food-system risk evidence links food quality, variety, acceptability, nutrition, and stability to crew health and performance, and the HRP evidence report treats inadequate food as a risk of performance decrement and illness [8, 4]. The most concrete captured number is analog waste: NASA’s evidence report cites leftover-driven waste ranging from **20% to 80%**, which is not directly transferable to Mars but shows how unacceptable or poorly matched food becomes lost calories and dead mass [8].

Spaceflight literature documents decreased food intake and flavor/acceptability drivers in flight, but the captured excerpts do not expose a clean ISS time series of planned vs. actual kcal/day by expedition length [15]. A useful planning translation is:

- At a **2,700 kcal/person/day** crew benchmark, a **5% deficit** is **135 kcal/day**, a **10% deficit** is **270 kcal/day**, and a **20% deficit** is **540 kcal/day** per person.
- Over **1,100 days**, those deficits equal **148,500**, **297,000**, and **594,000 kcal/person**, respectively.
- Using **~7,700 kcal/kg** as a rough tissue-energy conversion, an unmitigated 10% deficit corresponds to **~39 kg/person theoretical mass-equivalent loss**, though actual physiology adapts and the operational consequence would appear first as weight loss, reduced reserves, fatigue, impaired immune function, and performance risk rather than linear loss to zero.

The public evidence supports the direction of risk—under-intake, menu fatigue, sensory degradation, and waste matter—but does **not** provide a validated 3-year Mars intake-decline curve.

## Space crops: real demonstrations, negligible first-mission calories

ISS crop production is real but not diet-scale. Veggie has demonstrated “pick-and-eat” fresh produce production on ISS, and Advanced Plant Habitat has demonstrated controlled plant-growth research capability, but the cited flight evidence does not show a system producing meaningful crew calories for Mars [16, 17].

A representative Veggie lettuce-scale calculation shows the gap: if a Veggie-class harvest is **~30–35 g fresh lettuce** over **~33 days** in **~0.16 m²**, and lettuce is **~150 kcal/kg fresh mass**, output is only **~0.9–1.0 kcal/m²/day**. A single astronaut needing **~2,700 kcal/day** would require **~2,700–3,000 m²** at that demonstrated leafy-green calorie density, which is absurd for a first mission; the value is freshness, sensory variety, crew engagement, and micronutrient supplementation, not calories [16].

Advanced Plant Habitat’s public evidence in this corpus supports hardware validation and canopy photosynthesis research, not an edible-biomass food-production rate suitable for Mars logistics closure [17]. The requested APH crop-by-crop edible mass, growth area, duration, and kcal/m²/day are **not present in the accessible corpus**.

Analog bioregenerative systems and NASA Advanced Life Support studies can reach far higher calorie densities with staple crops than ISS leafy-greens, but they require large area, power, water handling, nutrient loops, crew labor, reliability, crop protection, and failure reserves [18]. Even an aggressive **50–100 kcal/m²/day** staple-crop system would need **27–54 m²/person** for 2,700 kcal/day before accounting for crop mix, inedible biomass, losses, lighting, redundancy, and labor; that is promising for later settlements, not a replacement for packaged calories on a first no-resupply mission.

The honest first-mission verdict is: **grown food is a countermeasure and morale/nutrition supplement, not the primary calorie source**. It can reduce menu fatigue and improve fresh-food events, but it does not remove the need to carry and qualify most calories as packaged food.

## Who is working the problem

NASA owns the strongest demonstrated base: the Johnson Space Center Space Food Systems Laboratory, Human Research Program food-and-nutrition risk team, Nutritional Biochemistry Laboratory, and Exploration/Advanced Food Technology work define the operational food system, shelf-life problem, nutrient risk, and Mars research gaps [4, 8, 19, 1]. NASA Kennedy Space Center crop teams and ISS payload developers operate Veggie and Advanced Plant Habitat as demonstrated plant-growth systems, but those are not food-closure systems [16, 17].

Status by actor:

- **NASA JSC Space Food Systems Laboratory / HRP Food and Nutrition Risk:** demonstrated ISS operational food system; Mars shelf-life and nutrition closure remains research/qualification [4].
- **NASA Advanced Food Technology / Exploration Food Systems with Leidos, Lockheed Martin, AmeriQual, and U.S. Army Natick partners:** prototype/research stabilization work using hurdle approaches, alternative storage, processing, and packaging; not publicly shown as a qualified 60-month Mars ration [1, 2].
- **NASA Nutritional Biochemistry Laboratory, USRA-linked researchers, University of Bonn collaborators, and academic food/flavor groups:** demonstrated evidence base for nutrition, physiology, intake, and flavor mechanisms; mostly research rather than flight food hardware [19, 15].
- **NASA KSC Veggie:** demonstrated ISS fresh produce; countermeasure-scale, not calorie-scale [16].
- **NASA Advanced Plant Habitat:** demonstrated controlled plant-growth science hardware; public food-output closure not shown [17].
- **Deep Space Food Challenge companies including Air Company, Interstellar Lab, and SATED-type systems:** public challenge evidence indicates prototype food-production or preparation concepts, but the accessible corpus does not provide Mars-qualified mass, power, volume, reliability, microbial safety, nutrient output, crew-time, or kg/day metrics.
- **Commercial Mars architecture actors, including Starship-related studies:** proposed cargo capacity and mission architecture could change mass allocation, but public sources do not define a validated food cold-chain or loading timeline [14].

## 2039 verdict

Food is **not** likely to be the dominant mass blocker for a 2039 first Mars departure if the architecture can allocate **~8–24 t** of packaged food, or **~9–27 t with 15% contingency**, for 4–12 crew over 1,100 days. Food **is** a potential schedule gate because the public record does not show a qualified system that preserves safety, sensory acceptability, and nutrient adequacy to **60 months maximum age at consumption**.

The single number that decides the verdict is therefore:

**60 months validated usable food age at consumption.**

That number dominates kg/person/day and crop kcal/m²/day because a mission can buy down food mass with cargo capacity, cannot rely on currently demonstrated crops for bulk calories, and cannot safely launch a no-resupply crew if the oldest food becomes nutritionally or sensorially unacceptable before the return phase.

## Evidence base and public gaps

The strongest evidence comes from NASA HRP risk records and evidence reports, NASA/NTRS and ICES logistics papers, NASA Mars architecture studies, and peer-reviewed space-food stability and crop-production papers [4, 8, 3, 9, 10, 13]. Peer-reviewed reviews and studies support the shelf-life, flavor, intake, and crop-scale conclusions but often do not expose operational NASA qualification data [20, 7, 15, 5].

Public data not found in the accessible corpus:

- NASA’s current **ISS operational shelf-life qualification by item category, package, and storage temperature**.
- Measured **vitamin-by-vitamin retention percentages** over **1, 3, and 5 years** at **21°C, 4°C, -20°C, and -80°C** by food matrix.
- A consistent **as-stowed kg/person/day** that includes food, packaging, secondary containment, racks, cold storage, preparation hardware, trash handling, and water assumptions.
- A public **Starship Mars food logistics timeline** with manufacture date, load date, launch date, landed storage temperature, access date, and consumption order.
- ISS and analog **planned-vs-actual kcal/day curves** over durations approaching 1,100 days.
- Public APH and Veggie datasets sufficient for complete crop-by-crop **edible biomass, area, duration, power, water, and kcal/m²/day** comparisons.
- Deep Space Food Challenge and commercial-system **mass, power, volume, crew-time, reliability, safety, and kg/day food-output** data adequate for Mars qualification.

## Sources

- [8] Microsoft Word - FoodforHRRClean2016.docx — https://humanresearchroadmap.nasa.gov/Evidence/reports/AFT.pdf · government
- [4] Risk of Inadequate Food and Nutrition Causing Decrements in In-Mission — https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/food-risk-record-rev-d-web-final.pdf · government
- [19] Human Adaptation to Spaceflight — https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/human-adaptation-2020-final.pdf · government
- [14] Mission Architecture Using the SpaceX Starship Vehicle to Enable a Sustained Human Presence on Mars — https://liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/space.2020.0058
- [3] HRR - Gap - FN-102: Determine the nutrient content, safety, and acceptability of the spaceflight food system (specific to each DRM and associated vehicle constraints). — http://humanresearchroadmap.nasa.gov/Gaps?i=780 · government
- [20] Sustaining Astronauts: Resource Limitations, Technology Needs, and Parallels between Spaceflight Food Systems and those on Earth — https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/16/9424
- [7] Review article Long term food stability for extended space missions: a review — https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2214552421000882?dgcid=STMJ_1645124405_CALLP_HYB · peer-reviewed
- [15] Factors affecting flavor perception in space: Does the spacecraft environment influence food intake by astronauts? Corresponding author Word count Short version of title Choice of Journal ABSTRACT 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Space missions and food supplies 1.2 Evidence for decreased food intake by astronauts during spaceflight 2. POTENTIAL FACTORS THAT COULD EXPLAIN THE CALORIE DEFICIT 2.1 Lack of nutrients in diet 2.2 Physiological changes due to microgravity 2.3 Food consumption 2.4 Drivers of food consumption 2.5 Factors affecting flavor perception 2.6 Summary:- Potential factors to explain calorie deficit 3. EVIDENCE THAT FOOD FLAVOR AFFECTS FOOD INTAKE 3.1 Summary:- Flavor and food intake 4. PREPARATION AND SHELF LIFE OF SPACE FOOD 4.1 Summary:- Preparation and shelf life of space food 5. NASAL PHYSIOLOGY AND ODOR PERCEPTION 5.1 Odor physiology 5.2 Measurement of odor sensitivity 5.3 Summary:- Nasal physiology and odor sensitivity 6. WATER QUALITY ON THE ISS 6.1 Recycled water – processing and quality monitoring on the ISS 6.2 Flavor-active compounds and food intake; Earth-based studies 6.3 Presence of off-flavors in recycled water; space-based data 6.4 Summary:- Water quality and potential effects on food intake 7. AIR QUALITY ON THE ISS 7.1 Spacecraft air quality — https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:1429e89d-6fe9-4e60-9bd9-ce3cb0e73cb6/download_file?safe_filename=Taylor_et_al_2020_Factors_affecting_flavor.pdf&type_of_work=Journal+article
- Evidence Report: — https://humanresearchroadmap.nasa.gov/Evidence/other/Food%20HRP-Evidence%20Report%20FINAL_4-15-24.pdf · government
- [13] July 2009 — https://nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/373665main_nasa-sp-2009-566.pdf?emrc=6dfe40 · government
- [12] NASA’s Strategic Analysis Cycle 2021 (SAC21) — https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20210026448/downloads/IEEE%202022%20SAC21%20for%20STRIVES%202022-01-06.pdf · government
- About feasibility of SpaceX's human exploration Mars mission scenario with Starship - PMC — https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11116405 · peer-reviewed
- [9] Astronaut Mass Balance for Long Duration Missions — https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20190027563/downloads/20190027563.pdf · government
- [1] Extension of Space Food Shelf Life Through Hurdle Approach — https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20170009936/downloads/20170009936.pdf · government
- [2] IMPROVEMENT OF SHELF LIFE FOR SPACE FOOD THROUGH A HURDLE APPROACH — https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20200001348/downloads/20200001348.pdf · government
- [11] Logistics Needs for Potential Deep Space Mission — https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20150003005/downloads/20150003005.pdf · government
- [5] Initial assessment of the nutritional quality of the space food system over three years of ambient storage - PMC — https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5466603 · peer-reviewed
- Impact of diet on human nutrition, immune response, gut microbiome, and cognition in an isolated and confined mission environment | Scientific Reports — https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-21927-5 · peer-reviewed
- [10] Logistics Rates and Assumptions for Future — https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20230012635/downloads/Logistics%20Rates%20and%20Assumptions%20Beyond%20LEO%20V5.pdf · government
- 2014 Nutrition EB Submit 010515 — https://humanresearchroadmap.nasa.gov/Evidence/other/Nutrition-20150105.pdf · government
- Human Adaptation to Spaceflight: The Role of Nutrition — https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/human-adaptation-to-spaceflight-the-role-of-nutrition.pdf?emrc=6a1624 · government
- Thermostabilized Shelf Life Study - NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS) — https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20090006887 · government
- Michele Perchonok, Ph.D. Advanced Food Technology Project Manager Shuttle Food System Manager NASA/JSC 1 — https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c88c/54356b1a75765cb0faf6444f6a63ea6f49a3.pdf
- Meal replacement in isolated and confined mission environments: Consumption, acceptability, and implications for physical and behavioral health - PubMed — https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32068108 · peer-reviewed
- [6] Long‐Term Vitamin Stabilization in Low Moisture Products for NASA: Techniques and Three‐Year Vitamin Retention, Sensory, and Texture Results — https://doi.org/10.1111/1750-3841.14218 · peer-reviewed
- The Nutritional Status of Astronauts Is Altered after Long-Term Space Flight Aboard the International Space Station 1 — https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022316622100775 · peer-reviewed
- [17] Frontiers | Hardware Validation of the Advanced Plant Habitat on ISS: Canopy Photosynthesis in Reduced Gravity — https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2020.00673/full
- [16] Pick-and-eat space crop production flight testing on the International Space Station — https://doi.org/10.1080/17429145.2023.2292220 · peer-reviewed
- Determining Kinetic Parameters of Thiamine Degradation in Three NASA Spaceflight Foods in Thermal Processing and Long-Term Storage AND Methods for Analyzing Microstructure and Precipitant Development in Real and Model Wines — https://doi.org/10.7275/14205472 · peer-reviewed
- [18] ALS Baseline Values and Assumptions Document — https://spacearchitect.org/pubs/NASA-JSC-47804.pdf
- HRR - Risk - Risk of Performance Decrement and Crew Illness Due to Inadequate Food and Nutrition — https://humanresearchroadmap.nasa.gov/risks/risk.aspx?i=176 · government
- Developing the NASA Food System for Long-Duration Missions — https://ift.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2010.01982.x · peer-reviewed
- Assessment of Nutrient Stability in Foods from the Space Food System After Long‐Duration Spaceflight on the ISS — https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2009.01265.x · peer-reviewed
- Food acceptability and selection by astronauts on International Space Station missions informs strategies and risks for deep space exploration — https://public-pages-files-2025.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1562044/pdf
- System-Level Analysis of Food Moisture Content Requirements for the Mars Dual Lander Transit Mission — https://doi.org/10.4271/2004-01-2364 · peer-reviewed
- objective — https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20080010623/downloads/20080010623.pdf · government
- Functional Foods Baseline and Requirements Analysis — http://hdl.handle.net/2060/20150001645
- doi:10.1016/j.asr.2007.06.059 — http://bigidea.nianet.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Adv-Space-Res-2008-Crop-Prod-and-Rad-Use-Eff.pdf
- Veggie ISS Validation Test Results and Produce Consumption — http://hdl.handle.net/2060/20150021302
- Nutrition issues for space exploration — https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2008.04.010 · peer-reviewed
- Tbpdf — https://taskbook.nasaprs.com/tbp/tbpdf.cfm?id=15408
- The NASA Task Book — https://taskbook.nasaprs.com/tbp/index.cfm?action=taskbook_content_by_grant&grantid=7363
- Effect of Reduced Temperature Storage on Nutrient & Quality Stability in Space Food — http://hdl.handle.net/2060/20190025978
- Tbpdf — https://taskbook.nasaprs.com/tbp/tbpdf.cfm?id=10417
- International Space Station Food System — https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20110000670/downloads/20110000670.pdf · government
- Tbpdf — https://taskbook.nasaprs.com/tbp/tbpdf.cfm?id=11000
- The Challenges of Developing a Nutritious Food System for a Mars Mission — http://hdl.handle.net/2060/20140009569
- Long Duration Life Support — https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/2020/04/19/long-duration-life-support · self-published/preprint