Lunar Settlements PDF

Lunar
Settlements
Advances in Engineering
A Series of Reference Books, Monographs, and Textbooks
Series Editor
Haym Benaroya
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
Rutgers University
Published Titles:
Lunar Settlements, Haym Benaroya
Handbook of Space Engineering, Archaeology and Heritage, Ann Darrin
and Beth O’Leary
Spatial Variation of Seismic Ground Motions: Modeling and Engineering
Applications, Aspasia Zerva
Fundamentals of Rail Vehicle Dynamics: Guidance and Stability, A. H. Wickens
Advances in Nonlinear Dynamics in China: Theory and Applications, Wenhu Huang
Virtual Testing of Mechanical Systems: Theories and Techniques, Ole Ivar Sivertsen
Nonlinear Random Vibration: Analytical Techniques and Applications, Cho W. S. To
Handbook of Vehicle-Road Interaction, David Cebon
Nonlinear Dynamics of Compliant Offshore Structures, Patrick Bar-Avi
and Haym Benaroya
Lunar
Settlements
Edited by
haym Benaroya
Boca Raton London New York
CRC Press is an imprint of the

Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
CRC Press
Taylor & Francis Group
6000 Broken Sound Parkway NW, Suite 300
Boca Raton, FL 33487-2742
© 2010 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC

CRC Press is an imprint of Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business
No claim to original U.S. Government works
Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
International Standard Book Number: 978-1-4200-8332-3 (Hardback)
This book contains information obtained from authentic and highly regarded sources. Reasonable efforts
have been made to publish reliable data and information, but the author and publisher cannot assume
responsibility for the validity of all materials or the consequences of their use. The authors and publishers
have attempted to trace the copyright holders of all material reproduced in this publication and apologize to
copyright holders if permission to publish in this form has not been obtained. If any copyright material has
not been acknowledged please write and let us know so we may rectify in any future reprint.
Except as permitted under U.S. Copyright Law, no part of this book may be reprinted, reproduced, transmit-
ted, or utilized in any form by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented,
including photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system,
without written permission from the publishers.
For permission to photocopy or use material electronically from this work, please access www.copyright.
com (http://www.copyright.com/) or contact the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. (CCC), 222 Rosewood
Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, 978-750-8400. CCC is a not-for-profit organization that provides licenses and
registration for a variety of users. For organizations that have been granted a photocopy license by the CCC,
a separate system of payment has been arranged.
Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used
only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Lunar settlements / editor, Haym Benaroya.

p. cm. -- (Advances in engineering)
“A CRC title.”
Includes bibliographical references (p. ).
ISBN 978-1-4200-8332-3 (hardcover : alk. paper)
1. Lunar bases. 2. Space industrialization. I. Benaroya, Haym, 1954- II. Title. III.
Series.
TL795.7.L86 2010
629.45’4--dc22 2009038016
Visit the Taylor & Francis Web site at

http://www.taylorandfrancis.com
and the CRC Press Web site at

http://www.crcpress.com
Contents
Preface.......................................................................................................................xi
Acknowledgments............................................................................................... xiii
Dedication...............................................................................................................xv
The Editor............................................................................................................. xvii
Section I The Past and Future............................................. 1

1. Return to the Moon.........................................................................................3
Harrison H. Schmitt
2. Rutgers 2007 Symposium on Lunar Settlements......................................9

Paul D. Lowman, Jr.
3. Krafft Ehricke’s Moon: The Extraterrestrial Imperative....................... 19

Marsha Freeman
4. Looking Back at Apollo/Saturn:

Planning Activities (1961−1965).................................................................. 33
H.H. Koelle
5. Apollo Knowledge Transfer: Preserving and Transferring the

Apollo Legacy to a New Generation.......................................................... 55
Charles A. Lundquist
Dennis Ray Wingo
6. Working in Space...........................................................................................63
Terry Hart
Section II Lunar Development.......................................... 73

7. Attracting Private Investment for Lunar Commerce: Toward
Economically Sustainable Development.................................................. 75
Paul Eckert
8. The Future Role of Human Resource Management in

Non-Terrestrial Settlements: Some Preliminary Thoughts.................. 87
Ida Kutschera
Mike H. Ryan
v
vi Contents
9. Lunar Commercial Logistics Transportation......................................... 101

Walter P. Kistler
Bob Citron
Thomas C. Taylor
10. Rocks to Robots: Concepts for Initial Robotic Lunar Resource

Development................................................................................................. 129
Lee Morin
Sandra Magnus
Stanley Love
Donald Pettit
Mary Lynne Dittmar
11. Solar Cell Fabrication on the Moon from Lunar Resources............... 143
Alex Ignatiev
Alexandre Freundlich
Klaus Heiss
Christopher Vizas
Section III Outer Space Habitat Design......................... 153
12. Multidisciplinary Approach for User Reliability................................. 155

Irene Lia Schlacht
13. Anthropology: Physical and Cultural Adaptation in Outer

Space............................................................................................................... 165
Melchiorre Masali
Marinella Ferrino
Monica Argenta
Margherita Micheletti Cremasco
14. Visual Design: Color and Light for Well Being in Outer Space........ 175
Irene Lia Schlacht
Henrik Birke
15. Art: Art as a Psychological Support for the Outer Space Habitat...... 197
Ayako Ono
16. Psychology: Natural Elements as a Well-Being Stimuli in Outer

Space............................................................................................................... 215
Scott C. Bates
Joshua Marquit
17. Perspectives: Multidisciplinary Approach for User Well-Being.......225

Irene Lia Schlacht
Contents vii
Section IV The Human Condition.................................. 231
18. An Analysis of the Interface between Lunar Habitat Conditions

and an Acclimatized Human Physiology as Defined by the
Digital Astronaut Project........................................................................... 233
Richard L. Summers
Thomas G. Coleman
Robert L. Hester
19. Mental Health Implications of Working in a Lunar Settlement........ 241

Chester S. Spell
20. Humans: The Strongest and the Weakest Joint in the Chain............. 247
Jesper Jorgensen
21. Here to Stay: Designing for Psychological Well-Being for Long

Duration Stays on Moon and Mars.......................................................... 261
Sheryl L. Bishop
22. Indoor-Air Quality Implications of 222RN from Lunar Regolith....... 277

François Lévy
John Patrick Fardal
23. PAC: Protected Antipode Circle at the Center of the Farside of

the Moon for the Benefit of All Humankind......................................... 291
Claudio Maccone
24. Developing the Moon with Ethics and Reality.....................................305

David M. Livingston
Section V Planning and Analogues................................ 319
25. Lunar Base Living: Beyond the Pioneering Stage................................ 321

James D. Burke
26. Assessment of Lunar Exploration Objectives........................................ 325

Marc M. Cohen
27. A Self-Sufficient Moon-Base Analogue.................................................. 355

Niklas Järvstråt
28. Terrestrial Analogs Selection Considerations for Planetary

Surface Facility Planning and Operations............................................. 375
Olga Bannova
viii Contents
29. Surface Infrastructure Planning and Design Considerations for

Future Lunar and Mars Habitation.......................................................... 387
Larry Bell
30. Settlement Site Selection and Exploration through Hierarchical

Roving............................................................................................................ 401
Gregory Konesky
31. Integrated Lunar Transportation System............................................... 415

Jerome Pearson
John C. Oldson
Eugene M. Levin
Harry Wykes
Section VI Lunar Bases.................................................... 431
32. Lunar Base Site Preparation......................................................................433

Florian Ruess
Benjamin Braun
Kris Zacny
Martina Pinni
33. A Review of Technical Requirements for Lunar Structures:

Present Status............................................................................................... 451
Alexander M. Jablonski
Kelly A. Ogden
34. Bidu Guiday: Design Concept for the First Manned Lunar Base...... 493
Giorgio Gaviraghi
35. Design and Construction of a Modular Lunar Base............................. 509

Werner Grandl
36. Advanced Systems Concept for Autonomous Construction and

Self-Repair of Lunar Surface ISRU Structures...................................... 519
Haym Benaroya
37. A Reliability-Based Design Concept for Lunar Habitats.................... 533

Benjamin Braun
Florian Ruess
Contents ix
38. Cratering and Blowing Soil by Rocket Engines during Lunar

Landings........................................................................................................ 551
Philip T. Metzger
John E. Lane
Christopher D. Immer
Sandra Clements
39. Lunar Habitats Protection against Meteoroid Impact Damage......... 577

William P. Schonberg
R. Putzar
F. Schäfer
40. Deployment of Greenhouse for Long-Term Lunar Base..................... 593

Vadim Y. Rygalov
Patrick Stoffel
Section VII Lunar Soil Mechanics...................................615
41. A Constitutive Model for Lunar Soil....................................................... 617

C.S. Chang
Pierre-Yves Hicher
42. Geotechnical Engineering Properties of Lunar Soil Simulants........ 637

Haydar Arslan
Susan Batiste
Stein Sture
43. Extension of Terrestrial Excavation Mechanics to Lunar Soil........... 649

Jason R. Florek
4 4. Lunar Concrete............................................................................................. 667

Martina Pinni
45. Silicon-Utilizing Organisms May Be Used in Future

Terraforming of the Moon......................................................................... 679
Satadal Das
Appendix.............................................................................. 693
Preface
It is a pleasure to present to you the culmination of many years of effort, a

compilation of edited papers that evolved from the Rutgers Symposium on
Lunar Settlements. Papers are written by symposium attendees as well as
invited authors. While no volume can completely represent the views on our
return to the Moon to stay, we can hope to present views that are significant
to that return. This preface is written on 20 January 2009, on Inauguration
Day for our new president, Barack Obama. The whole space community
eagerly waits to learn his views on manned space and the Bush vision on
lunar settlement.
xi
Acknowledgments
There are many people whose efforts made the Symposium an excellent
meeting. Certainly first on this list must be Mrs. Patricia Mazzucco, whose
tireless efforts in working with our vendors and local organizational
matters, as well as with many of the attendees, truly made the meeting
come together in such a nice way. We are grateful to Vice President for
Academic Affairs Philip Furmanski for his enthusiasm as well as finan-
cial support for the Symposium. Similarly we are grateful to Rutgers
University, the institution, for being the exciting and dynamic place that
it is. Elan Borenstein put forth significant effort to create our website and
made sure we were properly set up for the Symposium. Tushar Saraf
prepared the Abstract Book. Paul Bonness worked as a floor manager at
the Symposium. Shefali Patel and Helene Press assisted and supported
the Symposium preparations. Aiesha Jenkins was supportive during the
Symposium. Kendra Cameron is thanked for her assistance in helping us
gather promotional items for the attendees. Of course we are truly grate-
ful to all the presenters who took the time and expense to come to Rutgers
and offer us some of their expertise. Finally, a personal thanks to Ana
Benaroya, my daughter, for her illustration of a future lunar settlement
that became our Symposium logo.
Those who lent their time and expertise to the creation of the Proceedings
Volume are all the authors, of course, Mrs. Patricia Mazzucco for working
with the authors, Paul Bonness for pulling together all the manuscripts and
formatting them in an efficient and beautiful way, Jonathan Plant, Senior
Editor for Taylor & Francis, Amy Blalock, Project Coordinator, and Amy
Rodriguez, Project Editor, for working on a difficult project, Professor Haim
Baruh of Rutgers University and the NASA Space Grant Consortium for pro-
viding some of the financial resources needed to create this volume, and Ana
Benaroya for the original cover.
xiii
A book such as this can only be dedicated to all those who make space
accessible to human and machine. To them we owe our future.

The Editor
Haym Benaroya is Professor of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering

at Rutgers University. He is also founder and director of the Center for
Structures in Extreme Environments, a center focusing on the conceptualiza-
tion and analysis of structures placed in challenging environments. We have
considered offshore drilling structures, aircraft structures and luggage con-
tainers subjected to explosions, nanostructures and lunar surface structures
for manned habitation. Professor Benaroya earned his BE degree from The
Cooper Union in New York, and his MS and PhD (1981) from the University
of Pennsylvania. Prior to joining Rutgers University in 1989, Professor
Benaroya was a senior research engineer at Weidlinger Associates in New
York for eight years, with responsibilities to a number of defense-related
studies. While at Rutgers, Professor Benaroya has mentored nine students
to their PhDs and a similar number to their MS degrees. He is the author of
about 70 refereed journal publications, two textbooks—one on vibration and
the other on probabilistic modeling—and two research monographs with
two former PhD students on structural dynamics in the ocean. Professor
Benaroya is a Fellow of the ASME and the British Interplanetary Society, an
Associate Fellow of the AIAA, and was elected to the International Academy
of Astronautics in 2007.
xvii
Section I
The Past and Future

1
Return to the Moon
Harrison H. Schmitt
University of Wisconsin-Madison
arrison Schmitt, Apollo 17 Astronaut and former U.S. Senator, is Adjunct

H
Professor of Engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison, teaching “Resources
from Space.” Schmitt is a founder and serves as Chairman of Interlune Intermars
Initiative, Inc., advancing the private sector’s acquisition of lunar resources and
its development of 3He fusion power.
Schmitt, a native of Silver City, New Mexico, has the diverse experience
of a geologist, pilot, astronaut, administrator, businessman, writer, and U.S.
Senator. He married Teresa A. Fitzgibbon of Los Alamos, New Mexico in
1985. Schmitt received his B.S. from Caltech, studied as a Fulbright Scholar
in Oslo, Norway, and attended graduate school at Harvard University,
Cambridge, Massachusetts. Geological field studies in Norway formed
the basis of his PhD in 1964. As a civilian, Schmitt received Air Force jet
pilot wings in 1965 and Navy helicopter wings in 1967, logging more than
2100 hours of flying time.
Selected for the Scientist-Astronaut program in 1965, Schmitt organized
the lunar science training for the Apollo astronauts, represented the crews
during the development of hardware and procedures for lunar surface explo-
ration, and oversaw the final preparation of the Apollo 11 Lunar Module
descent stage. He served as mission scientist in support of the Apollo 11 mis-
sion. After training as backup Lunar Module pilot for Apollo 15, Schmitt
flew in space as Lunar Module pilot for Apollo 17—the last Apollo mission to
the moon. On December 11, 1972, he landed in the Valley of Taurus-Littrow
as the only scientist and the last of 12 men to step on the Moon.
In 1975, after two years managing NASA’s Energy Program office, Schmitt
fulfilled a longstanding personal commitment by entering politics. Elected
in 1976, he served a 6-year term in the U.S. Senate beginning in 1977. Senator
Schmitt, the only “natural scientist” in the Senate since Thomas Jefferson,
was Vice President of the United States and president of the Senate, worked
as a member of the Senate Commerce, Banking, Appropriations, Intelligence,
and Ethics Committees. In his last two years in the Senate, Schmitt held the
position of chairman of the Commerce Subcommittee on Science, Technology,
and Space and of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and
3
4 Lunar Settlements
Human Services, and Education. He later served on the President’s Foreign

Intelligence Advisory Board, the President’s Commission on Ethics Law
Reform, the Army Science Board, as co-chairman of the International
Observer Group for the 1992 Romanian elections, and as vice chairman of
the U.S. delegation to the 1992 World Administrative Radio Conference in
Spain. He is on the Maguire Energy Institute’s board of advisors, and served
as co-chair of NASA’s Human Planetary Landing Systems Capabilities road-
mapping effort in 2004−2005.
Harrison Schmitt became chairman of the NASA Advisory Council in
November 2005, and served until October 2008. He led the council’s delibera-
tions on issues related to aeronautics, audit and finance, biomedicine, explo-
ration (human flight systems development), human capital, science, and
space operations. He also consults, speaks, and writes on policy issues of the
future, the science of the moon and planets, history of space flight and geology,
space exploration, space law, climate change, and the American Southwest.
He presently is chair emeritus of The Annapolis Center (risk assessment)
and is adjunct professor of engineering, University of Wisconsin-Madison,
teaching Resources from Space. Schmitt became a consultant to the Fusion
Technology Institute at the University of Wisconsin in 1986, advising on the
economic geology of lunar resources and the engineering, operational, and
financial aspects of returning to the moon. He is on the staff of the Institute
for Human and Machine Cognition of Pensacola, Florida. Current board
memberships include Orbital Sciences Corporation, Edenspace Systems
Corporation, and PhDx Systems, Inc., and, as a retired director, he continues
as an emeritus member of the corporation of the Draper Laboratory. He also
has served as a member of the Energy Department’s Laboratory Operations
Board. In 1997, Schmitt co-founded and became chairman of Interlune-
Intermars Initiative, Inc., advancing the private sector’s acquisition of lunar
resources and helium-3 fusion power and clinical use of medical isotopes
produced by fusion-related processes. He is the author of Return to the Moon
(Springer-Praxis, 2006), which describes a private enterprise approach to pro-
viding lunar helium-3 fusion energy resources for use on Earth.
Schmitt’s honors include the 1973 Arthur S. Fleming Award; 1973
Distinguished Graduate of Caltech; 1973 Caltech Sherman Fairchild Scholar;
1973 Manned Spacecraft Center Superior Achievement Award; 1973 NASA
Distinguished Service Award; 1973 First Extraterrestrial Field Geologist
Award of the Geological Society of America; 1977 Fellow of the AIAA;
Honorary Member of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,
Norwegian Geographical Society, New Mexico Geological Society, and
Geological Association of Canada; 1981 Engineer of the Year Award from the
National Society of Professional Engineers; 1981 National Security Award; 1982
Public Service Award of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists;
1989 Lovelace Award (space biomedicine); 1989 G.K. Gilbert Award (plan-
etology); 2002 Aviation Week Legend Award; 2008 American Association
Return to the Moon 5
of State Geologists Pick and Gavel Award; and Honorary Fellow of the
Geological Society of America; American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical
and Petroleum Engineers; and Geological Society of London. Dr. Schmitt
has been inducted into the Astronaut Hall of Fame and the International
Space Hall of Fame and has received honorary degrees from nine U.S. and
Canadian Universities. In recognition of past service, the U.S. Department of
State in July 2003 established the Harrison H. Schmitt Leadership Award for
U.S. Fulbright Fellowship awardees. In 2007, Schmitt was awarded the first
Eugene M. Shoemaker Memorial Award by Arizona State University, and is
the first recipient of the National Space Society’s Gerard K. O’Neill Memorial
Space Settlement Award.
The financial, environmental, and national security carrot for a Return to the
Moon consists of access to low cost lunar helium-3 fusion power. Helium-3
fusion represents an environmentally benign means of helping to meet an
anticipated eight-fold or higher increase in energy demand by 2050. Not
available in other than research quantities on Earth, this light isotope of
ordinary helium-4 reaches the Moon as a component of the solar wind, along
with hydrogen, helium-4, carbon and nitrogen. Embedded continuously in
the lunar dust over almost four billion years of time, concentrations have
reached levels that can legitimately be considered to be of economic interest.
Two square kilometers of titanium-debris or regolith covering large areas of
the lunar surface, to a depth of three meters, contains 100 kg (220 pounds)
of helium-3, i.e., more than enough to power a 1000 megawatt (one gigawatt)
fusion power plant for a year. Strong evidence exists that the concentration
of helium-3 in the polar regions reaches three times that in the mare rego-
lith. In 2008, helium-3’s energy equivalent value relative to $5.00 per million
BTU industrial coal equaled about $2800 million a metric tonne. One metric
tonne (2200 pounds) of helium-3, fused with deuterium, a heavy isotope of
hydrogen, has enough energy to supply a U.S. city of 10 million or one/sixth
of the United Kingdom with a year’s worth of electricity or over 10 gigawatts
of power for that year.
The United States has two basic options for both assuring results from and
continuation of a “sustained commitment” to deep space exploration and
settlement. On the one hand, it could continue to restructure and revital-
ize NASA under the Vision for Space Exploration articulated by President
George W. Bush and to provide that Vision with a guarantee of continued
funding sufficient to do the job. A tough order in the current national political
environment, but one the President and Congress have directed NASA and
its Administrator to undertake. Alternatively, the country’s entrepreneurial
sector could persuade national and international investors to make sustain-
ing commitments based on the economic potential of lunar resources. Not
easy, but at least predictable in terms of what conditions investors require
to be met relative to other competitive uses of their capital. The option of
rebuilding NASA is highly unpredictable and its sustainability may depend
6 Lunar Settlements
on the appearance of a set of national and world circumstances compara-

ble to those facing the Congress and Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, and
Johnson in the late 1950s and throughout the 1960s.
Although it fundamentally has an investor-driven economy, America has a
tradition of parallel commercial and public technological endeavors, ranging
from transportation to agriculture to communication to medicine. Such
activities have often involved international partnerships and investors. Private
and public endeavors operating together clearly have been far more productive
then either would have been acting alone. In this vein, private space-related
initiatives can benefit from the research and technology development funded
by NASA and vice versa. The 20th century, particularly since World War II and
American stimulation of European and Asian post-war economic development,
has seen research and technology development in other nations become
positioned to participate in a privately led Return to the Moon initiative. That
initiative also can supplement, support, and, if necessary, pick up the baton of
space settlement if not carried forward by government.
The initial financial threshold for a private sector initiative to Return to the
Moon is low: about $15 million. This investment would initiate the first fusion-
based bridging business, that is, production of medical isotopes for point-of-
use support of diagnostic procedures using positron-emission tomography
(PET). In contrast, the funding threshold for the United States government
would be significantly higher: $800 million proposed for 2005 and build-
ing to an average annual addition of close to $1 billion. This latter estimate
assumes both a repetitively willing Congress and Administration as well as
a space agency capable of efficiently using this money. The Government, of
course, would not benefit directly from the retained earnings of the fusion-
based bridging businesses that are a natural consequence of the private sec-
tor approach although Americans would benefit from the new services and
tax base that the private sector could provide.
International law relative to outer space, specifically the Outer Space Treaty
of 1967, permits properly licensed and regulated commercial endeavors.
Under the treaty, lunar resources can be extracted and owned, but national
sovereignty cannot be asserted over the resource area. History clearly shows
that a system of internationally sanctioned private property, consistent with
the treaty, would encourage lunar settlement and development far more than
the establishment of a lunar “commons” as envisioned by the largely unrati-
fied 1979 Moon Agreement. Legal systems encompassing the recognition of
private property have provided far more benefit to the world than those that
attempt to manage common ownership.
The entrepreneurial private sector has an obligation to support a Return to
the Moon to stay, as articulated by President Bush. We also have an obliga-
tion to follow our own path to get there in order to be additive to the overall
goals of settling the solar system and improving lives for those who remain
on Earth. Traversing that path, with an ideally funded business plan, would
require about $15 billon and 15 years.
Return to the Moon 7
Whenever and however a Return to the Moon occurs, one thing is certain:
That return will be historically comparable to the movement of our spe-
cies out of Africa about 50,000 years ago. Further, if led by an entity repre-
senting the democracies of the Earth, a Return to the Moon to stay will be
politically comparable to the first permanent settlement of North America
by European immigrants.
Reference
Schmitt, H. H., 2006, Return to the Moon, Springer, New York, 335p.
2
Rutgers 2007 Symposium
on Lunar Settlements
Paul D. Lowman, Jr.

Goddard Space Flight Center
Greenbelt, Maryland
Paul D. Lowman Jr. is a geologist in the Planetary Geodynamics Laboratory

at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. The first geologist hired by NASA,
in 1959, he has been involved in most major manned flight programs, includ-
ing Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, Skylab, and the Shuttle. His main research
area is comparative planetology as applied to the origin of the Earth’s conti-
nental crust. He has worked in lunar sample analysis, orbital photography,
and orbital radar. From 1973 to 2004 he shifted to global tectonics, producing
a map of global tectonic and volcanic activity of the last one million years.
He is author of several books, most recently Exploring Space, Exploring Earth
(Cambridge University Press, 2002).
Abstract This paper summarizes the major themes and ideas presented at
a 4 1/2 day symposium on lunar settlements held at Rutgers University in June,
2007, sponsored by the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
and organized by Haym Benaroya of that department. Presentations cov-
ered the political and economic aspects of lunar settlements, structures and
transportation, the lunar environment, energy and power, medical aspects of
lunar settlements, outpost site selection, and use of the Moon as a platform for
astronomy. A keynote paper by H.H. Schmitt covered topics including legal
aspects of lunar settlements and possible economic products such as helium-3,
demonstrably valuable for production of short-lived medical isotopes and per-
haps for thermonuclear energy. Potential medical problems, discussed by sev-
eral speakers, including J. Logan and W. Rowe, included radiation exposure
and the effect of long-term hypogravity. Lunar resources discussed by sev-
eral speakers include lunar water from possible polar ice deposits, hydrogen,
helium-3, and oxygen from the lunar regolith. Outpost site selection has been
narrowed to the south polar regions, with Shackleton Crater and Malapert
Mountain the most-favored candidates. Lunar settlement shelters were pro-
posed by several speakers, a consensus being that these must be largely under-
ground because of the radiation problem. The feasibility of agriculture in lunar
settlements has been demonstrated by operating greenhouses in the Antarctic.
9
10 Lunar Settlements
The overall result of the symposium was a summary of the problems, pros-
pects, and practicality of such settlements, now benefiting from three decades
to assimilate the lunar experience of the 6 Apollo landing missions and the
many robotic missions, American and Soviet.
Introduction and Overview

A Symposium on Lunar Settlements was held at Rutgers University dur-
ing the first week of June 2007. In the planning stages for about two years, the
Symposium was organized by Professor Haym Benaroya of the Mechanical and
Aerospace Engineering Department. While his research focused primarily on
lunar structures, the Symposium was organized so that the focus was the lunar
settlement, and as such all relevant disciplines were included. The Symposium
was a single-track 4-day meeting, with a half-day on the 5th day used for a ret-
rospective and summary group meeting with thoughts on both content and for-
mat. Details on this symposium as well as copies of presentations are available
on the website http://www.lunarbase.rutgers.edu/. It is possible to also review
the book of abstracts and to find contact information for the presenters.
Key Presentations
The Rutgers Symposium was 4 1/2 days in duration. It was a productive and
stimulating meeting that will be summarized here. It was organized and run
by the Center for Structures in eXtreme Environments. An abstracts volume
is available at the symposium website http://www.lunarbase.rutgers.edu. In
order of importance, here are summaries for a few of the main talks.
Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 Astronaut

Schmitt gave the keynote talk “Return to the Moon: Expanding the Earth’s
Economic Sphere.” His first point was that a return to the Moon will help
insure the long-term survival of the human species. Humanity has benefited
from exploration for some 40,000 years, referring to migration of mankind
from a point of origin into successively larger areas, for living space and
resources. Exploration of America eventually permitted extension of free
institutions to a new continent.
Economic factors affecting a permanent return to the Moon include initial
capitalization, economic self-sufficiency, affordable access, and compatible
Rutgers 2007 Symposium on Lunar Settlements 11
space law. He cited government estimates of $150B for settlement of the

Moon, but said we should stress annual costs, not cumulative ones.
Schmitt discussed He-3 at length, comparing it to “steam coal.” However,
as in his book Return to the Moon, he stressed the near-term potential of He-3
for fusion reactors to produce short-lived medical isotopes. U. of Wisconsin
is apparently close to achieving D-He-3 fusion at a level high enough to pro-
duce these isotopes. There was much more, but most of what he said about
this is in his book.
The question of mining He-3 on the Moon brought up the question of legal-
ity. Schmitt said the 1967 Outer Space Treaty prohibited territorial claims on
the Moon, but did permit mining. He recommended ignoring the 1979 Moon
Treaty, which like the Law of the Sea (LOS) would make lunar resources the
common heritage of mankind. He said the LOS is still under study, and that
it will be important to see if it restricts sea-bed mining and by implication
lunar mining.
In the question period, Schmitt discussed the ISS, which he had barely
mentioned. He said the ISS could be a valuable medical research facility
for study of osteoporosis, and that he had been trying to persuade NASA
to cooperate with NIH to explore this possibility. He raised the interesting
point that space station astronauts can generally recover their lost bone mass
in a few months, but that old people on earth with the condition do not. This
has triggered considerable interest in the medical community.
Haym Benaroya, CSXE, Rutgers University

This was a very broad talk, “Lunar Structures,” covering all aspects of the
return to the Moon. Benaroya made the point that we must get off the planet to
insure the long-term survival of humanity. It will also be a great educational
stimulus, attracting young Americans to the hard subjects—engineering,
science, and mathematics—where enrollment is declining. He covered the
political aspects of the Vision for Space Exploration (VSE), referring to mani-
fest destiny in relation to emerging space powers such as China.
The Moon also offers a site for development of “space legs,” i.e., to learn
how to live on other planets, which cannot be done only in LEO. Benaroya
argued that a return to the Moon would be a great antidote to “societal pes-
simism,” by providing a positive and uplifting vision for humanity.
There are many problems remaining before the Moon can be settled, but
the basic knowledge of “lunar structures” is growing continually, and a small
but “exciting” initial settlement is clearly feasible. Major problems remaining
include radiation and long-term low gravity.
James S. Logan, Space Medicine Associates

This talk, on “biomedical showstoppers for long duration lunar habitation,”
was an extremely important one for the lunar outpost concept. Logan has
a long career in aerospace medicine, and is now at JSC, but attended this
symposium at his own expense and stressed that his views were strictly his
own, not NASA’s.
Logan gave a detailed summary of the medical problems on the Moon:
lunar dust, radiation, hypogravity, and probable synergistic effects. The dis-
cussion of lunar dust was unusually interesting because terrestrial experi-
ence was cited. Within 5 years of the drilling of the Hawk’s Nest Tunnel
through Gauley Mountain in West Virginia in the 1930s, hundreds of miners
died of silicosis even though they had been exposed for only a few months.
The incident was arguably one of the biggest occupational health disasters
in U.S. history. During the dry drilling process miners had been exposed to
fine quartz dust kicked into the air. Medical experts are concerned activated
fine lunar regolith may possess similar reactivity because of weathering by
solar wind and repeated vapor deposition due to micrometeorite impacts.
The issue will be to empirically determine the toxicity of activated lunar
regolith compared to known terrestrial hazards such as TiO2 (minimally
reactive) and quartz (highly reactive).
Logan’s discussion of radiation was equally informative. He pointed out
that permissible exposure limits have been steadily lowered in recent years,
citing the recent NRC study of space radiation. He concluded that short sor-
ties on the lunar surface are feasible, but longer-term occupation is much
more problematic due to elevated radiation exposures over time. Prolonged
lunar surface habitation will effectively be precluded without substantial
shielding. Because the space suit provides virtually no radiation protection,
multiple lunar EVAs (by the same crew members) will most likely be severely
constrained.
He discussed “hypogravity,” i.e., the low lunar gravity (1/6 Earth gravity).
No permanent deleterious effects were observed in Apollo missions but
exposure times were very short. (Lunar missions were approximately two
weeks in total duration with no more than 3 days on the lunar surface.)
Longer duration exposures (6 months) to microgravity have demonstrated
significant effects, most of which appear to be reversible upon return to
earth. However, recent data utilizing more sensitive measuring techniques
suggest the rate of bone demineralization may be almost twice initial esti-
mates. Worse, these changes may not be fully reversible in all crew members.
He pointed out that lunar gravity may be very deleterious for the developing
fetus, infant or toddler. If confirmed, microgravity effects could prohibit per-
manent “settlement” (i.e., men, women, children and multiple generations)
of the Moon or even Mars.
Logan’s warning against multiple EVAs has direct implications for pos-
sible human service missions to the JWST, which at a Lagrangian point will
be far beyond the magnetosphere. Dan Lester had an imaginative artist’s
concept of a JWST service mission in a Nov. 2006 Physics Today article, but
Logan’s discussion indicates that such missions would be problematic if they
involved significant cumulative exposures during multiple EVAs.
Logan did not go into detail on “synergistic effects,” beyond warning that
there would be such effects. All in all, this talk was perhaps the most impor-
tant of the symposium in its implications for long-term settlement of the
Moon or Mars, as outlined in the VSE.
In the question period, Larry Taylor said the space medicine people argued
for either equatorial or polar base locations because they permitted return
to Earth at any time. Lowman has pointed out in several papers that such
locations permit abort from the surface to an orbiting spacecraft without any
plane changes. (This is why the early Apollo missions were equatorial.)
William Rowe, Medical University of Ohio at Toledo

This was another important paper by a medical doctor with a background
in space medicine: “Moon dust may simulate vascular hazards of urban
pollution.” Rowe discussed several space flight factors with possible car-
diovascular effect, by producing changes in the endothelium (artery lin-
ing). Fine urban dust has been found to produce vascular constriction and
high diastolic blood pressure. Rowe studied the Apollo 15 mission, which
put great stress on Scott and Irwin, from which they took weeks to recover.
Rowe suggested that the lunar dust might have been a contributing factor.
He also suggested that a magnesium deficiency could have had an effect.
In the question period, it was mentioned that JSC had prescribed massive
doses of orange juice for the following missions in the belief that a potassium
deficiency might have been responsible; he replied that both potassium and
magnesium were probably involved.
Werner Grandl, Consulting Architect and Civil Engineer

Grandl presented “Lunar Base 2015: A Preliminary Design Study.” This
was actually a detailed and specific proposal for a modular lunar station
made of six cylindrical modules, each weighing 10.2 tons. These would be
double-walled, with regolith for shielding. This base could be established
with 11 Arianne 5 launches. This paper was interesting in that it showed how
a lunar base could be developed with an existing launch vehicle. An obvious
implication is that given the funding and motivation, Europe could produce
a lunar base on its own.
Charles Lundquist, University of Alabama at Huntsville

Lundquist discussed “Apollo Knowledge Transfer.” This is a major and
broad-based effort by the University of Alabama at Huntsville to bridge the
40-year gap since Apollo by archiving all sorts of data from the Apollo era.
It includes all sorts of Apollo documents from retirees, oral histories, and
many computer archives. The problem of changing these archives into for-
mats readable with today’s equipment is being worked on. Lundquist said
that there is a Lunar Orbiter image recovery program going on at Ames, and
that LO tapes have been sent from Goddard to Ames.
In the question period, Paul Lowman said that the National Space Science
Data Center is working on the same problem, reformatting lunar data such
as that from the ALSEPs into modern versions for re-analysis.
Larry Taylor, University of Tennessee at Knoxville

Taylor gave an excellent broad review of “In Situ Resource Utilization on the
Moon.” He stressed the interrelation of science and exploration, and warned
against separating the two, as in recent trends. Apollo was a success partly
because of close relations between the engineers and scientists.
He presented well-illustrated discussions of potential oxygen, hydrogen,
helium 3, carbon, and nitrogen resources, all solar wind-implanted. He also
stressed the value of high-Ti basalts, since oxygen can be produced from
ilmenite by hydrogen reduction. He discussed the problem of lunar dust,
suggesting that a magnetic filter could remove part of the fine fraction, which
has metallic iron.
Gregory Konesky, SGK Nanostructures, Inc.

Konesky discussed “hierarchical roving,” telerobotic lunar rovers of vari-
ous sizes. His company has built working models, with a large rover about
the size of a wheelbarrow carrying smaller ones to be deployed from it. He
showed slides of Mars from various rovers, pointing out that there are argu-
ments for large and small rovers depending on the nature of the terrain.
Sojourner, for example, landed on a very rocky terrain, but was able to drive
between the rocks better than a large rover might have. A large lunar rover
could serve as an anchor point from which small tethered rovers could go
down steep slopes.
There was discussion of letting the public back on Earth drive such rovers.
Lowman has recommended this as a means of arousing public interest by
letting students and others take direct part in exploration of the Moon.
Roger Launius, National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian

This talk also emphasized the problem we face in returning to the Moon,
chiefly public attitudes and budget limits. Launius showed a number of
graphs illustrating public opinion about space exploration over the last sev-
eral decades. Right after Sputnik, support was at an all-time high because
of fear of the Soviets. However, it dropped off sharply. A 2007 Harris poll
asking people how to reduce the federal deficit had 51% saying cut the space
program, right at the top of the list. An earlier poll showed that 14–18-year-
olds have little or no interest in a return to the Moon, and about 27% in this
age range think the Apollo landings were faked.
Launius said that the primary driver for a new lunar program would have
to be, like Apollo, national prestige and geopolitics. He quoted John Kennedy
as saying that he was not really interested in space. The motivation for his
proposal to go to the Moon was the Bay of Pigs fiasco followed shortly by
Gagarin’s flight.
Launius showed that we got 3.8% of the federal budget at the peak of
Apollo. He warned that we would probably have to live with a NASA budget
under 0.9%. In summary, we really have a job ahead of us to sell the public
on our programs.
Brent Sherwood, Jet Propulsion Laboratory

“What Will We Actually Do on the Moon?” was Sherwood’s title, and his
reply was a broad summary of various ideas put forth at recent NASA meet-
ings. Two of these were to establish simple observatories on the Moon, and
stimulate public interest with “high-fidelity telepresence.” The latter sounds
like Lowman’s recommendations for publicly accessible robotic telescopes and
telerobotic rovers to be driven by the public. Like Launius, Sherwood said the
public has little interest in the VSE.
Yuriy Gulak, CSXE, Rutgers University

In this talk, “Heat Pipes: How to Increase the Capillary Heat Transfer Limit,”
Gulak outlined work on increasing the effectiveness of heat pipes by using a
wick whose porosity varies along the length of the pipe. This would be appli-
cable to Earth, Moon, and zero g conditions, where it is necessary to control
internal temperatures in spacecraft.
Gregory Konesky, SGK Nanostructures, Inc.

This was the second paper by Konesky. It was a detailed quantitative discus-
sion of optical data links, on the Moon and from the Moon to Earth. Such
data links point to point on the Moon are limited chiefly by the Moon’s
topography, in the absence of an atmosphere.
Konesky presented a detailed quantitative study of Moon-Earth optical links.
The power requirements are in principle modest: a 1-watt laser on the Moon,
sent from a 1-meter aperture, could be received on Earth with a 1-meter dish.
However, the actual requirements would be much harsher, because of the atmo-
sphere, clouds, etc. He discussed the problems of an orbital optical link.
Gene Giacomelli, University of Arizona, Tucson

In terms of sheer novelty, this was one of the most interesting papers in the
symposium. The title, “Development of a Lunar Habitat Demonstrator,”
refers to work being done at the U. of Arizona in Tucson and at the South Pole
Amundsen-Scott base. This group has established at the South Pole a green-
house in which hydroponics farming under high intensity sodium lights
produces continuous supply of fresh vegetables. The greenhouse is tended
partly by volunteers, who enjoy the warm humid atmosphere. There is a
small café/lounge attached where station personnel can meet for meals and
conversation. It has tables with tablecloths, dishes, and cutlery. The green-
house generates oxygen, not needed on Earth but of obvious importance for
a lunar base. The U. of Arizona group is now building a similar structure on
Tucson designed specifically for the Moon.
Tom Taylor, Lunar Transportation Systems, Inc.

In “Lunar Commercial Logistics Transportation,” Taylor drew lessons from
transportation to remote locations on Earth, such as Prudhoe Bay, Alaska
and proposed a commercial lunar transportation architecture that is modu-
lar and flexible. He estimates that the Moon is 50 times more remote and
100–1,000 times more expensive than the Arctic, as well as more severe an
environment. This architecture is based on refueling a fleet of fully reusable
spacecraft at several locations in cislunar space, which creates a two-way
highway between the Earth and the Moon. Coming from one who is a key
investor and venture capitalist for space ventures, his views are valuable.
Paul Eckert, Integrated Defense Systems, The Boeing Co.

Eckert as well is a major player to identify business opportunities within
the Return to the Moon, for both aerospace and other companies. The title
“Attracting Private Investment for Lunar Commerce: Toward Economically
Sustainable Development” summarizes the focus of his efforts over a number
of years. He has led a number of meetings of business leaders who are work-
ing to encourage development of truly commercial, self-sustaining space
activity involving non-government customers, rather than simply extending
government contracting. It is clear that NASA or the Federal Government
alone cannot develop space. We will be fortunate if they begin the develop-
ment of the transportation system and the initial lunar infrastructure upon
which businesses can build their plans.
Steve Durst, Space Age Publishing Company

Durst discussed the International Lunar Observatory Association, a group
incorporated in Hawaii as a 501c to promote establishment as early as 2010
of a lunar observatory, the ILO. The ILOA is administered by Space Age
Publishing Company/Lunar Enterprise Corporation, based in Waimea,
HI. The ILO is planned initially as a robotic mission with optical and radio
astronomy capability, on Malapert Mountain, which can eventually be visited
by a human servicing mission. The ILOA involves the large astronomical

community on the Big Island, where there are 13 observatories on Mauna
Kea with control centers in Hilo and Waimea. Space agencies in India, China,
and Japan have expressed interest in the ILO, which has been in the planning
and organization stage since 2003.
Manny Pimenta, Lunar Explorer, LLC

This paper was titled “Malapert Base,” which gives its essence briefly.
Pimenta’s group has designed a large modular base to be built underground
at Malapert Mountain. It would be designed for maximum habitability, with
large spaces reminding us of the underground shopping malls in Toronto.
Pimenta has had no contact with the first author, so his recommendation of
Malapert was an independent one, probably based on David Schrunk’s pre-
sentation at the 2003 Waikoloa meeting.
Paul Lowman, NASA Goddard

This paper, “Malapert Mountain: A Recommended Site for a South Polar
Outpost,” was given on the first day, and there was time to hear reaction
during the remaining days. It was apparently well received though there
was only one question. However, several other speakers beside Pimenta
mentioned Malapert. Durst’s proposed ILO would be located on the top of
Malapert.
An aspect not mentioned in this presentation is that an outpost in con-
tinual sunlight, and in continual view of the Earth, would be more benign
psychologically than other recommended sites. Since several speakers at the
Rutgers symposium brought up psychological stress problems, a few words
about this aspect might have been added to this paper.
Summary and Conclusions

This was a very serious and somewhat sobering meeting, attended chiefly
by very senior and high-level people. The main points from it appear to be
the following.
1. The VSE has little public support. Most people have little interest in
a return to the Moon, in particular the 14–18 age group, from which
the scientists and engineers of the next generation must come. Part
of the problem is that the public has no idea at all how little NASA
spends. The first author suggests that this problem must be coun-
tered through two channels. First, the press must be persuaded to
stop emphasizing the cost of NASA missions. Second, the educa-

tional community must be brought into the VSE, both teachers and
students.
2. The problems of the lunar segment of the VSE are now well defined.
They are in order of priority radiation, dust, and hypogravity. The
combination of these will probably have synergistic effects. The dust
problem (for manned missions) is well understood and probably
controllable. However, radiation outside the magnetosphere remains
a severe problem for long-duration lunar surface EVAs and surface
structures. Hypogravity (1/6 g for the Moon) is no problem for short
missions, but may well be a severe one for permanent settlements.
It may in fact prohibit settlements involving large populations and
families.
3. Lunar surface missions up to a few months are possible with
present technology and knowledge, but “settlements” may not be
for the foreseeable future. Manned Mars missions are probably
decades down the road from a return to the Moon, the radiation
and hypogravity (in space and on Mars) problems being major
obstacles.
4. There is a real requirement for a robotic soft-landing lunar program
before the return of humans to the Moon. No one brought this out
specifically, except for Durst, but manned missions to regions very
poorly known, specifically the South Pole, would be extremely risky
without precursor robotic missions. The Apollo missions were pre-
ceded by seven Surveyor ones, five of which were successful.
5. The commercial space sector is now seriously interested in a return
to the Moon, and has much of the necessary technology in hand
or nearly so. The Apollo Program was a government-funded and
administered effort. However, the commercial opportunities of a
return to the Moon are now much clearer. There appear to be no
major legal barriers to private sector lunar programs, such as He-3
extraction and export to Earth.
To summarize this summary, it isn’t 1961 any more, when the lunar program
was carried along on a wave of public support. So we have a lot of work to do
to reignite this support.
3
Krafft Ehricke’s Moon:
The Extraterrestrial Imperative
Marsha Freeman
Author, Technology Editor of Executive Intelligence Review
Marsha Freeman has been the technology editor of the weekly magazine
Executive Intelligence Review since 1982. She was the Washington editor of
Fusion Magazine from 1980-1987, and has been an associate editor of 21st
Century Science & Technology Magazine since 1988. She has written articles
on all aspects of the U.S. space program, the history of the German space
pioneers, the Soviet and Russian space programs, space medicine and
biology, and the Japanese and European space programs, various fields of
energy conversion, and nuclear and fusion energy technology.
She is the author of How We Got to the Moon: The Story of the German Space
Pioneers (21st Century Science Associates, 1993), and the German transla-
tion, Hin Zu Neuen Welten: Die Geschichte der Deutschen Raumfahrt-Pioniere
(Dr. Bottiger Verlags-GmbH, 1995); Challenges of Human Space Exploration
(Springer/Praxis, 2000); and a biography of German space pioneer, Krafft
Ehricke, to be published in early 2009, by Apogee Books.
Introduction
Space visionary Krafft Ehricke devoted more than three decades of his life to
developing a comprehensive program for the industrial development of the
Moon. He described Earth’s companion as our planet’s seventh continent. His
devotion to the movement of human civilization into space began as a teenager
in Germany in the late 1920s, and remained his life’s work until his death in
1984. He became well known for his statement: “It has been said, ‘If God wanted
man to fly, He would have given man wings.’ Today we can say, ‘If God wanted
man to become a spacefaring species, He would have given man a moon.’”
“Ours is a binary system,” Krafft Ehricke explained. “There is no rea-
son that only half of it should be inhabited, merely because life originated
there… Instead of searching for and speculating about life elsewhere, we
will put it there.”
19
To Krafft Ehricke, the exploration and industrial development of the

Moon was not simply a worthwhile undertaking, but an “extraterrestrial
imperative.” By this, he meant that man could not continue to grow and
develop within the closed system of the Earth. He traced the roots of his
concept of the extraterrestrial imperative to the European Renaissance,
when the celebration of man’s creativity led to the exploration of the New
World, and to the breakthroughs in natural science that laid the basis for
the modern era.
Krafft Ehricke believed that making clear the philosophical basis for man-
kind’s coming exploration of space would provide the necessary founda-
tion for all of his future extraterrestrial activities. In 1957, his Anthropology
of Astronautics was published, outlining three laws that Ehricke believed
should govern man’s exploration of space:
First Law: “Nobody and nothing under the natural laws of this uni-
verse impose any limitations on man except man himself.” This
perspective became especially important in the late 1960s, when the
limits to growth movement proposed that mankind must cut back
its consumption and reduce its standard of living, because it was
using up “limited” resources.
Second Law: “Not only the Earth, but the entire solar system, and as
much of the universe as he can reach under the laws of nature, are
man’s rightful field of activity.” Exploration and exploitation of the
resources of the Moon and other heavenly bodies, Krafft Ehricke
proposed, would eliminate the idea of limits to growth, by creating
a “new open world” for mankind.
Krafft Ehricke’s Moon 21
Third Law: “By expanding through the universe, man fulfills his des-
tiny as an element of life, endowed with the power of reason and the
wisdom of moral law within himself.” In this way, Krafft Ehricke saw
the spread of human civilization, culture, and science throughout
the Solar System, as the natural progression of humanity’s billions-
years development, to its rightful place in the universe.
Today, space exploration programs are too often seen as simply another
line-item in an already overburdened federal budget. But Krafft Ehricke
made clear that the “imperative” arose from the understanding that there
would be grave consequences to trying to limit mankind’s activity to his
home planet. In a diagram prepared in 1970, he contrasted a growth ver-
sus a no-growth future. A perspective for growth, which would necessitate
expansion beyond the Earth, would bring about international cooperation,
scientific developments, a global industrial revolution, and ultimately, the
preservation of civilization and of human growth potential.
In contrast, a no-growth, closed-world pathway would lead to irrational

anti-science movements, geopolitical power politics, regional chauvinism,
and eventually wars over diminishing reserves of natural resources, many

of which are problems we see today.
What space exploration and exploitation offered to mankind, in terms of
practical results, Krafft Ehricke demonstrated, were advancements in the life
and medical sciences, Earth and astronomical sciences, as well as advances
in navigation, information, energy, and all aspects of advanced technology.
Krafft Ehricke concentrated great effort in studying and describing the
development of the Moon, as the first step in what he called a “polyglobal
civilization.” However, he never limited his thinking to the nearby Moon. In
1948, while working for the United States Army, testing rockets and missiles,
he wrote a fictional work on how Mars would be colonized, which he titled,
“Expedition Ares.” It was published for the first time in the Spring 2003 issue
of 21st Century Science & Technology magazine. He fully expected that the
Moon would just be the first step in mankind’s greatest adventure.
Krafft Ehricke described the Earth as a large spaceship, but not one that
is alone, but one which “travels in a convoy.” But since the other planets in
the Solar System “are not unique in the same sense that Earth is,” he wrote
in 1969, “they are expendable and transformable.” On Earth, we have the
restraints of preserving and enlarging our ecosphere, while other planets,
probably devoid of life now, are “potential incubators of life.” Through the
“scope, grandeur, and promise of this challenge,” he stated, “by fertilizing
these worlds, we may become builders of new ecospheres.”
Selenopolis
The exploration and settlement of the Moon, Krafft Ehricke proposed, must
be done on a grand scale. He envisioned the development of a city with thou-
sands of citizens, which he named Selenopolis. The city would be built over
time, and grow along with the development of lunar industries. Selenopolis
would establish the industrialization and urbanization of the Moon, with the
creation of a self-sufficient lunar biosphere. The mining and manufacturing
industries would provide raw materials and minerals, and later semi- and fin-
ished goods, for use on the Moon, for export to the Earth, and for spacefarers
heading to destinations beyond the Moon. The city of Selenopolis would be
powered by fusion power plants, because only such an energy-dense energy
source could energize a city that had to create its own environment, grow its
own food, and provide educational, cultural, and entertainment activities for
the people who would be developing the resources of the Moon. As Krafft
Ehricke explained: “For Selenopolis, fusion energy is as indispensable and
fundamental as the Sun’s energy is for the terrestrial biosphere. Selenopolis
cannot be built with yesterday’s technology.” The city on the Moon will not
be an outpost, where a few people would brave the unknown, living in aus-
tere circumstances for short periods of time, but provide the basis for the
movement of human civilization into space.
Although Selenopolis would have to be covered with lunar soil, in order
to be well shielded from radiation, natural sunlight would be reflected into
the city, through a series of mirrors atop the dome. There thus would be no
indication that one were living virtually underground. Living on the Moon
should not be all work, Krafft Ehricke stated. Inside the city of Selenopolis,
in addition to living quarters, like any large city, there would be muse-
ums, schools, an elevated electric rail transport to travel from one venue to
another, greenhouses, sports activities, and sections of the city with an array
of different climates, such as are found on the Earth. For recreation, selenar-
ians could spend time in the winter-climate sector, going ice skating, or they
could relax on a beach, in a tropical environment. Life in Selenopolis would
mirror, as much as possible, the very best aspects of life on Earth.
Krafft Ehricke likened the building of Selenopolis to the construction of

the great cathedrals of the Middle Ages. And he advised that, like those
cathedrals, it would be the work of generations.
Working on the Moon

In order to illustrate his concepts for living and working on the Moon, Krafft
Ehricke created many of his own paintings, some of which are reproduced
here. The development of the Moon would take place in stages, with increased
capabilities in each stage, building upon the past accomplishments. The first
stage would consist of detailed prospecting of the Moon, using automated,
or robotic, probes. Although the Apollo program revolutionized our under-
standing of the history and composition of the Moon, many questions remain
unanswered about its origin and evolution, and detailed resource mapping
is still needed. This is indeed underway today, through probes being sent to
the Moon by Europe, Japan, China, and the United States.
Stage two would continue detailed prospecting from circumlunar orbit,
and capital equipment would begin to be launched from the Earth to the
Moon, to prepare for human visits. By stage three, initial industrial bases
would be established, including a Lunar Operations Center, which would
consist of a laboratory and habitation module. An inverted shape would
maximize the shielding for the modules, and would optimize temperature
control, at the Lunar Operations Center in equatorial regions, which are
warm during the day and cold during the lunar night. This shape also serves
as an umbrella, to provide shade for astronauts working on the surface, in
the vicinity of the Center.
In stage four, industrial feeder stations would be installed at various

locations on the Moon, which would provide raw materials for industrial
processing. A geolunar space market would develop, for products from the
Moon to be exported to facilities in lunar orbit, and to geosynchronous orbit
around the Earth. As the lunar economy and population grew, Selenopolis
would take shape. And in stage five, the Earth and Moon have a roughly
equal trade balance, with the Earth providing industrial capital goods and
materials not available on the Moon, and lunar industries exporting finished
goods and raw materials back to Earth.
Ehricke carried out very detailed studies of large-scale lunar mining oper-
ations, needed to provide the citizens of Selenopolis, and the people back on
the Earth, with a source of raw materials. Before fusion plants were available,
nuclear fission energy would be the primary source of power for the grow-
ing lunar economy, and industrial-scale mining operations. In an early 1980s
scheme, Ehricke pictured collector trucks delivering the mined raw material,
or “lunar crude,” to the processing complex.
The lunar soil would be fed by a conveyor belt system into an atomic oven,
which would be created through small nuclear detonations. In these under-
ground caverns, the heat of the pulsed nuclear blasts would be contained
in the desiccated, low-heat-conducting lunar rock. Atomic blasts inside the
oven would vaporize the volatiles in the soil, such as oxygen, which would
then be collected in a near-by buffer cavern. The gas would egress to the
surface, where it would be collected and housed in storage containers, for
use in Selenopolis. Many other precious resources, including man-made ores
of enriched materials, would also be extracted from the atomic oven, as it is

“mined” for other reduced materials. Then the oven would be reused.
New Transportation Systems

In order to make development of the Moon efficient and economical, Krafft
Ehricke proposed that an entire family of new transportation vehicles be
created, each optimized to operate in its own specific environment. Winged
vehicles, taking advantage of the braking potential of the atmosphere of the
Earth, he proposed, would be well suited for transport from Earth to Earth-
orbiting space stations, and back again. Between the orbit of the Earth, and
the orbit of the Moon, or through cislunar space, a class of vehicles with-
out aerodynamic requirements, since they would not encounter a planetary
atmosphere, would be developed.
The Earth-Moon transport system should make maximum use of the mate-
rials found and processed on the Moon, Krafft Ehricke proposed, since, due
to the lower gravity, it is more efficient to launch material into cislunar space
from the surface of the Moon, than from the surface of the Earth. He therefore
designed a huge, nuclear-powered Cislunar Freighter, fueled by lunar oxygen
and aluminum powder, to carry “lunar bounty” to terrestrial markets.
One of the primary cargoes carried by the Cislunar Freighter would be the
isotope helium-3, which is very rare on the Earth, but has been deposited and
has remained virtually undisturbed on the lunar surface, over eons by the
solar wind. As has been recently emphasized by space scientists, particularly
in Russia and China, this isotope will be the fuel for future terrestrial and
lunar economies, used in advanced fusion power plants.
Landing on the Moon entails a different set of requirements than land-
ing on the Earth, and specialized vehicles were designed by Krafft Ehricke
for this purpose. For landing on the surface of the Moon, he invented an
entirely new science—harenodynamics, from the Latin word for “sandy.”
This new science encompassed the determination of the dynamics of flow,
boundary layer formation, pressure and temperature, and the effect of the
release of oxygen, from the lunar sand. Harenodynamics is the substitution
of the dynamic qualities of lunar sand, for the aerodynamic and hydrody-
namic characteristics that enable man to fly, and land, in the atmosphere of
the Earth. In this way, a vehicle could land like an airplane on the Moon,
using the “drag” or friction of the sand as a substitute for an atmosphere,
rather than use costly fuels for braking propulsion in rocket engines to slow
down and drop gently to the surface.
Slide Landers would not require a paved runway, but it will be necessary
to clear a path for the vehicles, by removing boulders and large rocks. Krafft
Ehricke recommended that the lunar plains, the maria, provide suitable sur-
face conditions. A nuclear-powered Mammoth Sweeper was designed by
Ehricke, to prepare an 80-kilometer long lunar runway, or landing strip, with
a smooth, although dusty, surface. The Slide Lander would approach the sur-
face of the Moon from circumlunar orbit, to land on the runway prepared by
the Sweeper. He made precise calculations, not only of the flow dynamics of
this sandy medium, but also of the direction of the streams of sand created
by the dynamic landing, so they would be propelled safely away from the
vehicle.
Lunar mining operations would also require an extensive surface trans-
portation system. Krafft Ehricke considered magnetic launchers and cata-
pults for shorter distances, and systems similar to elevated light rail for
distances beyond the horizon. Combinations of surface transport systems

would be employed, depending upon the distances traversed over the sur-
face, and the characteristics of what is being transported, such as people
versus freight. During stage four, feeder stations, located in metal-rich prov-
inces of the Moon, would be established. Using a ballistic delivery of this
enriched “lunar crude” to central processing complexes, material would be
hurled into a designated receiving crater, Ehricke proposed, from which
it would be transported to the industrial processing facility. “The energy
requirements for ballistic transmission are modest,” he explained, “because
of the low lunar gravity.”
At the time Krafft Ehricke was designing his lunar city, the landings
on the surface of the Moon, during the Apollo program, had been lim-
ited to equatorial regions. In order to extend the range of potential land-
ing locations, and to increase the span of regions adaptable to the human
exploration of the Moon, he developed a concept first proposed by German
space pioneer Hermann Oberth, in the 1920s. Placed in the proper orbit
around the Moon, a spacecraft could capture sunlight and reflect it to the
surface. Such a Lunetta could illuminate the eternally-dark polar regions of
the Moon, allowing the mining of what scientists hope are caches of lunar
water ice at the poles. The orbiting mirror could also illuminate near-equa-
torial regions during the two-week lunar night, as well as provide light to
the far side of the Moon during its night, which is not illuminated at all,
even by earthshine. This global approach would be far superior to string-
ing electric power lines and placing street lights over the lunar surface, or
carrying flashlights.
Space Should Be Therapeutic; and Fun!

On September 26, 1966, Krafft Ehricke appeared on national television with
well-known television space reporter, Walter Cronkite. Ehricke used a set
of models to explain to Mr. Cronkite, and the television audience, some of
the ideas he was developing for exploring and living in space. While the
Apollo lunar exploration program was in development, in preparation for
the expected industrial development of the Moon, Ehricke suggested that
space facilities in near-Earth orbit would provide a range of goods and ser-
vices for the first space farers.
One such concept he described in the television presentation, was the

design of an Earth-orbiting space hospital. It would be arranged as a series
of separate but connected rotating cylinders, which would allow for the iso-
lation of patients with different conditions. Access would be to each ward
separately. Depending upon the distance from the center inside the rotating
ward, the patient would experience varying levels of gravity. This would
allow appropriate treatment for many maladies, such as heart conditions, or
burns. Earlier the same year, Ehricke and B.D. Newsom, a research specialist
in the life sciences at the Convair Division of General Dynamics, presented a
paper on the “Utilization of Space Environment for Therapeutic Purposes,”
outlining the promise of Earth-orbital medicine.
In their paper, Ehricke and Newsom describe the creation of an ambu-
lance launch vehicle, to transport seriously ill patients to the more benign
microgravity environment of Earth orbit, and medical research and treat-
ment facilities at the orbital hospital. Two categories of objectives were noted:
curative objectives, which would enable the patient to return to Earth in a

better condition than he left; and alleviative objectives, which establish “the
individual’s behavioral freedom from the effects of a handicap by temporary
or permanent transfer to a low-zero gravity environment.” They note that
while the microgravity environment had been shown to have deleterious
effects when healthy human beings adapt to space, that environment can
have curative effects, as well.
The reduction of stress on the heart and circulatory system are one noted
potentially positive effect of microgravity, which can provide relief from
hypertension. The absence of pressure on the musculo-skeletal system can
release pinched nerves and compressed spinal disks. Space can be used as
a means of physical therapy, through the controlled use of varying levels
of gravity. Crippled, partially paralyzed, or otherwise handicapped people
could benefit from the reduced environmental stress. Burn victims would
likewise benefit from the lowered pressure to the skin in microgravity.
But space will not only be open for settlers, miners, engineers, and sci-
entists, Krafft Ehricke proposed. It should also be fun! Decades before citi-
zens who are not professional astronauts were lining up to experience space
flight, Ehricke proposed in 1967, that tourism will be a natural extension of
man in space. He said that people will go into space for the “sheer pleasure,”
just as they take trips on ocean liners and jet planes on vacation, on the Earth.
New activities, only possible above the Earth, will provide relaxation, just as
they do for astronauts today, when there is a window of opportunity, and
window to peer out of, in their spaceship.
Obviously, Krafft Ehricke states, “space vacations offer attractions which
literally are out of this world.” Microgravity, itself, will provide a leisurely
environment, removing the physical stresses of life on Earth. Global “sight-
seeing,” as the astronauts do now, will be popular, and will include not only
looking at the Earth, but also out at the universe, as “the sky is open” to the
tourist “as it can never be on Earth.”
Orbital hotels and tourist facilities will offer a range of entertainment,
sports activities, and even orbital excursions (space walks, or extravehicular
activities). One such facility for the vacationer is the Dynarium, which Krafft
Ehricke describes as “the equivalent to the large swimming pool in modern
resort hotels.” The Dynarium is a large enclosure, where the “swimming
pool” is three-dimensional, and guests can dart from wall to wall, gently
float, tumble, roll, or fly under their own muscle power.
Orbital hotels will also include space zoos and botanic exhibitions, small
laboratories, observation rooms, space walks, and space boats that can be
rented for tours around the facilities.
Why will people want to spend their vacations in space? Krafft Ehricke
poses the following questions, assuming that a thriving space tourism
industry will eventually take explorers beyond the confines of Earth orbit:
“Do we know what it is like to discern the manifold signatures of creation
in space? Do we know what it is like to walk through the stillness of worlds
untrespassed by living beings? Do we know what it is like to touch the

unchanged rocky texture of a column a billion or more years of age? Do we
know what it is like to leap with seven-league boots on the Moon? Can we
fathom the beauty of a Martian sunset? … to look at the mute traces of life
somewhere that faded away eons ago?”
Recreation and enjoyment will not only be available for tourists who
choose to spend their vacations in space. Inside the lunar city of Selenopolis,
provision will be made, in the partial-Earth gravity of the Moon, for new
experiences in sports activities, such as tennis. There will be opportunities
for casual relaxation at “outdoor” cafes and restaurants, in areas of the city
that are comparable to the “sunbelt” climates on Earth. Other parts of the
city will mimic the colder climates or seasons on Earth, and Christmas in
Selenopolis might include ice skating, and a visit to the Hall of Astronauts.
To Krafft Ehricke, the idea that there could be “limits to growth,” which
notion became popular during the late 1960s, was a repudiation of the human
spirit, and the Renaissance view of man. He fought a constant battle to argue
that only when the Earth is looked at as a closed system, could one consider
that there are limits to resources. But, there is no limit to human creativity,
and it is that resource, and the new knowledge it creates, that creates a new
open world. This open world depends upon the exploration and exploitation
by man of what is rightly his: the unlimited potential of space.
4
Looking Back at Apollo/Saturn:
Planning Activities (1961−1965)
Excerpts of weekly notes of the director, future projects (NASA/MSFC) to

the center director, Dr. Wernher von Braun
H.H. Koelle
H.H. Koelle was born 1925 in the former free state of Danzig. He was
a pilot during World War II, founder of the postwar German Society of
Space Research—GfW (1948), Dipl.-Ing. (MS) Mechanical Engineering,
Technical University Stuttgart (1954); member of the Dr. W. von Braun team
at Huntsville Alabama (1955−1965); Chief, Preliminary Design, U.S. Army
Ballistic Missile Agency (ABMA), member of the launch crew of Explorer I,
U.S. citizen (1961); Dr.-Ing. (PhD) Technical University, Berlin (1963); direc-
tor, Future Projects Office NASA/MSFC (1961−1965), responsible for the
preliminary design of the Saturn family of launch vehicles and planning
of the MSFC share of the Apollo program; editor-in-chief of Handbook of
Astronautical Engineering (McGraw-Hill, 1961); professor of space technology,
Technical University Berlin (1965−1991); vice president of the International
Astronautical Federation (1967−1969); dean, Department of Transportation,
Technical University Berlin (1989−1991). He is a member of the International
Academy of Astronautics (1966), chairman, IAA Subcommittee on Lunar
Development (1985−1997), and has over 350 publications. He is recipient
of the Medal of the Aeroclub of France, Hermann-Oberth Medal (DGRR),
the Hermann Oberth Award (AIAA), the Eugen Saenger Medal (DGLR),
the Patrick Moore Medal (BIS), and the Engineering Sciences Award of the
International Academy of Astronautics. In 2003 he was elected Honorary
Member of the International Academy of Astronautics; 2007 Space Pioneer
Award of the National Space Society USA.
Introduction
It is interesting to note that the problems that were analyzed and discussed in
the early sixties with respect to the future of the U.S. Space Program are back
on the agenda again due to the new U.S. Space policy initiated by President
33
Bush in January 2004. Thus, a summary of respective items reported to

Dr. von Braun by the director of the MSFC Future Projects Office indicates
the problems occupying our minds some 40 years ago and are of relevance
currently in planning the space exploration vision.
During the years 1960−1965 the author was director of the Future Projects
Office at NASA/MSFC. These were the years where the Saturn/Apollo pro-
gram was conceived and placed under development. I reported directly to
Dr. Werner von Braun. People of his staff reporting to him directly had to
submit by Friday noon each week one-page weekly notes, summarizing all
that was happening and was expected for the following week and should get
his attention. This was one of the management tools he used to keep things
under control.
The “Weekly Notes” listed in this summary cover selected items that were
of particular interest to Apollo/Saturn development to NASA management.
This communication between Dr. von Braun and myself illustrates our aspi-
rations as well as the spirit and thinking prevailing in 1961–1965, the years in
which the Apollo program was taking shape and initiated.
Notes selected, illustrating the events, concepts and strategies, are limited
to the highlights as seen from the vantage point of the year 2008. They are
arranged by topics and dates originated.
System Analysis
10-2-61: Launch Vehicle Reliability
On September 20 a representation was given to the LLVPG (GOLOVIN com-
mittee) by H.H. Koelle, accompanied by J.W. Moody (M-Rel), on a method
for reliability growth on large launch vehicles. The data presented was well
received. Copy of presentation is available. (LLVPG Task No. 003.)
10-30-61: Reports of MSFC

More than 200 reports have been submitted to this office for evaluation and
inclusion into a 10-volume collection of technical reports, demonstrating
MSFC systems capability. It is estimated that about 100 to 120 reports will
be selected. Abstracts of the selected reports have been typed and will be
compiled into an Abstract Volume. This Abstract Volume and a cover letter
signed by the Director, MSFC, will be sent to Mr. B. Holmes (newly appointed
associate administrator of the Office of Manned Space Flight!) later this week,
stating among other things that he can have the whole collection. These vol-
umes should be ready for your inspection Tuesday afternoon in my office.
Suggest you put it on your schedule.
Looking Back at Apollo/Saturn 35
12-10-62: Cost Control

I would like to offer a suggestion concerning cost control on future and pres-
ent projects. We have observed that costs are greatly and quickly altered with
change in specifications. Our present system permits each individual engineer
and designer to incorporate specifications and changes which fall in the total
spectrum from “nice-to-have” to “must!” However, the individual who intro-
duces the specifications is rarely asked for a cost estimate tied to this speci-
fication or change, nor for an evaluation of the benefits (such as reliability),
accrued from such a change. Normally, it suffices to say: I want it! While this
is not objectionable when resources are plentiful, it might not be the best mode
of operation in case of limited resources. I would suggest that, in the future,
the Change Control Board and the Project Director insist on a cost and benefit
evaluation before such changes are approved. There should be a certain cost
limit above which must be obtained from the Deputy Director R&D or the
Director MSFC. I hope we can keep costs down, at least for new projects if we
make these trade-off studies, while we are writing the specifications during
the program definition phase. I believe our present rather loose cost control
is responsible for a fair share of our cost overruns. Dr. Lange and Mr. Maus
might want to join in a little study on the practicability of this suggestion.
5-27-63: Launch Vehicle System Cost Model

Six proposals were received on our Launch Vehicle System Cost Model
Study. Two outstanding proposals were submitted by General Dynamics/
Fort Worth and Lockheed California Company. We plan to initiate contract
negotiations with both companies and expect to have contracts underway by
mid June, unless you have objections. These two studies will give us parallel
effort in the important area of vehicle costing. We will be glad to give you
a short briefing on the objectives of this study and the related work we are
doing in the cost area, if you like.
[Comment by Dr. v.B: No objections, let’s combine this with next tech briefing.]
9-30-63: Cost Studies

We are continuing, within our limited authority and capabilities, to study
the reasons for cost overruns and to develop tools for better cost projections.
We are coordinating this activity with those individuals from other elements
of MSFC who have demonstrated an interest. Our activities can be summa-
rized as follows:
Resources Model
This will give us upper and lower limits of expected funds to be available for
the development, procurement, and operation of (Jack Waite and crew) with
the assistance of FPO.
Mission Model
This mission model relates the mission capabilities of individual launch vehi-
cles with mission objectives, state-of-the-art, and initial weight requirements
in low altitude orbit, with the main variable being change of emphasis on
space activities between global operations, orbital operations, lunar opera-
tions, and planetary operations. We are trying to interest Aero-Astrodynamics
Laboratory (Mr. Thomae) in assisting us in the development of this model.
Cost Projection Model for Saturn-Type Expendable Launch Vehicles

This Model is in an advanced state of development. We will attempt—in
close cooperation with Industrial Operations—to mechanize the process
of cost projections. However, this model will not substitute for the detailed
budget exercise we have to make several times per year to cover the imme-
diate future. It will give long-range trends and permit an evaluation of the
influence of the major system parameters. This model will have a great deal
of sophistication and hopefully will help us to better understand some of the
cost parameters and to develop correction factors for overruns.
Universal Cost Model for Launch Vehicles

This is a more advanced cost estimating procedure for reusable launch vehi-
cles, which we are developing under contract with Lockheed and General
Dynamics/Fort Worth, and with some assistance from Rand.
Cost Effectiveness of National Booster Program

We do have now an operational program, which allows us to mix firing rates
and performance of all launch vehicles which are presently in the national
booster program. This model helps us to analyze the influence of either indi-
vidual launch vehicles on the total program, or the effect of individual vehicle
improvements. This will be helpful for Saturn V and NOVA comparisons.
[Comment by Dr. v.B.: I suggest that you also study (and possibly crank in):
CADLE report (blue book); SCHRIEVER “lessons” report (“yellow book”). Maus
knows both and can get them for you.]
4-6-64: President Johnson’s Request

In a letter to Mr. Webb, dated January 30, 1964, The President requested a
NASA position on the following two subjects:
• A statement on possible future space objectives, and,

• estimates of time, funds, and technology required to implement
major missions related to future objectives.
In a memorandum, dated March 25, 1964 Mr. Webb issued a directive to

Dr. Seamans on how this request should be implemented.
A task group was established under Frances B. Smith (on loan from
Langley) with two panels:
• An objective panel (headed by Dr. Richard Head)

• A mission panel under Mr. W. Flemming. This panel has a sub-panel
for launch vehicles under Milton Rosen.
I have been listed as the MSFC member on this sub-panel and was alerted
that this will result in a major workload, primarily for people in my office.
Mr. Webb has directed that this should be considered a top priority assign-
ment [Comment by Dr. v.B.: Absolutely!]. I am now standing by for further
instructions and will keep you informed through these Notes.
6-29-64: Weighted Objectives of the National Space Program

We conducted an “opinion poll” among 60 MSFC key personnel on the rela-
tive importance of individual objectives of the National Space Program. This
resulted in the following weighted objective list, which we intend to use to
determine the “relative worth” of individual project combinations within the
present long range planning exercise:
Weight
Ranking Objective (Percent)
(1) Achieve and preserve U.S. leadership 8.2
(2) Utilization of space knowledge and technologies for the 8.0
benefit of mankind
(3) Gain knowledge about the nature of the universe and 6.1
life itself
(4) Develop an industrial base which can quickly respond to 6.1
security needs in space
(5) Incentive for improved education 5.9
(6) Promote international cooperation 5.8
(7) Stimulate the nation as a whole 5.7
(8) Stimulate economy (investments and employment) 5.6
(9) Demonstrate space systems applicable to security needs of 5.6
the U.S.
(10) Increased knowledge about terrestrial and space environment 5.2
(11) Strengthen educational facilities 5.2
(12) Improve industrial base continuity, including management 4.85
practices to develop very complex technical systems
(13) Development of manned space transportation systems as a 4.85
new dimension to terrestrial transportation systems
(14) Improve government capability to handle complex systems 4.3
Weight
Ranking Objective (Percent)
(15) Provide quick inspection capability to police arms control 4.0
agreements
(16) Exploit extraterrestrial resources 3.9
(17) Improve U.S. competitive position in foreign trade by use of 3.2
new techniques and procedures
(18) Aeronautical transportation systems will be improved as a 2.7
fallout of space technology
(19) Development of efficient unmanned space vehicles for 2.5
scientific research
(20) Space transportation systems will also permit rapid global
transportation
Do you think that this is a reasonable basis for some initial comparison of
project mixes?
[Comment by Dr. v.B.: My personal opinion jibes pretty closely with this poll,
except for the relative ranking indicated by the arrows, which indicate my prefer-
ence. Item 16 should be at the end of the list, items 18 and 20 should be placed behind
item 13.]
8-31-64: Answer to President’s Letter

A preliminary draft of the answer letter is now in circulation among staff offices
in Washington and plenty of surgery is applied. It is a very broad description
of the entire program, avoiding specifics. However, the following three proj-
ects are singled out as the most probable new starts this year: Voyager, Alls
and Apollo X. The draft is supposed to be coordinated with DOD, PSAC and
Dr. Welsh before it will be submitted in a final version in December.
10-5-64: Marketing of Space Flight

There is growing evidence that we will have difficulties in the years to come
to sustain the public support we enjoyed in the last years. This suggests—and
I know that you have preached along these lines quite often recently—that we
at MSFC should make an organized effort to come up with a better utilization
of our space flight capabilities and take great care to justify in a better way,
the use of newly developed hardware and new projects; e.g. the “why” of
spaceflight. Up to now we have concentrated almost exclusively on the “how”
of space flight. I would suggest a special brainstorming session in which we
analyze how our MSFC talents can be brought to bear more on the problem of
space flight marketing. I am thinking of increasing our present effort (which
is a few hundred man-hours per year) by at least two orders of magnitude.
This might require an organizational change or shift of some manpower.
I am thinking of a group of 5 to 10 professional people doing nothing but
to compile potential applications and develop the uses of space flight in an

aggressive manner within NASA policies and in conjunction with other
organizations. Many avenues of approach offer themselves in accomplishing
such an objective.
[Comment by Dr. v.B.: Let’s discuss this again (between you, Weidner, Frank W.
and myself).]
[I expressed my feelings during the 9/25 Executive Session.]
11-9-64: NASA Five-Year Plan

In case you are wondering about my reaction to the new long range plan:
The new NASA five-year plan is better and more realistic than anything
we have ever had! However, from where I am sitting, I see the following
shortcomings:
a. It does not appear to be the type of a plan the President requested.

b. It does not appear to be a plan that will insure that we will be ahead
of the Russians one of these days.
c. The plan does not offer a real challenge to NASA, and particularly
MSFC, once the Apollo mission has been accomplished.
d. The plan does not have the elements which it takes (in my mind) to
compete successfully for its share of the federal budget. I believe that
this kind of a plan does not offer enough “return on investment”
to sustain a 5.5. to 6.0 billion dollar budget a year for the future.
[Comment by Dr. v.B.: Let’s talk about this. I don’t see it that way at all.]
e. This plan, if not accompanied by program definition studies for the
time period beyond 1971, neglects the fact that lead times of complex
spacecraft and launch vehicles are longer than 5 years (in fact 5 to 10)
and we will end up in the same box we are today, with too few
attractive missions and suitable payloads to fly in 1972 and beyond.
To reinitiate such studies two years from now is too late to catch the
budget decline around 1970, as presently projected.
f. In a few years from now, I can see difficulties for MSFC to obtain a
project assignment which is in line with our talents, facilities and
strength. [Comment by Dr. v.B.: I’ve heard that before!]
g. The taxpayer might view this plan (if at all) as one which offers “just
more of the same”; I would expect some difficulties in keeping the
public really interested in and behind the space program, a trend
which eventually will reduce available resources.
h. I am disappointed in how plans of this importance are developed “over
night” with somebody pushing the panic button. They always result
in plenty of confusion, as well as a waste of money and manpower.
NASA could do its job a lot better and save a lot of money. [Comment
by Dr. v.B.: You couldn’t be more wrong! That plan has been under discus-
sion for over 6 months in one version or the other!]
For all those reasons, I prefer to identify the new five-year NASA plan as “a
plan to depart from” and would like to see us constantly improving it and
do this with vigor!
(When I joined your team almost ten years ago, you told me that you did not
expect me to be a “yes man,” I am still adhering to your advice, as you can see.)
12-7-64: New NASA Five-Year Plan

There must be somebody else within NASA who is not completely happy
with the present state of affairs in the area of long-range planning. I quote
the following sentence from Aviation Week of 11-16-64: “A working level
complaint at NASA these days is that to get money in the new budget the
concept has to look like Apollo, feel like Apollo and smell like Apollo.”
[Comment by Dr. v.B.: We need both: Long-range planning and Apollo ad-ons.
The trouble at the moment is that for the momentum built up with the main-stream
Apollo program. There has been too little of the latter, with resulting immediate dan-
gers to the stature of the program.]
12-14-64: Return-on-Investment
We have developed a calculation procedure which attempts to assess the
“expected return on investment” of any space program, and can suggest
the relative standing of alternative space program plans. It is based on the
“weighted objectives list” which was derived by group judgment of senior
MSFC personnel. Forty-four yield indicators are available to correlate the
yield of a program with the given objectives. Each of the objectives is rep-
resented by a “worth estimating relationship.” The number of terms in each
equation is proportional to the weight of the objective. The individual terms
are non-linear and produce a devaluating effect with increasing time and
transportation volume.
The calculation procedure is simple enough to be explained to people not
specializing in the “numbers racket.” We are now testing this procedure to
find out how useful and valuable it might be as a planning tool. The purpose
of this limited effort is to gain more insight in “what makes the space pro-
gram tick,” not to derive a new space program by analytical procedures.
If we think we learned something, we will let you know.
[Comment by Dr. v.B.: Although I’m sure you know as well as I do that the politi-
cal feasibility of space programs depends not only on logic, but on such unfathomable
elements as President Kennedy’s election or NASA/AF relations. I am in complete
agreement with you that it is absolutely necessary that we proceed in our long range
plans with as much logic and care we can muster. Let’s make sure that we discuss
progress in this area at regular intervals, and don’t get discouraged.]
Launch Vehicle Concept Analysis

10.16.61: LLVPG Thinking
Emphasis is being placed on a 240” solid motor for C-1, C-4, and possibly
NOVA application. The solid propellant enthusiasts are pushing for a solid
vehicle back-up to the liquid (propellant) C-4 (configuration). This week the
funding picture will be studied in detail, since the worst solution would be
two under-funded programs.
[Comment by Dr. v.B.: Couldn’t agree more!]
12-11-61: SATURN-D Follow-On Studies

A follow-on statement of work for General Dynamics and Lockheed has been
prepared and coordinated with Mrazek, Col. Fellows, and Schramm. These
studies will provide input into the RIFT (Reactor-In-Flight-Test) program and
the C-4/C-5 program so that upon completion of RIFT an early operational
capability can be achieved without major redesign. Because of the competi-
tive nature of RIFT, certain precautions must be taken in the Saturn D.
12-18-61: Studies Planned

A memo was forwarded to you on December 14, 1961 regarding desired
action on the following:
a. Electric propulsion mission study

b. Application of hydrogen/fluorine for both C-1 third stage and Apollo
lunar launch vehicle.
c. Early manned planetary mission study.
A draft for the proposed NOVA study effort has been completed and I
would like to discuss it as well as the initiation of the “NOVA definition
effort” at your earliest convenience.
[Comment of Dr. v.B.: Let’s first get the C-5 issue out of the way. “One emer-
gency at the time!” But why don’t you draft something, meanwhile?]
2-12-62: Liquid versus Solid Propellant Rocket Motors

In order to be better prepared for congressional hearing, do you think it would
be a good idea to personally invite Dr. Ritchie (Thiokol) for a detailed technical
discussion with system specialists. If you agree, I think I can handle it.
[Comment Dr. v.B: I wouldn’t invite him under the heading of “forthcoming
congressional hearings” because he has made too many rather opinionated state-
ments already. But if you, as head of MSFC’s Future Projects Office, invite him to a
discussion (“as one rocket man to another”) to clear up certain questions you have in
the area of analyzing complete solid-powered vehicles (including thrust vector con-
trol, transportation, emergency procedures, the “donor” explosion criteria problem
etc. etc.) that’ll be just fine. Say we’d like to get to the hard core of the controversy -
the question is not that we doubt you can build big solid motors, but those thousands
of other unanswered questions. Please keep me posted.]
Position Paper on Solids versus Liquids

The status report on “solids,” which you requested as preparation for congres-
sional hearings, is now undergoing the 3rd iteration process. Next Monday
we will have clean draft ready for review by you and the Division Directors.
At the present time it is about 20 triple-spaced typewritten pages.
[Comments by Dr. v.B.: Suggest (if you have not done it) to crank into this paper
the class 9/class 2 (explosives) argument my position (backed by Seamans). We want
no part of C-5 or NOVA solids unless they are officially accepted as class 2 hazard in
presence of donor. Suggest you check also LOD re-siting problems in new Cape area.]
4-8-63: NOVA Redirection

As a result of our discussion (April 4) and your directives, we are now reori-
enting our study efforts in the direction of unconventional reusable NOVA
concepts. We will issue new guidelines to the contractors this week along the
following lines:
A. Sixty percent or more of the total study effort will be applied in the
operation analysis and conceptual design leading to and approaching
the greatest practical extent of an “ideal NOVA” defined as follows:
(1) NOVA must have a multiple mission capability, preferably in all of

the following areas:
(a) Earth to low orbit heavy cargo delivery
(b) Earth to orbit cargo delivery in connection with dog-legging
into high orbit inclinations and/or inter-orbital transfer to
high altitude orbits
(c) Global logistic transport for cargo and personnel
(d) Lunar logistic transport for mixed cargo and personnel
(e) Planetary logistic for cargo and personnel
(f) High velocity space probes. The “ideal” NOVA concept might
have most of the following features (or equivalent):
(g) (a) Single stage (with air augmentation, and/or tank staging
and JATO)
(h) (b) Land and sea recovery (with payload in case of global
transport). The “ideal” NOVA concept might have most of the
following features (or equivalent):
(2) The “ideal” NOVA concept might have most of the following fea-
tures (or equivalent):
(a) Single stage (with air augmentation, and/or tank staging and
JATO)
(b) Land and sea recovery (with payload in case of global
transport)
(c) Design lifetime of 100 flights
(d) Terminal guidance
(e) Wide payload range capability (larger than Saturn V up to
approximately 500 tons to low orbit)
(f) Acceptable acceleration limits in case of personnel transport
(g) Compatibility with nuclear upper stages.
B. The rest of the effort will be used to update conventional expend-

able or partially reusable NOVA vehicles, in the latter case with first
stage recovery as minimum goal. This data will be used to evaluate
the advantages offered (and price to be paid) by the various “ideal”
NOVAs we hope to come up with.
Does this formula interpret your instructions close enough so that we can
proceed?
[Comments by Dr. v.B: Precisely. You may proceed on this basis. Capt. Freitag
also agrees. Make sure to get Shea on board also (through Doug Lord).]
10-14-63: Global Transport

I have discovered a quote of Dr. Lloyd Berkner (for many years president of
the Space Science Board of the National Academy of Science), which I con-
sider to be important and interesting:
[From Hearings before the Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sciences,
United States Senate, June 10 and 11, 1963]:
The future use of rockets for quick point-to-point transport now is as

certain as we now know scheduled 600-m.p.h. air transport had become
after the demonstration at Kitty Hawk. Without question, technologi-
cal problems of regular rocket transport are enormous. But there is no
known natural or scientific dictum that stands in the way of such trans-
port on an efficient and regular basis. So, we can confidently predict that
fast rocket transport will come, eventually, to give us 20-minute trans-
Atlantic schedules.
1-13-64: Post-Apollo Saturn IB Market

During Ed GRAY’s visit last week, I had an opportunity to inform him that
now is the time to plan for missions of the Saturn IB for the post-Apollo
time period (mid 1968). In my opinion, there is a great probability that we
will not have a large enough market to keep the Saturn IB production line
going [Comment by Dr. v.B.: I Agree]. New payloads of a complex nature for
1968 and 1969 are almost out of question due to lack of resources. Further,
we have the competition of Titan III to expect and we should not forget that
the Saturn V also is around. With a firing rate of two per year (which could
be all we might be able to sell for 2968/69/70). The cost of the IB might be
more than the Saturn V. I am greatly concerned about the prospects in this
area and am trying to get some joint activity started among OMSF (GRAY),
MSC and MSFC to complement the contractor effort, which just resulted
in their first report (containing a little too much window dressing and not
enough analysis).
5-25-64: Post-Saturn Review

Last week we had a two-day review of our post-Saturn study activities,
including vehicle trade-offs, mission analysis, test facilities at MTO, and
Launch facilities at MILA. We now have enough information to concentrate
our conceptual design on a “base line” configuration which can be described
as follows:
Concept
Fully recoverable and reusable, all LH2/LO2 propellants, two stages to orbit,
three stages to escape (modified S-II Stage is a suitable third stage).
First stage: 18 modified hinged M-1 engines around plug-nozzle,

recoverable, separate tanks
Second stage: 12 high pressure engines in the 315 K thrust range,
possibly toroidal airspike integrated propulsion system for maxi-
mum performance. Plug used as re-entry body.
Vehicle launch weight: Approximately 18,000,000 lb
Diameter: Approximately 75 ft
Payload LEO: Approximately: 1,000,000 lb
Operational target date: 1980
Cost effectiveness to LEO: 60 $/lb direct cost; 120 $/lb total cost
Facilities: Two test stands for each stage at MTF, 2nd stage sectional
R&D testing at MSFC in our large test stand. Three launch positions
at the cape in hybrid fashion (enclosed tower serves as assembly
building and launch site).
We will make additional trade-off studies and probably modifications to

this base line concept as we go along. However, the planning exercise for the
President, as well as our desire to make competitive study for Saturn V doing
the same missions, is the reason for selecting a base line concept at this time.
It might not be the very best, but it will be one of the best concepts available.
Many considerations went into the selection of the new base line. We will be
happy to give you a briefing on this subject, if you desire.
It might be of interest to you that all the guidelines we have received from
headquarters do require a post-Saturn launch vehicle by about 1980 for
manned planetary landing and capture missions!
11-16-64: Nuclear System Comparison

During Dr. Mueller’s last visit here (October 22, 1964) he requested that we pre-
pare a staff paper with preliminary answers to the following two questions:
1. What research and development tasks have to be undertaken for each

of the applicant systems to demonstrate its technical feasibility?
2. How do these systems compare, performance and cost wise, if put
on a common basis?
We have set the machinery in motion to prepare this staff paper and have
formed an ad hoc working group with FPO, P&VE (Jordan), RP (Dr. Shelton),
and Aero (Thomae) participating. A plan of attack has been agreed upon,
which is as follows:
a. Nominal mission comparison is done for a 1984 Mars launch win-

dow with a 500-day trip time, including a minimum of 20 days stop-
over. The crew size will be a minimum of eight, and the landing
vehicle will weigh 80,000 lb.
b. We will use 10 different modes to compare various combinations of
types of propulsion systems. Some of the lower performance will use
the Venus swingby mission profile, the higher performance will not.
Earth reentry speed will in all cases be below 50,000 ft/sec. There
will be no cases where the spacecraft returns into an Earth capture
orbit instead of direct atmospheric entry.
c. Each of these 10 cases will be investigated assuming:
(1) Saturn V only
(2) Post-Saturn and Saturn V as launch vehicles
d. The following parameters will be derived for comparison purposes:

(1) Total mass per ship leaving Earth orbit
(2) Dry mass per ship leaving Earth orbit
(3) Total departure mass in Earth orbit divided by useful payload

carried to Mars orbit
(4) Total departure mass in Earth orbit divided by spacecraft mass
returning to Earth
(5) Total departure mass in Earth orbit divided by man-days
available on Mars surface
(6) Total project cost divided by man-days available on Mars surface
(7) Direct operating cost (excluding R&D) divided by man-days
available on Mars surface.
[Comment by Dr. v.B.: How about “Total number of earth-orbit logistic supply
flights,” considering the losses incurred by orbital operations - effect of cryogenics
versus dry Orion propulsion - effect of Post Saturn versus Saturn V?]
Apollo Mission Modes

10-2-61
On September 27 a program review was held on the “Orbital Launch
Operations Study” at Chance Vought, Dallas, Texas. This effort was redi-
rected to include the effects of C-4 (launch vehicle concept) on the orbital
development program.
2-12-62: Weight/Performance Control

With lunar orbital operations getting more momentum, I feel we have to make
a special effort to control our C-5 weight and performance in order to stay com-
petitive. There seems to be a trend that too many people try to put their own
safety margins in. This results in one reserve on top of many others and the
performance deteriorates rapidly. I am trying to get together with Mrazek and
Dr. Geisler in our Performance Review Board. An occasional encouraging word
from your side might help. [Comment Dr. v.B: Agree, you have my full blessing!]
2-26-62: Apollo Mission Performance Dispersion

A concentrated effort is being made to obtain a better feeling for the total
mission performance picture, with emphasis on determining the upper and
lower limited of the total tolerance. The total velocity requirements, spe-
cific impulses of individual engines, and weight estimates have been varied
within the tolerances to be expected. We believe it is not correct to assume
that all parameters will build up to the upper limit of the unfavorable side.
By doing so in the past we have “proven” that the C-5 is now too small. We
have already done this investigation for the connecting mode and find that
we can expect to bring down to the moon anywhere between 53,000 to 84,000
lb with 65,000 t0 70,000 lb as the most likely weight. This makes, however,
one assumption that we will be successful in telling our engineers how the
interrelationships work and that is not permissible for everybody to put in
his personal padding. W adding these “reserves” arithmetically (which is
not the proper way) we sell ourselves out of business. We also will inves-
tigate the other modes of interest and then prepare a summary report. We
hope that this study will result in certain target data for individual design
parameters which will distribute evenly, throughout the system, the burden
of doing a good job. [Comment Dr. v.B: Agree. But organized weight and perfor-
mance control for all elements is equally important]
4-9-62: C-5 Direct Capability

I will organize a small effort to result in a precise determination of the “mar-
gin of error” for this mode. I consider this as a fifth working group within
Dr. Geisler’s overall effort. I suggest that this be placed on the agenda of the
next board meeting as a 5-minute discussion item.
5-14-62: Light Weight Apollo Design

Dr. Eggers will present his proposal for a light weight Apollo capsule to
Dr. Shea this week. I believe he has a good story and I expect that the C-5
direct mode will pick up momentum as a result of Dr. Eggers presentation.
We expect that our calculations will show an attractive performance margin
for the entire mission profile.
Space Station
6-11-62: Program Planning
We are presently compiling all available data useful for a preliminary devel-
opment plan (PDP). Our proposal is based on the modification of a S-IC LOX
tank as the basic structure. We are studying the use of the Titan II-Gemini,
Saturn-IB (also with a solid booster) and the Titan III as a basic supply vehi-
cle. This effort is in support of MSC. We should be ready for a presentation to
you in about four weeks. [Comment by Dr. v.B.: O.K.]
7-16-62: Space Station Preliminary Development Plan (PDP)

We have proceeded with the draft of our proposed report to a point where
we would like to make an informal presentation to you and/or the Board.
We have heard that this subject will be on the agenda of the next Council
Meeting. There are two problems to be discussed:
a. If the simple non-rotating station is favored as the cheaper and sim-

pler solution, we seem to have an option to make a bid for the basic
structure of the station. This can be built at Huntsville with S-1C
tooling. It is essentially a glorified first stage Lox tank.
b. If this project comes early, we are facing a situation where our pres-
ent C-1B launch facilities would be saturated by the requirements of
this project alone (12 firings per year). This will be on top of possible
planetary missions.
8-27-62: PDP
It is anticipated that MSFC will forward their official preliminary project
development plan concerning a manned space station to headquarters this
week and at the latest probably next week.
Ed Olling of MSC visited us last week and indicated that considerable sup-
port is being generated in Houston and at headquarters level. They now have
about 12 people in the space station office and a 40- to 50-man team working
full time on the space station. Olling indicated that he is sending an official
request to Marshall for a space station coordinator at this center concerning
Saturn launch vehicles and the total program. They are also in the process
of establishing technical advisory committees as they have in the past. All
centers will be visited to establish coordination and planning.
A special committee will also be formed to determine the types of research
and development that must be conducted on the first space station. Olling
was informed of our preference that the next approach be on a small scale
of approximately 6 to 12 men and that the program should involve mini-
mum funding at the outset. Olling is presently interested in getting Phase
I approval only. This covers a $ 2 million study phase on the space station,
Apollo modification for 6 men, and a reusable logistics spacecraft. After that
they will worry about total program cost and space station configurations
and more details of the total program, as the politics and engineering factors
evolve.
We will stay in touch with him and have a low level effort going within
MSFC to study the problems of a small station as you suggested, based on
Saturn 1B capabilities following the C-1B orbital rendezvous program. If this
satisfies you, I think we can skip the meeting you offered on this subject and
reschedule it a few months from now.
[Comment by Dr. v.B: I’m convinced that in view of NASA’s overall funding
situation this space station thing will not go into high gear in the next few years.
Minimum C-IB approach is the only thing we can afford at this time.]
9-9-63: Space Station

Last week we had a preliminary design review with P&VE Laboratory on
their in-house study on the space station project. Their project engineer is
Mr. Cash. Our project engineers are Jim Carter and Lou Ball. This effort was
initiated upon your request approximately four months ago. The reasons for
this study are as follows:
• To study compatibility of space station concepts with Saturn launch

vehicles.
• To consolidate briefing material for you in preparation of a pending
decision on this project in the Management Council Meeting in the
next few months.
• To study the possible workload on MSFC, resulting from the ini-
tiation of a space station project, assuming various degrees of
participation.
• To see if there are any concepts which look attractive to us, and
which have not be studied at other places.
The three-hour review brought out that a spinning space station (3-man,
4-month) is marginal even if two Saturn IBs are used. There is a preference
for a space station transported by a Saturn V into orbit, which can house 6
people, has a growth to 12, can spin and de-spin and is supplied by a six-
man Apollo spacecraft. This solution is non-marginal as far as the weight is
concerned, and permits quite some leeway in solving problems by adding
weight.
P&VE has done an outstanding job on this study and we are planning to
give you a somewhat more polished presentation within the next 8 weeks or
whenever the subject should become a hot issue.
We also discussed this subject and recoverable boosters for a full day with
Dr. Yarymovych from OMSF, who is now in charge of these studies within
Dr. Shea’s office. We believe we have established good and effective rela-
tions with this office, which is planned to be staffed by about 25 people.
[Comment by Dr.v.B: Keep this hot! There are growing indications that NASA
hq (Top Trinity) is far more excited about a manned orbital laboratory (Space Station)
as next step after Apollo, than about manned planetary expeditions. And for good
reasons. They think we have to know more about long stay times in space – and sup-
port is easier to get!]
3-2-64: Engineering Experiments for Orbital Research Laboratory (ORL)

The Office of Advanced Studies (Orbital Systems), NASA HQ has asked us
to submit a series of engineering experiments, suitable for use on an orbital
research laboratory. We have agreed to help. Research Projects Laboratory

will do the overall coordination. This office will be the point of contact
between MSFC and Headquarters until other arrangements are deemed
necessary.
This request is somewhat significant since our performance, even though
on a small scale, should permit MSFC to supply major experimental sug-
gestions necessary for us to develop technology in support of orbital launch
operations, lunar base operations, and cryogenic technology in space for
orbital launch vehicles. We hope excellent laboratory participation will result.
We consider this a practical approach to enter the field of orbital operations
as an active participant.
[Comments Dr.v.B.: Suggest we emphasize zero-g effects, ullage control, grav-
ity versus capillary forces, etc. This is vital for deep space propulsion development.
Suggest you talk to BLUMRICH. I am also referring to a recent BOEING presenta-
tion along these lines.]
Interplanetary Missions
10-9-61: Contracts
A contract was signed with Lockheed on the Earth-Planetary Transportation
System Study. The purpose of this study is to provide information necessary
to assist NASA in determining future launch vehicle requirements. The main
emphasis will be a survey of interplanetary trajectories of particular interest.
The contractor orientation (meeting) is scheduled for October 18, 1961.
4-29-63: Interplanetary Missions

One of our system studies sponsored by OART concerns the development of
a mathematical model of planetary transportation systems with emphasis on
evaluation of propulsion concepts for a large number of missions. We have
received nine proposals. The evaluation committee headed by Mr. Gradecak
(FPO) selected GD/A and Martin, Denver to make one study each for $ 75,000.
NAA was a close third. Do you go along with our selection?
[Comments by Dr.v.B: YES. During our 4-30-63 Management Council Meeting
the following question came up (and was discussed extensively): “Can we honestly
say that we’ll never be able to launch a manned planetary expedition, unless we
have a NOVA of some kind? Have we ever analyzed, in some detail, the problems
involved in a multiple Saturn V earth-to-orbit logistics operation?” We should
expect orbital docking to become a routine operation by 1970. Request comments and
suggestions.]
5-6-63: SATURN V Planetary Capabilities

On the margin of last week’s Notes you asked the question what is being
done in the area of Saturn V manned planetary capabilities. Here is a short
summary:
a. Lockheed is performing a study on minimum energy profiles for

Venus and Mars fly-by missions, which can be performed with a few
Saturn V flights and orbital operations. Dr. Shea originally did not like
this too much. I had to make an extra trip to Washington (in February)
to convince him that this study is needed to fill a gap in our knowl-
edge. P&C is now negotiating the next phase of this study contract.
b. We have a study with Chance-Vought ($350,000) entitled “Advanced
Orbital Operations” in which we will identify and define individual
development problems and packages, where the Saturn V refueling
and docking operation will play a primary role.
c. We are presently trying to initiate a small in-house study (3 to 5 man-
years) which will attempt to describe such a manned Saturn V plan-
etary mission in enough detail that we can evaluate its problems,
timing and cost. We will base this study primarily on Joe deFries’
previous orbital mode study where very good material was devel-
oped. The planetary mission, however, will take place quite a few
years later than the lunar mission studied by deFries.
We believe that these studies will give us a pretty good feel for the prob-
lems involved and the attractiveness of such a mission. On the other hand,
we will not make an all-out effort in this area at this time. If you agree, we
will increase our effort on this mission study early next fiscal year when new
money becomes available.
[Comment by Dr. v.B: These studies should include NERVA and electric propul-
sion for deep-space portion of trip, of course.]
Future Projects Office Activities—Contracts

and In-House
10-30-61: Study Contracts
The following contracts are presently actively pursued (with termination dates):
a. Launch Vehicle Size and Cost Analysis Study – (Nov. 30, 1961)
b. Study of Large Launch Vehicle Utilizing Solid Propellants
(Dec. 29, 1961)
c. Earth-Planetary Transportation System Study – (April 1962)

d. Earth-Lunar Transportation System Study – (Nov. 30, 1962)
e. Orbital Launch Operations Study – (Jan. 18, 1962)
f. Analysis of Medium Class (Thor, Atlas) Launch Vehicle Systems –
(Jan. 14, 1962)
g. Saturn C-3 Launch Facility Study – (Nov. 30, 1961)
h. Saturn D (Nuclear Third Stage) Design Study – (Dec. 15, 1961)
We are presently negotiating an extension of the Martin contract (item “d”)

for a very detailed study on the problem of storability of propellants on the
lunar surface.

Approximately 30 study contracts are to be let during the remainder of this
fiscal year, based on the funds released in the 3rd Quarterly Review. Some
20 work statements are in the final draft stage. The first requests for contracts
are now with Procurements and Contracts. About 40 percent of these 30 con-
tracts will be negotiated as follow-on or sole-source contracts; the rest will be
awarded on the basis of open bid competition. To what degree do you want
to participate in this effort?
a. Do you want to see and approve each work statement?

b. Do you want to see only those work statements which I feel you
might be interested in?
c. Do you want to participate in the selection of contractors?
d. Do you want to limit yourself to attending the final contractor
presentations?
e. Do you want to restrict yourself to special cases which I cannot solve
and hear only about the highlights through these notes?
[Comment Dr. v.B.: Suggest we discuss the whole complex thoroughly one-1 hr.
Then I won’t interfere in detail implementation. Let’s do that soon.]
1-6-64: 1963 Meetings

You might be interested in how much time you have spent with me (and oth-
ers participating) in discussing future projects during the past year. Here are
my statistics:
You have participated in a total of 24 discussions and presentations, lasting
32 hours all together. You requested 28 of these meetings, I requested four
of them. In the first 6 months we had 14 meetings, during the last 6 months
there were 10 meetings. I believe this was adequate to keep you properly
informed and I would be happy if we could continue at the same rate this
year, which is probably optimistic. [Comment by Dr. v.B.: WHY?]
1-27-64: FPO Statistics

It might be of interest to those who feel that there is too much effort spent in
future projects to know that the time charges to our studies have dropped 50
percent during the first 6 months [Comment Dr. v.B.: I don’t have that feeling at
all!]. It was an equivalent of 170 men in July 1963 and only 110 in December. I
hope we can arrest this trend now, if not, I don’t think we will be able to meet
our obligations for the future.
It might be also interesting to note that we have a labor overhead, in terms
of man-hours, of almost 199 percent and a cost overhead of 170%. This brings
our in-house engineering man-year cost to $29,650, which is about the average
we have to pay for contracted studies. The output per man-year in industry
appears to be larger, since we control this effort quite closely and efficiently.

The following tables summarize the fiscal year 1964 contracts for advanced
studies, conducted or sponsored by our office, most of which have just been
initiated:
Total: 28 study projects resulting in 40 contracts with 16 companies or

21 corporate divisions.
Contract expenditures by study area:
Operations Analysis and Supporting Studies 1,025,000
Orbital Systems 700,000
Lunar Systems 2,445,000
Planetary Systems 860,000
Launch Vehicles 4,900,000
Total $9,930,000
12-28-64: Statistics
This year, according to my statistics, you called or attended 22 meetings at
MSFC dealing with “Future Projects,” which totaled 36 hours. You initiated
16 of the meetings taking 26 hours; I was responsible for the rest. I thought
early this year that you would not be able to spend that much time in this
area being, through sustainable economic growth.
5
Apollo Knowledge Transfer: Preserving
and Transferring the Apollo
Legacy to a New Generation
Charles A. Lundquist
Research Institute, University of Alabama
Huntsville, Alabama
Dennis Ray Wingo

Skycorp
Huntsville, Alabama
Charles A. Lundquist received a BS in engineering physics in 1949 from South

Dakota State University and a PhD in physics in 1954 from the University of
Kansas. During the 1953−1954 academic year, he was an assistant professor of
engineering research at the Pennsylvania State University. He served in the
Army for the following two years, assigned to the Technical Feasibility Study
Office, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama. From 1956 to 1960, he was chief, Physics
and Astrophysics Branch, Research Projects Division, Army Ballistic Missile
Agency, Alabama. In this position, he participated in planning, launch, and
analysis of Explorer 1 and other early U.S. satellites. Following the creation of
the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center in July 1960, he was chief, Physics and
Astrophysics Branch, Research Projects Office of MSFC. From 1962 to 1973,
he was assistant director for science at the Astrophysical Observatory of the
Smithsonian Institution, Cambridge, Massachusetts and research associate,
Harvard College Observatory. While at the Astrophysical Observatory, he
was a member of the NASA Group for Lunar Exploration Planning (GLEP)
throughout the Apollo program. He was co-editor, with G. Veis, of the 1966
Smithsonian Standard Earth, the first comprehensive solution for the gravity
field of the earth and the corresponding global coordinate system based
on satellite tracking data. Subsequently, in1973, Dr. Lundquist returned to
the Marshall Center as director of the Space Sciences Laboratory. In 1981 he
joined the University of Alabama in Huntsville, first as director of research
and later as associate vice president for research until 1996. Concurrently
from 1985, he was director, Consortium for Materials Development in Space,
a NASA and industry-sponsored commercial space center. Dr. Lundquist
55
formally retired in 1999, but continues his efforts at UAH on a part-time basis
as director, Interactive Projects Office in the Research Institute, University of
Alabama, Huntsville.
Abstract A perplexing issue is how to convey knowledge and experi-

ence from the Apollo Program in a way that is efficiently helpful to present-
day teams planning the return missions to the Moon. Such a transfer of
knowhow is hard even when there is a continuity of workforce, but the trans-
fer is exceedingly difficult when an interval of some 40 years must be bridged.
Present-day lunar team members and students who will become team mem-
bers have grown up in the era of computer databases. They are skilled at
accessing such information. This suggests that one obvious option is to pro-
vide Apollo knowledge and experience in a computer searchable format. The
Archives and Special Collections Department in the library at the University
of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) is among many organizations that have
recognized and implemented this option. At UAH, the document holdings
relevant to lunar exploration include a Saturn V collection, a Lunar Roving
Vehicle Collection, an Apollo Missions Collection, and documents from the
Apollo Group for Lunar Exploration Planning (GLEP). An online catalog has
been produced for these materials and each entry has at least an abstract and
sometimes a full online text. Further, many video history interviews have
been conducted with original participants in the Apollo Program. These are
also accessible online. Other information includes reformatted electronic
records from the Apollo era and surveys or reviews of Apollo documenta-
tion. Given the scope of the past, present and future lunar operations and rec-
ognizing the large number of organizations involved, the Apollo information
preservation and transfer task is indeed challenging.
The Knowledge Transfer Problem

In response to a space policy announced by President George W. Bush, the
United States is again preparing to send people to the Moon. Current plans
envision extended stays at lunar bases equipped appropriately for lengthy
occupation. This objective requires the design and production of a new fam-
ily of large rocket vehicles comparable to the Saturn rockets of the Apollo era.
It also requires design and procurement of structures, facilities and equip-
ment for use on the lunar surface. The return to the Moon is scheduled for
the second decade of the century.
A perplexing issue is how to convey knowledge and experience from the
Apollo Program in a way that is efficiently helpful to present-day teams plan-
ning the return missions to the Moon. Such a transfer of know-how is hard
Apollo Knowledge Transfer 57
even when there is a continuity of work-force, but the transfer is exceedingly

difficult when an interval of some forty years must be bridged.
Surely historical documents from the Apollo Program exist in many places
and forms that are accessible with enough effort. Realistically, the present
government and contractor team members are so pressed with current
issues that they may feel they can devote but little time to primary literature
searches. They can be aided by the broader space community.
Online Information Access

Present-day lunar team members have grown up in the era of computer data
bases. They are skilled at accessing online data. One obvious way to aid them
is to provide access to Apollo knowledge and experience in computer search-
able data bases. Unfortunately, when the Apollo Program ended, little of its
technical documentation and human experience was preserved in a comput-
erized format.
For the knowledge from the Apollo Program to be accessible online, old
documents must be cataloged and digitized, data in obsolete computer for-
mats must be translated into current formats and oral or video material must
be presented in digital form.
Clearly, the effective transfer of Apollo knowhow will not be accomplished
by any single entity. Cooperation between national agencies, private compa-
nies, universities, libraries and other entities will be required.
The UAH Role

An acknowledged role of any university is to provide a repository of
knowledge and to convey that knowledge. Recognizing its long-standing
relationship with the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center and the Huntsville
space contractor community [1], the University of Alabama in Huntsville
(UAH) has embraced a role as a repository for space information deserving
preservation in a publicly accessible archive. In the UAH Salmon Library, the
Archives and Special Collections Department has this repository role [2].
The space collections in the Archives got a significant start in 1969 when
the book collection of Willy Ley was placed in the UAH Library. Willy Ley
had been a space enthusiast and an associate of Wernher von Braun in
Germany before World War II. However, Willy immigrated to the United
States before the war. When he died, his large library was sold by his widow.
Donations from Huntsville residents provided the money to buy this collec-
tion for UAH.
As the Saturn V Program neared completion, UAH accepted a contract
from NASA to assemble program documents as a reference source for a his-
tory of the rockets used by Apollo. The history was written by R.E. Bilstein
and published by NASA [3]. Subsequently, this very substantial reference
collection was deposited in the UAH Archives and cataloged. This was the
second large space collection in the Archives.
A more recent function of the Archives has been acceptance of personal
materials donated by retirees from the Marshall Center and other individu-
als. This function is in part a result of an understanding between UAH and
the Marshall Retirees Association. Many of the retirees who have donated
their holdings are individuals who initiated the U.S. space program and
executed the Apollo Program. The materials so donated have been very sub-
stantial and inclusive. Large collections have been organized and abstracts
of each item prepared for online finding guides. Some of the most important
documents have been scanned and made available in full.
The initial motivation for the UAH Archives was to provide a resource
for historians and other research scholars. This objective remains intact.
However, UAH personnel now recognize that the collections can serve fur-
ther as a reference to specific space knowledge and experience that can be
useful in the new space programs.
The document collections that are most pertinent as sources of informa-
tion for the return to the Moon are listed in Table 5.1.
As already mentioned, the Saturn V Collection was assembled at the end of
the Saturn Program. The collection was cataloged then and a finding guide
prepared. Recently, many of the significant Saturn V documents have been
scanned and their full text is available online. An Apollo Mission Collection
was prepared in 2007 from materials donated by NASA retirees. Currently,
this initial collection is being augmented by further donations. The Lunar
Roving Vehicle Collection was completed in 2006. It contains extensive docu-
mentation preserved by participants in the vehicle design, fabrication and
utilization. During the Apollo Program, NASA established the Group for
Lunar Exploration Planning (GLEP) to provide analysis and advice concern-
ing exploration and scientific operations planned for the successive missions
to the Moon [4]. This collection contains many documents and working
papers generated and used by the GLEP.
Table 5.1
UAH Archive Collections Most Pertinent for the Return to the Moon
Saturn V Collection
Apollo Missions Collection
Lunar Roving Vehicle Collection
Group for Lunar Exploration Planning Collection
Interviews and Talks

In the 1980s, Professor Donald Tartar of UAH recorded video interviews
with a number of early members of the rocket team directed by Wernher
von Braun [5]. These interviews included some ten members of the original
von Braun group who came to the United States to work for the Army imme-
diately after World War II. In conducting these interviews, Dr. Tartar was
joined by Conrad Dannenberg, himself a leading member of the original
German team. Recently, when the UAH Archives began to expand its online
collections, these early interviews were re-transcribed in a digital format
appropriate for access by personal computers.
Beginning in 2006, the UAH staff undertook to augment these interviews
with comparable online interviews with other early members of the rocketry
activities in Huntsville. By the end of 2007, some 80 people had been inter-
viewed. Many of those interviewed were scientists and engineers born in
the United States who were recruited, starting in about 1950, to join the von
Braun team. These individuals had significant roles in the Apollo Program.
To guide current efforts to revisit the Moon, it is instructive to extract from
these interviews what factors were cited as contributing to the outstanding
success of the Apollo Program. A list of the factors identified is shown in
Table 5.2.
In addition to video interviews, the UAH Archives had tapes of vocal
interviews with many individuals. One large collection of these was taped as
resource information for the Bilstein book Stages to Saturn. This tape collec-
tion was a counterpart to the Saturn V document collection. Again, the for-
mat of the original tapes was not suitable for online computer access, and the
tapes had to be digitized and reformatted. Also some old interviews were
recorded on 33 rpm plastic discs. They of course had to be reformatted.
Still further, the Archives had access to video recordings of various talks,
space symposia, forums and memorial events. These were translated from their
original forms into a digital form for online access. A sampling of the many
recorded talks by Wernher von Braun was put online by UAH. As a guide to
Table 5.2
Factors for Apollo Success Distilled from Oral Histories
Unequivocal political and popular support
Adequate budget
Recognized skillful leadership
Experienced team
Feasible plan
Schedule discipline
Commitment to testing
Open personal communications
finding remarks by particular individuals, an alphabetical list of speakers was

compiled with information citing in which events each speaker participated.
Electronic Records
There are very few surviving electronic records from the Apollo era, although
many magnetic tapes were produced. Those that survive are in obsolete
digital or analog formats. Also the machines that originally read them do
not exist or have not been functional for decades. To recover these data sets,
dedicated efforts must be undertaken by skilled engineers and by retirees
originally involved in the pertinent operations.
The Lunar Orbiter analog data tapes are an informative example. The high-
est resolution Lunar Orbiter images of the lunar surface were transmitted to
Earth and recorded on 2 inch analog tapes. Initially, only a small, selected
fraction of these tapes were processed to obtain the maximum resolution of
about one meter for sites near the equator. Computer capabilities at the time
made this process time consuming and expensive. The lunar surface areas
processed for maximum resolution were primarily the potential and actual
Apollo landing sites.
Fortunately, the full collection of Lunar Orbiter magnetic tapes was pre-
served by NASA under controlled environmental conditions. However,
the tape drives to generate maximum resolution are 40 years old and have
not operated in over 20 years. A set of surplused drives has been located
and is available for refurbishment. An effort to accomplish the refurbish-
ment and to demonstrate tape processing for highest resolution is being
pursued.
The data potentially available from reprocessing the Lunar Orbiter tapes
is a further informative example of how Apollo era information can support
the renewed lunar program. The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter planned for
an early mission to the Moon will have image resolution comparable to the
best Lunar Orbiter image resolution. There is great value in having compara-
ble images of the lunar surface separated by some forty years. A comparison
will allow identification of craters with a diameter greater than a few meters
that have been caused by meteoroid impacts during the years between Lunar
Orbiter and Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter.
The Apollo experience found that the nature of the lunar regolith is
dominated by the continuing cultivation and mixing caused by meteor-
oid impacts. Hence the phenomena associated with meteoroid impacts
are keys to understanding the regolith. Craters and ejecta from cratering
are easily observable lunar surface features. Recent craters are prime sites
for exploration missions because they expose material from beneath the
lunar surface.
Reviews
Besides online access to original literature, another aid to present-day lunar
team members is recourse to comprehensive surveys and reviews of earlier
experience and understanding. A number of useful reviews have been pre-
pared and can be accessible online.
A typical example of a recent review is “Lunar Outpost Development and
the Role of Mechanical Systems for Payload Handling [6].” This document
consolidates the findings of a number of previous studies. It is accessible
online.
Conclusions
The Apollo era data sets, documents, and experience can provide the USA
with valuable insights as well as guidance on how to maximize results from
the return to the Moon. Providing this information online via professional
archival methods brings an orderly and timely resource to the nation today
and for future generations.
The authors fully recognize that providing online and in-library access
to information is only one option in preserving and conveying the Apollo
experience. Given the scope of the past, present and future lunar explora-
tion programs, and recognizing the large number of organizations involved,
the information preservation and transfer task is indeed a challenging
problem.
References
[1] Charles A. Lundquist, “The Wernher von Braun Research Hall at the University
of Alabama in Huntsville,” pp. 114–115, 50 Years of Rockets and Spacecraft in
the Rocket City, Huntsville, Alabama, Turner Publishing Company, Paducah
KY, 2002.
[2] Anne M. Coleman, Charles A. Lundquist and David L. Christensen,
“Organizational History of the Space Collections at the University of Alabama in
Huntsville,” IAC-04-IAA.6.15.2.07, International Astronautical Congress, 2004.
[3] R. E. Bilstein, Stages to Saturn: A Technological History of the Apollo/Saturn
Launch Vehicles, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington,
D. C., 1980.
[4] The initial members of the Group for Lunar Exploration Planning, 1967, were
W.N. Hess, chair, E. King, P. Gast, J. Arnold, E. Shoemaker, R. Jahns, F. Press,
C. Lundquist, M. Calvin, F. Johnson, D. Williams, N. Roman, P. Culbertson,

R. Allenby, M. Faget, W. Stoney, H. Gartrell, H. Schmitt.
[5] Anne Coleman, Robert L. Middleton, Charles A. Lundquist and David L.
Christensen, “The Oral History Tradition at the University of Alabama in
Huntsville,” International Astronautical Congress, 2006.
[6] Dennis Ray Wingo, Gordon Woodcock and Mark Maxwell, “Lunar Outpost
Development and the Role of Mechanical Systems for Payload Handling,”
112 pages, report by Skycorp Inc., 10 Feb. 2007.
6
Working in Space
Terry Hart
Professor of Practice, Lehigh University and Former NASA Astronaut
Terry Hart graduated in 1964 from Mt. Lebanon High School in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania. He received a Bachelor of Science degree in mechanical engi-
neering from Lehigh University in 1968, a Master of Science degree in mechan-
ical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1969, a
Master of Science degree in electrical engineering from Rutgers University in
1978, and an honorary Doctorate of Engineering from Lehigh University in
1988. Dr. Hart began his career with Bell Telephone Laboratories in 1968 and
was initially responsible for the mechanical design of magnetic tape trans-
port systems. In 1969 he began a 4-year leave of absence with the Air Force,
where he flew over 3200 hours in high-performance fighters before retiring
from the Air National Guard as a Lieutenant Colonel in 1990. After return-
ing from active duty in the Air Force in 1973, he worked in the Electronic
Power Systems Laboratory where he was responsible for the mechanical
and electrical design of power converters. He received two patents, one for
a mechanical safety device and another for a noise suppression circuit. In
January 1978, Hart was selected by NASA as one of 35 astronaut candidates,
and after one year of training and evaluation, he was assigned to the support
crew of the first three Space Shuttle missions. On April 6, 1984, he lifted off
from the Kennedy Space Center in the Challenger on the eleventh flight of
the Space Shuttle program, during which he was responsible for the rendez-
vous navigation and targeting, the remote manipulator system operation,
and the IMAX camera operation. The mission objectives of deploying the
long duration exposure facility and repairing the solar maximum mission
satellite were successfully accomplished and demonstrated new capabili-
ties in manned space flight. Upon his return from NASA in 1984, Hart held
a variety of management positions in Bell Labs and led several projects in
systems and software engineering, including an assignment as director of
the Government Data Systems Division of AT&T in Stockholm, Sweden.
He returned from Europe in 1991 as director of Satellite Engineering and
Operations for AT&T and in 1997 became president of Loral Skynet when
AT&T sold its satellite division to Loral Space and Communications. Hart
retired from Skynet in 2004 and is currently teaching aerospace engineering
63
at his alma mater, Lehigh University. Dr. Hart is a member of the American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, the Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineers, the Tau Beta Pi engineering society, the Sigma Xi
scientific society, and the Aviation Hall of Fame in New Jersey. Hart has
been awarded the New Jersey Distinguished Service Medal, the Air Force
Commendation Medal, the NASA Space Flight Medal, the Delta Upsilon
Medallion, the Rutgers University Medal, the Pride of Pennsylvania Medal,
and was inducted into the Rutgers Hall of Distinguished Alumni. Lehigh
University and Former NASA Astronaut.
Figure 6.1
Ed White proved people can work in space.
Since the first cosmonauts and astronauts walked in space, we have been
climbing a continuous learning curve of how people can work productively
in space. The effects of weightlessness and the physical limitations of pres-
sure suits and spacecraft designs continue to challenge crews as ever-more
sophisticated tasks are being accomplished.
And while we have come a long way in our ability to work in space, much
needs to be done if we are to return to the moon with a permanent pres-
ence and venture on to Mars. Such long-duration missions will put new chal-
lenges on engineers and crews to adjust to the physical and psychological
demands of these missions. With international cooperation, these challenges
Working in Space 65
will be met and crews will learn to work effectively as we establish a perma-
nent presence in space.
In 1960 at a medical conference on the anticipated effects of weightlessness
on astronauts, several papers were presented by researchers who were con-
cerned about the ability of humans to survive in space. One paper expressed
doubt that the first astronauts could breathe effectively; another stated that
they certainly could not eat solid food and may not be able to swallow water.
A third dismally projected that sleep would be difficult, if not impossible, in
weightlessness, and the lack of it would possibly lead to delusionary behav-
ior and even psychosis.
Figure 6.2
Ham, the first American in space.
As a result of this overwhelming pessimism, the first American in space

was … Ham, the chimpanzee. Fortunately, Ham did just fine and not only
survived, but was able to perform all of the tasks he was trained to do with
no obvious ill-effects from the space environment. You would think that the
medical community would have backed off after this good news, but their
overly conservative attitudes about the ability of people to work effectively
in space continued until the astronauts conclusively demonstrated that the
human body can adapt and even prosper in this new environment.
The “Original 7” astronauts (in front of their F-106 training aircraft) flew
six missions in the Mercury capsules and showed beyond a doubt that
Figure 6.3
The original seven.
people could survive and even work effectively in space. But much was yet
to be learned about working in space, and some hard lessons lay ahead. It
was during the two-man Gemini flights that we began to understand that
weightlessness would pose a host of new problems. Ed White became the
first American to “walk” in space, and while this first attempt was a suc-
cess, a hint of future problems came as we learned just how easily cables
and tethers become tangled. Early thoughts of using hand-held gas guns to
easily propel ourselves through space (Figure 6.5) were quickly dispelled as
we learned the difficulties of maneuvering in weightlessness. Spacewalkers
became exhausted and visors fogged up as they struggled to overcome the
awkwardness of working without the help of gravity.
But we learned quickly how to work effectively in space with help of the
design of a variety of tools and support fixtures to assist the astronauts in
each task they encountered. By the time we began the Apollo program, we
had honed these skills and were able to successfully operate between the
Earth and the Moon. And with the lunar landings came a new environment:
one-sixth gravity on the Moon. It was difficult to simulate this environment
on Earth, but the use of a variety of cables and pulleys gave the astronauts
some idea of what they would need to do to balance themselves and move
about the surface of the Moon. When we began to operate on the Moon, the
astronauts learned just how quickly we could adapt to this environment.
The famous photo of John Young saluting the flag as he jumps three feet off
the surface of the Moon with several hundred pounds of equipment demon-
strated our ability to adjust to new environments once again.
Working in Space 67
Figure 6.4
Tethers provide safety, but become a problem.
Figure 6.5
Self propelling devices proved unuseable.
And while we undoubtedly underestimated man’s ability to adjust to some

aspects of spaceflight, we did not anticipate a host of other problems that had
to be solved in real time. The ingenious design of the lunar rover allowed the
astronauts to explore much more of the Moon’s surface, but no one had antic-
ipated how the rover’s tires would fling the lunar soil into the “air” and cover
the crew and the vehicle with the highly abrasive dust. The crew improvised
by using a checklist as a fender, and once again man’s ability to solve prob-
lems in real-time was demonstrated with the help of a little duct tape.
Figure 6.6
John Young jumps three feet into the “air.”
Apollo was followed with three long-term missions to Skylab, but before
these missions could be flown, Skylab needed some repair. A solar panel
had torn off during launch leaving the laboratory overheated and without
sufficient power. The first flight became a rescue mission and the crew suc-
cessfully repaired the damage and created a sunshield that stabilized the
temperatures inside the laboratory. The role of astronauts in overcoming
unanticipated problems in space with improvised solutions was now well-
accepted, quite a change from the early concerns about man’s ability to even
survive in space.
As we moved into the Space Shuttle program, ever more sophisticated
tools and training techniques were developed to support the astronauts as
Working in Space 69
Figure 6.7
Lunar dust kicks up from the rover’s tires.
Figure 6.8
An improvised sunscreen was installed on Skylab to lower its interior temperature and save
the mission.
they undertook new tasks in space. The most effective training environment
on Earth has been the Weightless Environment Training Facility (WETF),
a full underwater mockup of the Space Shuttle’s payload bay. This facility
has enabled engineers and crews to design the handholds, footholds, and
tools they have needed to accomplish evermore complex tasks in space. Long
duration missions in the Russian Mir space station similarly have greatly
added to our knowledge and our ability to work in space.
Figure 6.9
The WETF provides the best weightless training on Earth.
Figure 6.10
The International Space Station.
Working in Space 71
Now the exploration of space has become a truly international endeavor

with astronauts and cosmonauts from many nations routinely living and
working on the International Space Station. We will return to the Moon
someday soon, and go on to Mars as well. The long-term effects of weight-
lessness and the radiation of space will pose new problems that will need
creative solutions, and there will be many new lessons to learn before we
can maintain a permanent presence beyond the Earth orbit – but there is
no doubt now that people can adjust and even prosper in space. And when
historians look back on our times, they may well conclude that the most
significant benefit of the space program has been the unifying effort of the
nations of the world to live and work in space for the benefit of all of us on
the good Earth.
Figure 6.11
Crews from many nations live and work effectively together in space.
Section II
Lunar Development
7
Attracting Private Investment for Lunar
Commerce: Toward Economically
Sustainable Development
Paul Eckert
International and Commercial Strategist
The Boeing Company “IDS” Space Exploration
Paul Eckert, PhD holds the position of international and commercial strat-
egist within the Space Exploration division of The Boeing Company. In this
role, Dr. Eckert develops strategies to strengthen global business relation-
ships and explore new commercial markets. He serves as coordinator of the
international Space Investment Summit Coalition, which presents events
linking investors and entrepreneurs in order to encourage investment
in entrepreneurial innovation. Within the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,
Dr. Eckert chairs the Emerging Markets Working Group of the Space
Enterprise Council. He also chairs the Entrepreneurship and Investment
Technical Committee of the International Astronautical Federation and
acts as commercial coordinator for the Lunar Exploration Analysis Group,
which is chartered by the NASA Advisory Council. Having joined The
Boeing Company in 2003, Dr. Eckert’s prior roles have involved space
exploration planning, infrastructure design, Earth observation, space sci-
ence, government relations, and communications. Previously, within the
U.S. Department of Commerce, he helped promote the growth of the com-
mercial space industry, as part of the Office of Space Commercialization.
Earlier, in the NASA Office of Legislative Affairs, Dr. Eckert coordinated
liaison with the U.S. Congress involving space and aeronautics research,
information technology, systems engineering, and technology transfer to
industry. Prior to this, he served as science and technology advisor to U.S.
Senator John Breaux, a key member of the Senate Commerce Committee,
with jurisdiction over NASA. Dr. Eckert holds a bachelor’s degree with
high honors from Harvard University and a doctoral degree from Michigan
State University.
75
Introduction: From Lunar Commerce to Space Commerce

A series of roundtable discussions involving industry, government, and aca-
demia has helped shed light on issues relevant to lunar commerce.1,2,3 The
first Lunar Commerce Roundtable, organized by a mixture of established and
startup companies, from within as well as outside the space sector, took place
in Dallas, Texas in June of 2005. Like the roundtables to follow, it involved
between 75 and 100 participants, emphasizing quality of dialogue and with
only limited availability for press coverage. The June 2005 roundtable sur-
veyed a broad range of lunar-related business opportunities. There followed
in October of the same year a second roundtable, this time in Houston, focus-
ing specifically on lunar-related opportunities in four areas: solar power, pro-
pellant production, media, and robotics as an enabling technology.
Las Vegas welcomed the third roundtable, in July of 2006, this time with a
new name “space commerce roundtable” instead of the former lunar focus.
The dialogue shifted to an entire Earth-Moon economic system concept, rec-
ognizing that lunar commerce could not develop except as an extension of
commerce closer to home. There was considerable emphasis on interconnec-
tions and synergies among multiple market areas, involving the Moon or other
locales. Also of interest were strategically targeted public and private sector
options for making good use of identified synergies, by using a single ini-
tiative to impact multiple sectors simultaneously. Five areas were addressed,
including: space facilities, surface facilities, services (e.g., transportation and
fuels, communication/navigation), space solar power, and experience-ori-
ented activities (e.g., advertising, entertainment, education, tourism).
Space Commerce
Markets
Energy
Entrepre- Platforms
Private Surface
Investment neurial
Innovation Information
Lunar
Commerce
Markets
Figure 7.1
Private investment funding entrepreneurial innovation to fuel market growth.
Attracting Private Investment for Lunar Commerce 77
Govt.
Facilitation
Pooled
Resources
Market
Energy
Platforms
Multiple Use
Surface Multiple Use Facilities
Technologies
Information Lower Costs
Product Variety
Growth
Interope-
rability
Market
Entry
Figure 7.2
Examples of factors facilitating space-related market growth.
Core Later
Application
Technologies Applications
1
Propulsion
Cryogenic Fluid
Management
Robotics/Imaging/Lidar
Earth Simulation/Multimedia Moon
Seismology/Geology
Communic./Navigation
Energy
Information/Archiving
Figure 7.3
Multiple-use core technologies, with terrestrial followed by lunar use.
In early 2007, yet another name change occurred, with “space commerce
roundtables” becoming “space investment summits.” The relatively small-
scale, dialogue oriented format was preserved but with a shift toward
focusing on entrepreneurial business ventures and seed and early stage
investors. Each summit was envisaged by an industry planning group as
involving an effort to educate both entrepreneurs and investors concerning
experience from outside the space sector, regarding successful investment
and business startups. Although initially the goal of the summits was pri-
marily educational, regarding increased understanding by space-related
entrepreneurs of the ways in which investors evaluate potential opportu-
nities, the ultimate goal was broader. The summit series was ultimately
intended to increase the actual flow of capital into space-related startups,
thereby stimulating space-related commercial innovation and fueling new
market growth.
Since June of 2005, a global group of sponsors has chosen to provide finan-
cial sponsorship for one or more events in the evolving series just described,
including some of the world’s best-known aerospace companies. Among
these have been notable firms from outside the United States, including
EADS Astrium, Mitsubishi Corporation, and Thales Alenia Space (formerly
Alcatel Alenia Space, in conjunction with Alenia Spazio North America). Also
involved have been smaller non‑U.S. firms, such as MDA, Mansat/SpaceIsle.
com, and Odyssey Moon. U.S. industry has been well represented, includ-
ing The Boeing Company, Lockheed Martin Corp., Northrop Grumman
Corp., Honeywell International, United Space Alliance, Space Systems Loral,
Wyle, and AGI, as well as entrepreneurial firms such as Ecliptic Enterprises,
Lunar Transportation Systems, and Transformational Space Corporation.
Non‑profit groups and organizations contributing in‑kind support initially
included the Space Commerce Roundtable, the Space Frontier Foundation,
and the National Space Society (in conjunction with leadership provided by
Innovarium Ventures, under the direction of Dr. Burton Lee). Later, additional
organizations became involved, including Space Foundation, California
Space Authority, X Prize Foundation, Eisenhower Center for Space and
Defense Studies, VC Private Equity Roundtable, Alliance for Commercial
Enterprises and Education in Space (ACES), Eighth Continent, and the Space
Tourism Society. By mid 2007, what had begun as a small roundtable effort
had grown into a much larger group of company sponsors and support-
ing non-profit groups, known collectively as the Space Investment Summit
Coalition.
Insights from Roundtable and Summit Dialogue

The series of roundtable and summit events has yielded insights regard-
ing how to encourage space commerce and thereby help fuel economic
growth in general, with all the benefits to society that business expansion
and job growth can bring. First, it is important to involve in dialogue all
key stakeholders who stand to contribute to, as well as benefit from, eco-
nomic growth. This international stakeholder community includes estab-
lished and startup space companies, non-space companies, investors, and
additional players such as government, academia, and professional/trade
associations. Markets meriting their attention include energy, platforms,
surface activities, services (e.g., transportation, communications, naviga-
tion) and information/experience (e.g., advertising, branding, sponsorship).
As noted earlier, it was the July 2006 roundtable that most effectively drove
home the significance of this interconnected mixture of potential commer-
cial activities. In such a context, a key principle that became increasingly
evident was the importance—for investors and innovators alike—of an
incremental approach to reducing risk, so as to justify gradually increasing
levels of investment.4
Beyond dialogue, additional steps in an incremental process of entrepre-
neurial initiative include research, to subject general ideas generated by dia-
logue to empirical validation, demonstration projects, to test out alternatives
before selecting the best technical approach, and—only after all these steps
have been applied effectively—commitment of major investment to full-scale
business projects. This is not to assert that only by following such steps can
business success be achieved. The key assertion is that innovative initiatives
appear to have a better chance of technical and financial success if such an
incremental approach is followed. Beyond this, multiple-use technologies—
which can be commercialized in a variety of products and services—may
reduce risk more than single “all-or-nothing” commercial applications of
a particular technical capability. Throughout the foregoing discussion, the
concept of entrepreneurial innovation is paramount—not developing new
technology but rather applying existing technology to meet customer needs
profitably in the marketplace.
The Need for Increased Private Investment

A clear conclusion from the roundtables in late 2006 was, as noted previ-
ously, that private investment must be significantly increased in order to
fuel entrepreneurial innovation with sufficient capital to help create and
serve new markets. In a word, problems facing space commerce efforts are
as much, if not more, financial than technical. The benefits of commerce—
such as lower cost and increased choice of products and services—depend
on attracting investment from investors willing to consider early-stage,
high-risk, but also high-opportunity initiatives. “Angel” investors are often
the most likely to take an interest in such opportunities. However, such

independent, wealthy individuals are quite difficult to attract, because they
listen more to other investors, whom they already know, than to enthusi-
astic strangers from outside the investment community. Add to this that
angels often develop highly specialized interests and have many opportu-
nities from which to choose, in addition to whatever space-related ventures
may cross their paths.
In any case, contacts with these and other types of investors have begun
to clarify some of their most important considerations in making decisions
about where to direct the capital they control.
Key risks they would like to limit include: insufficient market size, acces-
sibility and flexibility of customer demand, insufficient salvageable value
of assets if a project fails, dominance of a market by competitors, unavail-
ability of sufficient financial investment, inadequate management skill,
ineffective technical approaches, and constraining legal and regulatory
factors.
The Search for Entrepreneurial Innovation

In an effort to minimize such risks while maximizing size and proximity
of returns, investors want evidence that entrepreneurial innovation is actu-
ally occurring, in development of products and services that effectively
meet customer demand. In this quest for profitable innovation, they rec-
ognize that entrepreneurial innovation and value creation associated with
it involve the “what” of innovation (i.e., product or service) and the “how”
of innovation (i.e., market assessment and creation of an industrial entity
to serve the market), as well as the “who and why” of innovation (i.e., the
personalities that enable creative individuals to pursue entrepreneurship
constructively).5,6 The “what” can involve factors such as cost, performance,
safety and reliability, with an improvement in an existing product or ser-
vice potentially having as much market impact as the entry of a new prod-
uct or service offering. The “how” is a multidimensional factor, including
such factors as: identifying an opportunity, accumulating the necessary
resources to address it, producing attractive products and service, market-
ing these to customers, building an organization, and responding to the
requirements and reactions of government and society. The “who and why”
factor is exceptionally rich in content, and in-depth studies have addressed
complex psychological phenomena such as intrinsic vs. extrinsic motiva-
tion, as well as the fragile equilibrium balancing risk-taking with a prag-
matic sense of business reality.
The Central Role of Market Demand

Above all, investors look for actual or potential market demand, without
which even the best concepts will never be profitable. Space certainly offers a
plethora of potential markets, although many exhibit major challenges when
subjected to rigorous evaluation on investor criteria. The market categories
already noted are only suggestive of the full breadth of potential commercial
applications that might eventually attract investor interest.
Some specific examples may prove helpful in illustrating the breadth and
scope of potential opportunities. Solar power might involve launch from
Earth and assembly in space of orbiting satellites to beam power to the sur-
face. Also envisaged is the use of lunar surface resources to produce solar
power generation facilities to supply power for lunar surface use, beam
power back to Earth, or contribute components that might lower the cost
of constructing Earth-orbiting satellites. Supplying propellant for rocket-
based chemical propulsion systems might involve sending fuel from Earth
to orbiting propellant depots. An additional possibility is the production
of propellant from lunar surface materials, for use not only to fuel vehicles
operating in the vicinity of the Moon but also as a source of supply for the
Earth-orbiting depots—cheaper than transporting fuel from Earth because
of the Moon’s weaker gravity. Communications and navigation applications
might involve not only increasingly capable Earth-orbiting satellites but also
a cislunar network of satellites, extending basic services deeper into space.
The domain of observation, similar to communication/navigation, offers
opportunities not only for imaging Earth, from orbiting satellites, but also
observing the planet from lunar and other space-based locations. Beyond
this, commercial imaging and analysis services might also contribute to
assessment of availability of valuable chemical and metallic resources on
lunar, planetary, and asteroid surfaces.
Facilities might be operated in space or on the lunar surface, offering
human habitats as well as bases for a variety of space activities. In addi-
tion, robotics, as exemplified by the Orbital Express satellite servicing dem-
onstration project and the Mars rovers, might offer a number of applications
potentially amenable to commercial exploitation. And media-related appli-
cations, involving robotic cameras and broadband signal transmission to
produce content for advertising, entertainment, and the like, could be among
the most attractive initial commercial activities. There is little or no need
in such activities for on-site human presence or large-scale infrastructure—
provided that at least minimal sensor/camera and signal relay resources can
be put into place.
How far we are today from the “tipping point” of various markets—the
point at which various preliminary economic steps finally culminate in
an upward spike customer demand and investor interest—is impossible
to assess.7 But in any case, the central importance of encouraging, and

responding to, market demand is one of the foundational principles of
promoting lunar commercial development.
Some Key Market Enablers

Transportation
For virtually all existing or potential space commerce markets, some form
of space transportation is an essential enabler. In the next decade, com-
mercial activities on board the International Space Station (ISS) utilization
could stimulate demand for transportation services, just as improved avail-
ability of transportation could promote ISS utilization.8 The same might be
true of other space platforms in development, which could benefit from ISS
as an initial pathfinder for technical and economic approaches. The NASA
Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program may hold
promise in providing lower cost and higher reliability transportation services
within the next five years.9 In fact, some entrepreneurs view Earth-to-orbit
transportation as a stepping stone to commercial efforts involving the Moon
and even beyond. The development of transportation as a space-related busi-
ness enabler also has international implications, since robust utilization of
ISS and other space platforms could create significant demand for non-U.S.
as well as U.S. transportation services, thereby expanding market size and
capitalization. To the extent that transportation involves a genuinely “open
architecture,” with modular and interchangeable components and subsys-
tems, it will be more possible for a variety of international and commercial
participants to enter the emerging marketplace.10
Interoperability
Evident in the domain of transportation but also relevant in many other
areas, a market growth enabler of particular importance is “interoperabil-
ity” of components, subsystems, and systems, so that more individuals and
companies can participate in new markets as they grow.11 Interoperability in
this context involves standardized interfaces as well as interchangeable items.
Standardized interfaces might involve a wide range of commonly-used items,
such as:
• Pressure vessels (any functional volume pressurized for human

habitation: landers, habitats, rovers, logistics modules, etc.)
• Electrical outlets and plugs
• Liquid connectors for each type (e.g., water)

• Gas connectors for each type (e.g., oxygen)
• Data (e.g., Ethernet cables, RF/WiFi)
• Airlock control panels
• Spacesuit connections with habitat life support and environment
control systems (servicing, recharging, umbilical operations)
• Robotic manipulating mechanisms (robot to system interfaces)
Interchangeable items might involve both assemblies and components.

Assembly examples include: life support, power (management, generation,
& storage), waste management, thermal management, crew interface panel
(e.g., command & control station), airlocks, and command and data handling
systems. Interchangeable components could be items such as microproces-
sors, valves, tanks, filters, keyboards, software, fans, computers, pumps, bat-
teries, solar arrays, circuit boards, and antennas.
By enabling development of a larger supplier and customer base due to the
opportunity of multiple entities to use common standards to enable buying
and selling, interoperability can lead to both increased supply and increased
demand for space-related products and services. Several factors can help
free up resources for new uses by reducing the cost of basic items. Such fac-
tors include: shared infrastructure and consumables, increased competition
among providers, decreased logistics overhead (i.e., fewer unique parts), and
enhanced reuse and reconfigurability (e.g., lunar lander converted to surface-
based propellant depot). In addition, by using common standards for life sup-
port and other vital services, interoperability can enhance safety by facilitating
rescue and repair, once again reducing risks that might repel investors.
Government Facilitation
Government—at the national, regional, and in some cases even the local
level—can encourage early market growth, within limits.12 Discussion above
of private investment’s importance should not obscure the significant role to
be played by government investment. In fact, because of the technical and
financial hurdles that must be overcome for many space-related entrepre-
neurial ventures to succeed, a combination of public and private investment
may often be necessary. It may be that a transitional model of public pri-
vate partnerships is applicable. Here government investment dominates in
the earlier and higher-risk stages of a commercial activity and then private
investment takes on an increasingly important role as risk is incrementally
retired.
Public sector promotion of space-related commerce can take a variety of
forms. For example, government purchase of commercial products and ser-
vices, especially when done in advance to secure supply for an extended
period, can serve as a potent stimulus to encourage private investment. The

government commitment in effect assures private investors that at least an
initial market will in fact exist. Of course, government has also traditionally
been recognized as funding research and development activities, on which
industry can draw in developing commercial applications. As noted earlier
with regard to transportation, NASA’s COTS program exemplifies govern-
ment assistance with development and demonstration of initial commercial-
ly-relevant capabilities, with the intent of helping create what will eventually
be self-sustaining commercial transportation services, with multiple cus-
tomers in addition to government.
Beyond purchase and R&D, government can use financial incentives, such
as investment tax credits, which can encourage private investors because,
unlike the case of an income tax credit, the investment credit has economic
value even for startup ventures that are not yet profitable. Loan guarantees,
subsidized consulting services, and “business incubator” venues represent
additional tools that government may choose to employ. Finally, a uniquely
governmental function with significant impact on entrepreneurial innova-
tion involves legal/regulatory framework development. Key factors facilitat-
ing or constraining business innovation involve such matters as limitation of
liability and protection of property rights.
Multiple-Use Technologies
Multiple-use technologies can bring market profitability closer in time.13 The
concept of a multiple-use technology is straightforward, involving using the
same core technical capability to produce products and services that can
yield near-term profits in already established Earth markets, while at the
same time gradually moving toward applications in more speculative space-
related markets. For example, robotics applications already profitably in use
to help automate Earth-based mining and undersea operations could later be
applied to commercial lunar surface robotic missions. Companies that might
find it untenable to invest corporate resources directly in somewhat specu-
lative space initiatives at the outset might better tolerate initial exposure in
well-known terrestrial markets. Profits gained through technology applica-
tions in established markets could then serve as a financial base from which
to undertake ventures involving space-related activity.
Multiple-Use Facilities
Multiple-use facilities, whether in space or on the surface of the Moon and
elsewhere, could facilitate commercial success by attracting more custom-
ers into markets.14 As in shopping centers and office complexes on Earth,
with a few large tenants initially moving in to provide a financial base, there
may follow the entry of additional tenants that would have been too finan-
cially weak to “anchor” a facility alone. By having multiple users of a facility
shoulder together the expense of shared infrastructure (e.g., transportation

access, communications and navigation connectivity, power generation, life
support functions), significant cost reduction could result, stretching the
impact of limited investment dollars.
Conclusion
Over the last three years, industry dialogue about promotion of space-related
economic growth has suggested a number of significant insights. First, lunar
commerce cannot be addressed in isolation but only as an integrated part of a
larger space commerce system, involving activities on Earth, in Earth orbit, in
cislunar space, and eventually extending outward into the Solar System. An
incremental process of attracting increased private investment, coupled with a
milestone-based approach to business plans for entrepreneurial ventures, could
facilitate development of lunar commerce, as well as other kinds of space-related
business activity. It is essential to attract private investment into commercial
space efforts, because government funding alone will never be adequate to
stimulate development of an economically self-sustaining marketplace.
To gain the interest, and ultimately the capital, of seed and early-stage
investors, leaders of entrepreneurial ventures must recognize that the effec-
tive management of risk is perhaps the single most important consideration
of those with substantial money to spend. Clearly, the ultimate goal of most
investors in managing risk is to succeed in gaining an acceptable financial
return by profitably serving customers in a marketplace. Investors’ focus
on markets should be a strong signal to entrepreneurs to remain similarly
focused. In fact, the very definition of entrepreneurial innovation involves
effective application of technology to serve customers at a profit.
Key enablers for effectively serving customers, and hence for promoting
market growth, constitute a multidimensional portfolio of public and private
sector activity. For example, government could facilitate expansion of com-
mercial activity through use of a policy toolbox including legal/regulatory
clarification, financial incentives, targeted research and development, pub-
lic private partnerships, and new business incubation services. Beyond this,
an open-architecture approach to transportation services, made possible
by industry and public sector collaboration, could encourage market entry
by multiple providers. Interoperability in general, based on standardized
interfaces and interchangeable components and subsystems, could enable a
variety of companies from across the globe to participate in an international
interplay of supply and demand. Such factors, approached in an integrated
manner, could help hasten the day when a thriving Earth-Moon economic
sphere increasingly contributes to societal well-being, through sustainable
economic growth.
References
1. Space Investment Summit website, www.spaceinvestmentsummit.com [cited
13 April 2008].
2. Eckert, P. “Financing Entrepreneurship: Outreach to Non-Space Investors.”
AIAA Space 2007 Conference, 18–20 September 2007. URL: http://www.aiaa.org
[cited 13 April 2008].
3. Eckert, P. “Innovation, Entrepreneurship, and Investment: Funding the Future.”
International Astronautical Congress, Hyderabad, India, 24–28 September 2007.
Paper archive URL: http://www.aiaa.org/iacpapers/ [cited 13 April 2008].
4. Eckert, P. and Mankins, J. (eds.), Bridging the Gap: From Earth Markets to New
Space Markets, Report on the Third Lunar Commerce Executive Roundtable.
URL: http://www.lunarcommerceroundtable.com/lcr3_report.html [cited 20
August 2006].
5. Eckert, P., “Linking Entrepreneurial Innovators through Dialogue,” 25th
International Space Development Conference, National Space Society, Los
Angeles, CA, 4–7 May 2006. URL: http://isdc.xisp.net/~kmiller/isdc_archive/
isdc.php?link=submissionSelectArchive&sort= [cited 20 August 2006].
6. Fayolle, A., Introduction à l’Entrepreneuriat, Dunod, Paris, 2005, Chap. 1.
7. Gladwell, M., The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make A Big Difference.
Little, Brown, New York, 2000.
8. Eckert, P. “Expanded ISS Utilization: Catalyst for Commercial Cislunar
Transportation.” DGLR International Symposium, To Moon and Beyond, Bremen,
Germany, 14–16 March 2007.
9. NASA Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) acquisition infor-
mation website. URL: http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/cots/ [cited 5 March
2006].
10. Eckert, P. “Open Architecture for Sustainable Exploration: Infrastructure
Commonality and Flexibility.” Moonbase: Challenge for Humanity, Moscow, Russia,
16 November 2006. URL: http://www.moonbase-russia.org/ [cited 10 February
2007].
11. Eckert, P. “Interoperability, Exploration, and Commerce: Expanding Industry’s
Scope.” Center for Strategic and International Studies, Interoperability and Space
Exploration, Arlington, Virginia, 6 September 2006. URL: http://www.csis.org/
component/option,com_csis_events/task,view/id,1042/ [cited 4 February 2007].
12. Eckert, P. and Lavitola, M. “Promoting Space Commerce through Public-Private
Risk Sharing,” AIAA Space Operations Conference, Rome, Italy, 19–23 June, 2006.
URL: http://www.aiaa.org/content.cfm?pageid=2 [cited 4 February 2007].
13. Eckert, P. and Barboza, M., “Attracting Nonspace Industry into Space: A Catalyst
for Lunar Commercialization,” International Lunar Conference 2005, Toronto,
Canada, 18–23 Sept 2005.
14. Lenard, R. “ISRU Sub-Team Summary,” in Eckert, P., and Mankins, J. (eds.),
Bridging the Gap: From Earth Markets to New Space Markets, Report on the Third
Lunar Commerce Executive Roundtable. URL: http://www.lunarcommercer-
oundtable.com/lcr3_report.html [cited 20 August 2006].
8
The Future Role of Human Resource
Management in Non-Terrestrial Settlements:
Some Preliminary Thoughts1
Ida Kutschera
Bellarmine University
Department of Business Administration
Louisville, Kentucky
(502) 452-8444
ikutschera@bellarmine.edu
Mike H. Ryan
Bellarmine University
Department of Business Administration
Louisville, Kentucky
Ida Kutschera, PhD (University of Oregon) is assistant professor of man-

agement at Bellarmine University’s W. Fielding Rubel School of Business
in Louisville, Kentucky. She is the co-author of several articles and a mem-
ber of the Academy of Management and the Society for Human Resource
Management.
Mike H. Ryan, PhD (University of Texas−Dallas) is professor of manage-

ment at Bellarmine University’s W. Fielding Rubel School of Business in
Louisville, Kentucky. He is the author or editor of six books and author or
co-author of numerous articles dealing with space-based business issues,
senior editor for an ongoing research book series, International Research in
the Business Disciplines, a member of the editorial board of the Comparative
Technology Transfer and Society Journal and a Fellow of the British Interplanetary
Society.
Segments of this paper are based on areas initially discussed in Mike H. Ryan and Ida
1
Kutschera, “Lunar-Based Enterprise Infrastructure—Hidden Keys for Long-term Business

Success,” Space Policy, Volume 23, Issue 1, February 2007, pp. 45–52.
87
Human Resource Management—Moving into the Future

Human Resource Management (HRM) professions have expanded signifi-
cantly in direct response to the needs faced by modern organizations. It is
not unreasonable to assume that as new needs or requirements move into
the workplace, the role of the HRM office will expand in response. Moreover,
it is not only likely but probable that the training and expertise of tomor-
row’s HRM professionals would become broader to deal with the range of
new requirements and expectations. Nowhere is this move more likely than
when private organizations begin to operate outside the terrestrial environ-
ment. Working on the Moon or in orbital space will provide some unique
challenges.
Jump ahead 20 to 30 years. What will have happened to the role of the
HRM professional? What additional responsibilities and concerns will rep-
resent the focus of the HRM office? And, just to make things interesting
let us also assume that the pattern of space development currently under-
way has continued. For example, with sufficient funds it is now possible to
become a space tourist and visit the International Space Station. A variety of
competitive prizes are now being offered to generate interest in commercial
space activity with the intent of providing a foundation for future develop-
ments. Recently, Bigelow Aerospace launched a test prototype of their orbit-
ing space facility known to be a scaled down version of a proposed space
hotel. These are not fantastic stories created to engender discussion. These
are real attempts by the private sector to jump start a variety of space-based
opportunities. Extrapolation of current space efforts does suggest that it is
not unreasonable to predict that there will be active commercial operations
on the Moon with a significant population of civilian employees. What might
that future look like in terms of HRM?
A Taste of Things to Come

There are several ways of thinking about operations in a remote environ-
ment such as the Moon. One obvious analogy might be similar to that of a
very large cruise ship. Centralized services, one-point shopping, multiple
venues staffed by employees, with the passengers representing the actual
business work force, have some appeal as examples of a self-sufficient work
environment. The ship is just like a small floating city, so there is employ-
ment to match almost all skills or competencies. The threat of disaster is real
and the need for advance preparation is clear. The limited duration of most
cruises and the relative ease of access to assistance and resupply make using
cruise ships less satisfactory as a model from one perspective. Modern cruise
The Future Role of Human Resource Management 89
ships do, however, have many of the requirements for self-sufficiency in that
they must provide their own power, water, sewage, air quality and internal
food distribution and preparation. The larger vessels often carry well-trained
medical staff and have state-of-the-art medical bays and medical communi-
cation equipment. There are even ships that operate as condominium com-
munities where people own their own ship-borne homes that travel from
port to port. These communities are, in fact, mobile environments with all
the issues of a small city.
With the population of a small city, health emergencies are fairly com-
mon. Given the age range of the passengers, medical problems range from
acute cardiac care to the typical injuries sustained by crew and people out
to have a good time. Cruise physicians and nursing personnel are expected
to be well versed in trauma care as well as the necessary life support proto-
cols needed to keep patients stable prior to transport to an on-shore facility
if necessary. Telemedicine, high speed communications and facilities that
anticipate probable medical needs are the norm. So in one sense, we have
the basis for medical care in remote locations and a direct example for future
reference.
Cruise ships also have two additional interesting features in the person of a
cruise director and ship’s purser. These individuals have significant respon-
sibility for many of the non-operational activities that take place in the ves-
sel. Cruise director responsibilities range from the entertainment provided
on board and can extend to the direct welfare of the passengers and even the
crew. On modern-day passenger ships, the purser has evolved into a multi-
person office that handles fees and charges, currency exchange, and any
other money-related needs of the passengers and crew. Both of these posi-
tions require a significant amount of discretionary authority because of the
impact they have on the overall welfare of the passengers and consequently
the overall success of the cruise itself. Although it may not be appropriate to
directly link these positions to our current HRM specialists, they do suggest
the relative importance of indirect business issues to the success of a specific
venture. But given that the activities in question occur in relative isolation in
an environment that is largely self-sufficient, these two positions provide an
interesting clue for future HRM activities in remote locations. The resident
HRM personnel in a remote facility might well be expected to manage and
operate an extremely wide range of services and activities. Remote locations,
even with good communications, do not always lend themselves to being
managed from a distance.
Another possible model to consider for operations in a remote environment
might be that of large off-shore platforms used for drilling and oil production.
These facilities are much like small cities on stilts, frequently located far from
shore and in relatively remote locations. To encourage employees to endure
the relatively isolated locations and difficult working environment, significant
effort goes into making the living conditions palatable. Working aboard an
oil rig is hard work; however, the facilities are often excellent. Many of the
accommodation wings (called Floatels) meet hotel standards, despite being

located in the middle of the ocean. Recent designs include individual cabins
with private bathrooms and sufficient sound proofing to ensure not only pri-
vacy but essential peace and quiet critical to good sleeping. A well rested crew
is less prone to making mistakes, better at maintaining good judgment and
more able to keep a clear focus on the job at hand.
All food, board, and laundry expenses are usually met by the employer—
and the food available is generally of exceptional quality. In such locations
firms have come to view food preparation, choice, and quality as critical
components to maintaining morale. With the 24/7 work conditions, many
large platforms have chefs and other support personnel whose sole respon-
sibility is that of making it easier or less burdensome for the oil workers to do
their difficult jobs. This is in addition to the excellent pay and benefits which
are often assumed by employers to be a necessary condition to secure com-
petent employees for such facilities. Even transfer and traveling expenses to
and from offshore oil rig drilling jobs are covered by the employer. Another
considerable benefit is that most personnel work in a 14/21 day rotation. This
means you will work for 14 days, and will get 21 off. This translates to holi-
days for 3/5 of the year.2 The amount of down time is a direct result of the
harsh working conditions and the need to ensure fresh, motivated, and non-
accident prone employees in an environment that is regarded as one of the
most dangerous places to work. Relative ease in transporting employees to
and from off shore facilities makes such accommodations possible.
In any prototype lunar facility, even assuming dramatic improvements in
transportation, large blocks of time away from work might not fare as well
given the relative cost of getting employees to the facility. Long-duration
stays are likely to become the norm there rather than the exception. It is the
probability that lunar-based personnel will reside at a facility for prolonged
periods of time that necessitates the shift in our future HRM specialist job
requirements. Effectively, we are talking about a small corporate or business-
based community that is remote in terms of distance, dangerous in terms of
environment, and requires relative self sufficiency in order to operate effec-
tively. As many of the essential requirements for safe and efficient operations
require very specialized personnel and the living environment itself will
have unique attributes, it may be critical to centralize in a single place or
office the oversight needed to make things work. Much in the manner that
present day HRM operations have expanded to medical care, financial plan-
ning and even environmental monitoring, our future HRM specialists on the
Moon may find themselves responsible to ensuring the quality of health care
and its delivery, establishing and maintaining many quality of life consider-
ations, deciding how best to organize facilities for work and human interac-
tion, and, of course, assisting in the selection, training and deployment of
2 http://www.oil-rig-jobs.com
lunar based personnel. The HMR office door could become the point of entry
for some of the most important issues facing firms that operate in a lunar
environment. In time it might very well become the single most influential
department as its responsibilities expand to cover an ever widening range of
personnel and basic human needs considerations.
Extrapolating the HRM Association with Health Care

Distance and danger alone suggest that health considerations will have some
serious implications for lunar-based activity. There are many things requisite
to a comfortable living and working environment. As our facility could quickly
grow beyond its industrial outpost origins, it must be equipped with safety and
medical equipment compliant with whatever the highest standard exists at the
time. Realistically, the distance and transportation difficulties alone will neces-
sitate a medical facility equivalent to what we might now describe as a level one
trauma center. Operating within a 1/6 gravity environment may be medically
challenging but it would be far less troublesome than attempting to do so in the
zero gee of freefall typical of a transit to Earth. That also assumes the patient
could sustain the associated problems of reentry. After all, this is an industrial
facility in a hostile environment with significant limits on getting a patient to
a better equipped facility. Self-sufficiency is critical.3 For example, dentists can
typically treat between 40−50 patients daily depending on emergencies and
the overall number of difficult procedures. Therefore a single dentist could con-
ceivably provide dental care for upwards of 1000 people. This does not consider
new treatment options that might either reduce the need for dentists or might
increase their operational capacity. The operation of a dental clinic would have
to be orchestrated by someone and the HRM office might become the obvious
place. The overlap of medical and other skills and abilities will by necessity be
greater than that of a terrestrial facility with easy access to other facilities. While
cross training and the selection of uniquely qualified physicians and surgeons
will help avoid overstaffing, from a practical perspective one must assume the
probability of both emergencies and isolation. Although one might expect the
medical decisions to be made and overseen by medical personnel, some agency
needs to ensure that the overlap of necessary skills unique to a remote 24/7 facil-
ity is covered. It might make a great deal of sense to centralize the organization
and selection of critical personnel in our lunar HRM office.
3 his does not even consider pathology or autopsies as one might hope they would be
T
needed infrequently. Again practical experience with construction projects and other high
risk environments suggests that accidents alone might account for several fatalities per year
as consistent with industrial facilities.
Repatriation of ill or injured individuals is unlikely to produce satisfactory

results in severe situations even if circumstances permit transportation of
those needing advanced medical treatment. In contrast to some health care
providers that try to balance cost and efficacy, the lunar HMO would by
necessity need to balance accessibility and timeliness with the cost of failing
to provide an efficacious treatment option. Holding managers accountable
for failing to anticipate potentially obvious situations could become even
more serious on the Moon than in Earth-based operations. Even the most
uninformed individuals could anticipate many of the difficulties inherent
in operations on the Moon. Alternatively, some employees might actually
consider employment in lunar businesses because of the generous and cut-
ting edge health care that would by necessity be available to those working
on the Moon. In time it may become a common factor for the HRM office to
balance the medical and non-medical tradeoffs inherent in operating in a
distant remote location. It is even conceivable that our future HRM director
might be required to have a medical degree or training much as many cur-
rent HRM directors now have legal degrees or training on top of the other
HRM related credentials.
HRM Moves into Home Design

Realizing that space will be at a premium at a lunar facility, it is essential
for the comfort and well-being of the expatriates to have their own personal
space, however small it may be. Allocation of space will need to be even
handed and fair if resentments are to be minimized. Where better to do this
than through your on-site HRM office.
The initial dorm-like environment that might be expected will almost
certainly give way to other more private and extensive accommodations.
Employees need some place like a studio apartment that they can call their
own, simply a place where they can “get away” from everything and every-
one if they feel the need to retreat. Such design considerations are common even
if the available space is very limited. What goes for individuals is doubly criti-
cal for couples. Couples need privacy and the ability to create a home-like
environment even on the Moon. Without getting into the politics of mar-
riage, cohabitation, and same-sex partnerships etc., it should be fairly clear
to most people that a measure of privacy is critical to sustained intimacy.4
And, intimacy is usually necessary for a successful relationship that in turn
makes for sustained good morale and happy, productive, safe employees. To
4 See: Mike H. Ryan, “Entrepreneurship on the Moon,” appears in Space Studies Institute
(eds.), Return to the Moon, Vol. II. New York: (Space Front Press) 2000, pp. 202–207.
make any personal space a “home,” employees need to be allowed to bring

a few personal items (mementos, pictures, etc.) from Earth (in compliance
with established weight limits that would be adjusted for the duration of the
proposed stay).5
Pragmatic experience suggests that a wider range of personal items only be
transported after an individual has passed some period of adjustment. Some
individuals might not be able to adjust even having passed extensive testing
and Earth-based familiarization. On the other hand, some personal items
such as musical instruments could be given special consideration due to the
positive affect they might have on the overall lunar community. Hobbies
such as painting, wood working, and ceramics among others might also rep-
resent good community investments in the overall esthetics of a developing
lunar culture. While it might be tempting to make all such decisions from
the home office, employee satisfaction might be better served if as many of
the decisions as possible could be handled locally.
Again, where better to locate these important but not necessarily business
or operation critical activities but in our on-site HRM office, managed by our
cadre of HRM specialists. In fact, some of the possible skills that would creep
into the mix might include ergonomic considerations for living much as cur-
rent HRM offices often take responsibility for ergonomic features of work
stations, chairs, computers etc. In some sense, as one specialist in the HRM
office of the future needs an additional degree in medicine, so might another
need a degree in interior design and the related fields of human habitation.
The ability to alter the work and living spaces to accommodate changing
needs is again one of those tasks that might be better managed on site rather
than from the home office.
HRM Moves into the Restaurant and Food Business

Given the unique importance that food and particularly food aroma can play
in maintaining morale, some thought must be given to specific food requests.
It would be impossible to fulfill every request. Yet, some mechanism ought
to be available to fulfill some requests that can be altered over time. Comfort
food can be debated but it clearly has a role in maintaining an employee’s
attitude in difficult environments. Centralizing specific food requests given
the distance and supply considerations likely to operate in a very remote
location such as a lunar facility makes sense particularly if one envisions a
supply chain operative over time as well as distance. Related to this are the
5 ike H. Ryan and Ida Kutschera, “Lunar-Based Enterprise Infrastructure—Hidden Keys

M
for Long-term Business Success,” Space Policy, Volume 23, Issue 1, February 2007, p. 47.
questions of who prepares food and where. The dangers involved in uncon-
trolled heat sources are well known. Rules and regulations are common for
the prevention of fires in business facilities, college dorms, and even apart-
ment complexes. Regardless, the issue of food preparation by individuals
other than food preparation personnel is going to evolve into an interesting
issue if people are assigned to a lunar facility for a prolonged period. Not
everyone is a chef to be certain but almost everyone has food that they like to
prepare, their way. It is not unreasonable that that type of request be consid-
ered particularly as individuals are prone to seek unapproved solutions in
the absence of specific permission. Our HMR office might be the place where
people schedule their time to prepare food for themselves or their friends
and colleagues for a special meal apart from the company kitchens.
Food preparation, while simple in concept, can be expected to become more
complicated over time. Increased requests for food variations and supple-
ments can be anticipated as both the number of people and cultures repre-
sented on site increases. In some cultures food and beverages are considered
something other than just fuel for sustaining the human body. The Japanese
tea ceremony is but one example where the role of a beverage is more than
just the preparation of a drink. Certification of a kitchen for kosher food
preparation is another example. To the extent that food can serve to increase
morale it can also become divisive if the aroma is not viewed as pleasing
to the majority of those present. In a closed environment, not all smells are
equally desired by everyone regardless of their origin or the intent of the
preparer. Ultimately who makes these decisions and how might one orga-
nize an appeal or special consideration etc? Community guidelines on food
preparation could become one of the more interesting documents produced
by our lunar HRM office working with dietary and food preparation per-
sonnel. Creation of food options will be one of the more politically difficult
tasks since everyone has their favorite foods. Sustaining an operation that
provides varied cuisine is an enterprise fraught with problems.
A single facility might not be capable of supporting the entire lunar pop-
ulation and operationally food services probably should not move in that
direction. It might be better for the perceived overall quality of the facility to
have several options for food services. People enjoy having a choice. Giving
the inhabitants options to eat out, so-to-speak, clearly reflects the norms that
they might expect if living in any other community on Earth. Presumably,
our medical personnel would also operate as our health department at least
in the beginning, but then who would organize the inspections, follow up on
issues and ensure compliance? The obvious choice could again be our local
HRM office that probably selected the kitchen personnel, chose the dieti-
tians, and even picked the initial restaurant themes. Whether it is necessary
for our HRM specialist to attend the equivalent of the Le Cordon Bleu for
advanced cooking instruction might be debated. It should be clear that some-
thing more than a general interest in eating or food preparation would be in
order. Running multiple food services 24/7 is not an inherent skill. It must be
learned. One more interesting facet for our multi talented lunar HRM office
staff that indicates the HRM office of the future will be very different than
those that exist now.
HRM as a Social Planner and Community Leader

Obviously, community development has to be fostered within the lunar
operation as well. Given that the expatriates will come from very different
cultural backgrounds, there has to be a way to enable everyone to preserve
their own culture (food, customs, religion, and holidays) within the newly
established lunar culture common to all employees. Dealing with any kind
of issues related to diversity is already one of the main tasks for today’s HR
Managers, and it can be expected to be taken to the extreme for HR Managers
in lunar operations where employees will most certainly come from a wide
variety of countries, cultures and backgrounds. In addition to the set of val-
ues, beliefs and behavior patterns that are common to one particular culture
and might as such differ strongly between cultures and individuals, differ-
ent personalities and their respective impact on the social system of the com-
munity have to be considered.
Clearly, elaborate selection processes will aim to pick those individuals that
are most likely to succeed in a hostile work environment such as the Moon.
Just as is the case with selecting people working in extreme and isolated
environments like a station at the Antarctica or on a submarine, extensive
personality tests and behavioral interviews will ensure a cultural “fit” with
the environment (well beyond the technical skill requirements). However,
even if the hiring process is highly selective and only chooses a particular
kind of person, issues resulting from individual diversity are unavoidable.
With many people working in a hostile and sealed environment, there will
undoubtedly be the need for an independent negotiator and arbitrator to
settle disagreements. Again, our future HR Managers might have to fill that
position of lunar ombudsman.
To come back to our earlier analogy, the HR Manager will also have to be
the “cruise director” and “chief animateur” for the operation. Since lunar
employees won’t have the luxury to literally “go home” for their vacation or
time off, every aspect of social life has to be provided on location. Workout
facilities and entertainment opportunities like movie theaters, play houses
and clubs (unless true virtual reality environments are available at that point
in time) have to be offered and managed. One could even imagine special
events like concerts and shows taking place much like the ones that are used
currently to boost morale of our troops engaged far away from their home.
Not only do social interactions with fellow lunar colleagues have to be
facilitated, but contact with family and friends back at Earth also needs to
be made easy. Equally important is to accommodate the need to be a “lunar

loner.” Some people just need to be able to be left alone to do their work.
Some extreme personality types might even be of great interest to a lunar
operation, as what might be considered overly obsessive on Earth might
become a desirable quality for certain jobs in places such as the Moon.
Studies involving Antarctica expeditioners have shown that the separation
from family and friends is one of the biggest social stress factors.6 Again,
in practical terms, providing communication access from an employee’s
quarters or residence at no cost as part of the employment package probably
makes the most sense and would be a reflection of current practice. Again,
current operational practice by off shore facilities is moving in that direction
by providing real-time communications including Internet access. Anyone
who has ever ventured far from home and friends knows the importance of
direct communication. Physical reminders of friends and family, whether in
the form of cherished food items, pictures, or other memorabilia, has last-
ing benefits that should not be underestimated. Thus, the HR office might
also fulfill the function of a communications officer that enables everyone to
receive information from back home as well as communicate with everyone
on a regular basis. This responsibility would also include checking on
those without regular communications to or from home. In an environment
where individual lapses of attention or absent mindedness due to concerns
at home could be fatal, the supervisory nature of the activity, while discrete,
would be of great importance.
The HRM Office as Lunar Concierge

Added to the obvious concerns of HRM personnel in a lunar environment
are the less obvious considerations represented by barbers, grocery stores,
bistros, kids and even pets. As a final example of factors that contribute to
the overall quality of life, one might contemplate some fairly simple activi-
ties, such as getting your hair cut. Unless bald becomes more fashionable for
both men and women it is likely that haircuts will be needed on the Moon
just as in any other location. Equally mundane, but probably of some impor-
tance, would be the act of shopping or selecting fresh produce or simply
wandering through the local version of the general store to see what “new”
products might be available. It may be debatable as to whether shopping as
it is now done would work on the Moon. Certainly, things might be more
reminiscent of a convenience store initially with few products and only a
few choices. Eventually, some form of commercial store would become an
6 arrison, A. A. Spacefaring: The Human Dimension. Los Angeles, CA: University of California
H
Press, 2001, p. 121.
important element to encouraging people to accept long duration assign-

ments. Some people that might be important to a growing facility or commer-
cial undertaking would not want to feel that by accepting a lunar assignment
that they were depriving themselves of common services etc. While it can be
argued that such activities would not be necessary given the vast array of
communications to each and every inhabitant of the lunar facility, commer-
cial exchange is often viewed as another opportunity for social interaction.
Seeing something in print or on a screen is not necessarily a substitute for
seeing it in person. People like to shop to some degree rather than just take
what they are given.
The same can be said of entertainment. Not everyone enjoys the same
things. Most individuals agree however that a live performance is different
and often more engaging than one that has been recorded. Even mistakes pro-
vide a uniqueness that is frequently lacking in prerecorded media. A venue
or even part-time use of another space for live music or performances would
represent an important step in normalizing life. Apart from the live music
played by the musically inclined residents, it may also be of great value to
sponsor artists to play on the Moon for the lunar community. Experimental
entertainment has long been the subject of science fiction with stories that
imagine how ballet, ball room dancing and other physical forms of enter-
tainment might evolve within the Moon’s 1/6 gravity. Tossing your partner
into the air might never be the same. The first concert broadcast from the
Moon may not engender the long-term attention of historians, but it would
certainly signal that people have come to the Moon to stay.
Much as people moved to the suburbs in the 1950s and 1960s to find a bet-
ter quality of life, improved schools, etc., so might some families come to
view the Moon in the same context. A truly international project would also
have the advantage of concentrating large numbers of interesting people in
one place with significant overlapping interests and goals. That could very
well make for an attractive living environment even with some limitations.
Families with special skills, whose children were above some minimum
age, might become ideal candidates for lunar habitation. As a lunar facility
matures, the requisite safety and habitation factors are made more or less
automatic, it may be possible to lower the age at which children are allowed.
One might imagine that the HR Manager is responsible for the initial cer-
tification of safety that would permit children. Equally likely, it might be
the HR Manager who also certifies the educational system whether or not it
originates from Earth.
In some respects, it may actually be easier to allow pets than children. In
fact, some pets may be highly desirable both as companions and helpers.
Animal sensitivity to internal environmental characteristics might, in some
circumstances, be better than instrumentation for warning citizens of dan-
gerous changes. While one might laugh at the notion of pressure suits for
dogs or cats, humans generally have always found a way to get their canine
or feline companions just about everywhere. It is doubtful that the Moon
will be any different in that regard. Besides, few things are as intrinsically
rewarding to human beings in difficult situations as a cold nose, a wagging
tail, or a small furry creature curled up in one’s lap. Arranging for the impor-
tation of animals, whether for research or work considerations, will quickly
place the HR Manager in an “interesting” position. It will remain to be seen
whether or not HR Managers add dogcatcher to their repertoire of skills and
responsibilities.
HRM and Lunar Employee Selection

Since stakes are high for this project, there will be a strict selection process
where identification with the purpose of the project is one of the main selec-
tion criteria. Potential employees will have to undergo substantial psycho-
logical testing to ensure their fit with the projects operating on the Moon and
with their fellow employees. Maladjusted individuals regardless of their tal-
ent have no place in an environment where mistakes may very well kill one
or more people. Any expatriate has to be prepared for the new role he or she
is facing in the new environment. Although there will be orientation sessions
before people leave Earth to prepare them for the upcoming role change in
their job on the Moon, there should also be an extensive and formalized
orientation program once they actually are on the Moon.7 In all likelihood
the HR Manager would be responsible for developing and conducting such
a program. To accommodate the role change and the socialization process
for each individual, there has to be a well-defined organizational structure.
Considering the probability that most of the employees will likely be highly
individualistic, this structure should be designed in an organic rather than
a mechanistic fashion. From an organizational standpoint, the big chal-
lenge will be to keep a balance between the necessary stable, institutional-
ized environment and a myriad of different, constantly changing individual
needs. Monitoring this adaptation will be one of the more salient duties of
the HR Office.
Every single employee should, over the course of his/her stay on the Moon,
have access to an Employee Assistance Program (EAP) where—at no cost
and confidentially—they receive help with adjustment to their new roles and
dealing with stressors as they come up. Also, the implementation of a for-
mal mentoring program might achieve this as it is another way to convey a
7 I n a “working abroad” context, equally important are issues of repatriation—how to pre-

pare people to go back to a life in their home country (or planet in this case) without experi-
encing culture shock. In some cases, people may not want to go home and their repatriation
may require special handling.
feeling of stability and reduce stressors. The goal of programs like the ori-
entation program, the EAP, and the mentoring program is to build social
cohesion beyond professional connectedness. For the most part, employees
will be highly motivated coming into the project. In the beginning, a lot of
the motivation comes from the exhilaration of being part of something new
and utterly exciting. All of these programs would require monitoring and
the occasional tweak. Again, it might make sense to locate these important
activities within an office already established to monitor other characteris-
tics and features of lunar life—the HRM office. So in one sense we have come
full circle by including the lunar versions of common HRM procedures to
gather information in order to improve employee success.
Future HRM Issues —A Final Thought

Our lunar HRM office will be not only a broad based set of inter-related
operations but central to the long term success of human habitation on the
Moon. Knowing that you have both the people and the capability to deal
with major problems is an attribute that generally makes residents feel more
confident in their community’s leadership. Having a central point of con-
tact for the pesky common problems that creep into work and life could cer-
tainly make things easier for employees. More importantly, our future HRM
office may be the source of a critical peace of mind while operating in a dif-
ficult and distant place. Employees might very well respond positively to the
knowledge that should something happen someone will be looking out for
their welfare.
9
Lunar Commercial Logistics Transportation
Walter P. Kistler
President, Lunar Transportation Systems, Inc.
Bellevue, Washington
Bob Citron
CEO, Lunar Transportation Systems, Inc.
Thomas C. Taylor
Vice-President, Lunar Transportation Systems, Inc.
Las Cruces, New Mexico
Thomas C. Taylor is an entrepreneur, inventor and a professional civil engi-

neer in the commercial aerospace industry. His goal is building commer-
cial space projects including an unmanned transportation cargo service to
and from the moon’s surface with Lunar Transportation Systems, Inc. (www.
lunartransportationsystems.com).
Since 1979, Tom has helped to form 22 different entrepreneurial aero-
space startup companies with four successful commercial space startup
companies raising a total of $1.2 billion in private equity financing. The
successful startup ventures raised private equity money totaling $1.2B in
private equity. Tom enjoyed working in the trenches 4 to 12 years with
each of these commercial space successes with Walter Kistler and Bob
Citron, usually the founders of most of the successful startups. Examples
include: SPACEHAB, Inc., a pressurized payload module in the space shut-
tle offering manned tended mid-deck lockers to NASA and the public at
a reduction of the cost by a factor of ten compared to a previous Spacelab
Module operated by NASA and providing the same mid-deck locker
microgravity service. Bob Citron and Tom co-patented a shuttle pressur-
ized module based on U.S. Patent Number 4,867,395 and obtainable free
in pdf format by typing in the patent number above without commas at
www.pat2pdf.org. Walter Kistler invested the early money. SPACEHAB
hardware has flown ~23 times on the space shuttle with ~$900m+ rev-
enue. Kistler Aerospace Corporation offered a two-stage reusable launch
vehicle (RLV) to low Earth orbit at a potential cost saving, roughly $516m
over a 12-launch sequence compared to a Delta II. The company raised
101
$860m in private equity investment and was founded by Bob Citron and
Walter Kistler, with Tom being their first employee again. After 12 years
of development, the Kistler Aerospace Team industrial partners grew to
include Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Aerojet, Irwin Aerospace,
Draper Labs and others. Lunar Transportation Systems, Inc., an unmanned
logistics service anticipating commercial cargo to the moon’s surface at
commercial rates with scalable hardware. Started in 2005 by the founders
Walter Kistler, Bob Citron, plus first employee Tom Taylor, LTS proposes
privately financed services for commercial lunar development. The goal
is a sustainable commercial transportation system for the moon to permit
NASA to explore Mars.
Abstract This paper offers a commercial perspective to new lunar trans-

portation and proposes a logistics architecture that is designed to have sus-
tainable growth over 50 years, financed by private sector partners and capable
of cargo transportation in both directions in support of lunar resource recov-
ery. The paper’s perspective is from an author’s experience at remote resource
recovery sites on Earth and some of the problems experienced in logistics that
didn’t always work. The planning and control of the flow of goods and mate-
rials to and from the Moon’s surface may be the most complicated logistics
challenge yet to be attempted. The price paid, if a single system does not work
well, is significant. On the Alaskan North Slope, we had four different logistics
transportation systems and none worked successfully all the time. The lessons
learned will be discussed and solutions proposed. The industrial sector has, in
the past, invested large sums of risk money, $20 billion for example, in resource
recovery ventures like the North Slope of Alaska, when the incentive to do so
was sufficient to provide a return on the risk investment. Stimulating an even
larger private investment is needed for the Moon’s resource development. The
development of the Moon can build on mankind’s successes in remote logis-
tics bases on Earth and can learn from the $20 billion in private sector funds
used to recover oil assets above the Arctic Circle. The Moon is estimated to
be 50 times more remote than Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, and the early transporta-
tion to the Moon is 100 to 1,000 times more expensive than to the Arctic. The
lunar environment is more severe than the Arctic, but some of the logistics
lessons learned in the Arctic can potentially work again on the Moon. The
proposed commercial lunar transportation architecture uses new innovations
for modularity and flexibility leading to reduced development and logistics
costs, faster development schedule, and better evolvability. This new lunar
trade route of mankind utilizes existing Expendable Launch Vehicles (ELVs)
and a commercially financed small fleet of new trans-lunar and lunar lander
vehicles. This architecture is based on refueling a fleet of fully reusable space-
craft at several locations in cislunar space, which creates a two-way highway
between the Earth and the Moon. This architecture offers NASA and other
exploring nations more than one way to meet their near term strategic objec-
tives with commercial space transportation, including sending small payloads
Lunar Commercial Logistics Transportation 103
to the lunar surface in a few short years, sending larger payloads to the lunar
surface in succeeding years, and sending crews to the Moon and back to the
Earth by the middle of the next decade. Commercially, this new lunar logistics
route permits capability and technology growth as the market grows, offers
affordable transportation for the commercial sector and the later recovery of
lunar resources. After NASA moves on to other destinations in our solar sys-
tem, commercial markets and this “in place” commercial logistics system can
service, stimulate and sustain a lunar commercial market environment.
Mankind’s Driver—Trade Route Expansion

for Commercial Resources
Trade Route Transportation
Most of mankind’s expansion on this planet over 40,000 years has produced
benefits in the form of new lands, trade route commerce, new resource devel-
opment and knowledge.1 Trade routes are driven by commerce and explora-
tion, which produce benefits for mankind in the form of new lands, trade
route commerce expansion, increased resources and knowledge. Genuine
innovation is needed to achieve the goals of affordability and sustainability
called for by the President.
Lunar Transportation Systems, Inc. (LTS) proposes a commercial transpor-
tation system for the new lunar trade route with different innovation and
architecture hardware that would be built with private capital and govern-
ment cooperation. The goal is a basic and modest early commercial lunar
transportation system with hardware that could be abandoned on the sur-
face with 800 kg of useful cargo2,3 and later evolve to 10 to 20 tons landed
by a reusable vehicle with full transportation node support services.4 This
architecture is characterized by modularity, expandability, commercial sus-
tainability and extreme flexibility leading to reduced development cost and
better evolvability.5,6
Specific innovation includes the transfer of cryogenic propellant tanks
instead of cryogenic propellant from one tank to another tank in micrograv-
ity. Further innovation includes payload transfer, nodes of transportation
services, and eventually the return of resources to Earth. A hard look at this
architecture will show that it enables NASA to meet its strategic objectives,
including sending small payloads to the lunar surface in a few short years,
sending larger payloads to the lunar surface in succeeding years, unmanned
cargo transport in both directions and eventually with increased reliabil-
ity, sending crews to the Moon and back to the Earth by the middle of the
next decade.7 The hardware shown in Figure 9.1 takes advantage of the
Transfer Propellant
from LTS Tanker
Vehicles as Required
Launch on Existing
Commercial Vehicles Land on the Moon
Figure 9.1
Lunar Transportation Systems concept for commercial logistics. The LTS Concept is still evolv-
ing, but the early conceptual architecture2,3 proposed can be seen in video on the Website:
http://www.lunartransportationsystems.com. Go to the YouTube.com website for an LTS 7
Minute Video on the Lunar Transportation Systems Concept:2 http://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=26Y5w0vqtIU
commercial first leg vehicles available from commercial sources. LTS uses
commercially available launch vehicles for the Earth to LEO leg with pay-
loads transported on a different vehicle. The strategy is based on refueling a
fleet of fully reusable spacecraft at several locations in cislunar space, which
create the equivalent of a two-way highway similar to the transcontinental
railroad between the Earth and the Moon.
Logistics Is More Than Transportation

Lunar logistics is movement management or the planning, accomplish-
ment and control of the flow of goods and materials to and from the Moon.8
Figure 9.2 depicts a large payload Lunar Transportation Systems would like
to transport. Lunar logistics flow over a fifty-year period evolves into reus-
able systems and includes more than just transportation vehicles and hard-
ware. This later logistics system becomes a system of supply that includes
transportation both on the surface of two celestial bodies and in the space
between them.
In a remote resource recovery base on Earth it means the flow of mass away
from a base in the form of useful resources must at some future time exceed
the flow of mass into the base or there is little economic reason to set up the
remote base commercially. At Prudhoe Bay Alaska, that mass break even
point happened approximately 90 days after oil flow down the pipeline. In
our lunar planning and development we seem to be focused on hardware
that people want to build rather than our reasons for going to the Moon,
which probably should be focused on the commerce, which the taxpayers
can actually understand and support long term. This means commerce and
the recovery of resources that are significant to build the support within our
taxpayer stakeholders, our industrial partners and our partners overseas.
University of Wisconsin-Madison Miner

3X GOX tanks
TBD construction materials available later
by-products of 800 C process from LTS
Gaseous vehicles
hydrogen tank Bucket wheel
GOX tank excavator
Heater Conveyor
Swing Miner
conveyor 2m tall
Master
Mechanic
Spoil pile Track units
Frame capable
Recilinear mining strategy, Page 111 of expansion Electric motors all
“return to the moon,” Jack schmitt convertible to He3
central power unit
Figure 9.2
The University of Wisconsin-Madison Lunar Miner Mark III by Matthew Gadja.9
Commercial logistics means privately financed firms are providing the

transportation services, including transportation vehicles and depots. In
Alaska we tried many transportation methods and trade route concepts, but
only four really worked most of the time with some short winter periods
where none worked. If the base is remote (Prudhoe Bay was ~6,000 miles
from the lower 48 states and most supplies) and the logistics tail is long,
then transportation becomes more important and a larger, more expensive
part of the logistics operation. The Moon is ~20 to 40 times further than any
logistics support of a remote base on Earth. The lunar temperature extremes
are significantly different than those on Earth and much of what we take for
granted on Earth must be brought to the Moon by logistics, until we learn to
“live off the land.” A commercial logistics operation deals with the procure-
ment, distribution, maintenance, and replacement of materiel and personnel
with transportation understood to be a small part of the whole process.
Arctic exploration on Earth may provide some insight and lessons learned
for future lunar development. The company towns created, private invest-
ment required, benefits generated through the resources recovered and
other parameters of the Arctic Exploration fit reasonably well into a lunar
scenario. Before we dream about the tourist phase, we need to understand
that the early commercial humans on the lunar surface may be the people
that build the facilities for the resource workers or miners. Before them come
the resource locators in the form of geologists, resource extraction special-
ists, equipment designers and the dreamers capable of imagining the opera-
tions before they are created.
Figure 9.2 is a University of Wisconsin-Madison Miner by Matthew Gadja

with some suggested innovation by LTS.8 The miner processes the lunar rego-
lith in place and extracts a multitude of near term and far term resources
needed by lunar company towns, production facilities and mankind on Earth.
The miner can be explored further at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.10
Lunar Transportation Systems is proud to have contributed some funding for
the miner evolving at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.11 The bucket wheel
excavator recovery technique also seemed to be validated at the recent NASA
Excavator Challenge in Santa Maria, CA, where a bucket wheel excavator oper-
ates well in a NASA JSC1A stimulant box test. The bucket wheel was damaged
in transport to the event and repaired, but failed after 11 minutes of a 30-minute
run. It was excavating at a rate approximately one half of the rate required to
meet the minimum required 150 kg. The University of Wisconsin-Madison
miner excavates the lunar surface regolith, conveys it into the vehicle, heats the
materials, drives off the volatiles for recovery and disposes the regolith in waste
form and as a variety of building materials yet to be determined. The miner
also starts the process that is sometimes called “living off the land.”
“Living off the land” means developing an excavator that recovers gaseous
oxygen and hydrogen that later is used to produce the cryogenic propellant for
the LTS vehicle operation. This gaseous oxygen and hydrogen recovery is used
for cryogenic propellant production in a plant requiring power and storage.
This leads to a reduction in the cost of propellant for company use compared
to propellant transported from Earth and propellant for sale in new commerce
to others. These LTS cryogenic tanks are reused as gaseous oxygen and hydro-
gen tanks using a special valve capable of both liquid and gaseous oxygen and
hydrogen use. On the Moon, the regolith can be microwaved into road surfaces,
used as a concrete like material and can be heated to recover resources. The
temperature required to accomplish different goals ranges from 800 degrees C
for some materials of commercial value to ~2500 degrees C if the process gets
serious about more complete oxygen recovery in gaseous form.
Remote Base Lessons Learned Can Help

The lessons learned in Alaska can possibly help lunar explorers create a
logistics system capable of sustainable logistics support and growth with the
lunar market.12 The important lesson is how to get private industry to invest
the kind of money they invested in Alaskan oil. Figure 9.3 depicts a partner-
ship that may help.
The biggest lesson is probably money, specifically, private money by big oil
to find, drill, develop and bring oil to the surface for $6.95/bbl, commonly
called the wellhead price. The $20B in private risk capital was stimulated by
a large return anticipated by the private oil company investors, but it took
both majors and smaller companies pooling their risk capital to buy into
the deal, which the author viewed as a 50-year deal starting with the state
owned oil leases. The value of the pool of oil at Prudhoe Bay was calculated
Benefits -Governments
Technology Growth & • Lower costs
Public
Operation • Exploration P/Ls
Organizations Govn. Markets
of Hardware • Term leases
Hardware • Budget expansion
NASA • Lunar markets
other Int’l space agencies Bureaucracy • Comm resources
Entrepreneurs • Standard PLs
Lunar
Vehicle suppliers Benefits -Commercial
Component suppliers
Logistics
• Financial home run
Private financers • Reduced
Aerospace, USA support Innovation - Market risk
Big energy, big media - Govn. risk
Lower Costs
Lunar resource - Reg. risk
Prospectors Private Commercial
Operational - Political risk
Investment • Bond financing
Private Practices as
Commercial • Larger market
Organizations a Global • More private invest
Markets Orbital • No FAR
Business
Figure 9.3
The public–private partnership is a method of cooperation between government and industry
allowing each to bring skin in the game and derive benefits.
by the author and given the ~price of oil appeared to exceed one trillion.13 Oil
flowed down the pipeline in 1977. The majority of this investment was made
when these same companies could buy oil from the Arabs at $0.50/bbl.
The company town created in Alaska provided living quarters called ATCO
Buildings, reflecting the name of the manufacturing company and sheltered
up to 12,000 construction workers at one time, and probably continues in use
today, two decades after the initial work started in 1975. All vehicles burned
benzene cracked from the oil field and Mother Nature forced much of the
work planned for the summer months into the dark winter months.
Applying the same “Living off the Land” thinking could mean using an iso-
tope of Helium, or He3 as a power source for power grids, propellant recovery/
processing and eventually vehicles on the Moon. Such an effort could change
the He3 effort on Earth from DOE, which has little incentive to turn away from
their focus on other fusion research. It provides NASA or some other interested
government agency with an incentive and the budget for the development of
this potential power grid solution using the Moon’s vacuum. Eventually the
He3 effort could evolve into solutions for the Earth power grid.
Other industries include Lunar Tourists who spend their own money to go
the Moon and create added commercial markets. “Living off the Land” also
includes reuse of equipment and packing crates and more.14
The Stimulation of Commerce Is One of NASA’s Mandates

Our company hopes to use existing Expendable Launch Vehicles (ELVs),
EELVs, RLVs or government vehicles. Our commercial lunar architecture
utilizes current commercial ELVs and/or EELVs to bring a new fleet of reus-
able spacecraft, lunar payloads, propellants, and eventually crews from the
Earth to Low Earth Orbit (LEO). Expendable launch vehicles and other types
of launch vehicles are already commercial for this first leg of our lunar jour-
ney. The LTS reusable spacecraft could do the rest of the job and take pay-
loads from LEO to the lunar surface and later bring payloads back to Earth
from the Moon. This commercial strategic roadmap permits a “pay as you
go” and a “technology development pathway” that allows NASA to achieve
a series of its strategic objectives as funding and technology developments
permit.
Our approach reduces recurring mission costs by advancing in-space
transportation technology, and later, resource utilization, because this is less
costly for us than investing in new ETO transportation.
NASA cooperation in the development of commerce can be an important
goal for our government and may result in lower costs and increased sus-
tainability of lunar development, permitting NASA to depart for Mars and
beyond earlier.
The possibility of an innovative Public Private Partnership with NASA
and other international governments could add a commercial market to the
NASA vehicle use and provide potentially a 10 m or 33’ payload diameter,
which would be very attractive to commercial organizations. Public Private
Partnerships (PPP) can be productive and are in use throughout the world to
bring governments and private organizations together for their mutual ben-
efit. Figure 9.3 provides a basic framework of cooperation and combined with a
list of agreed milestones permits private sector financing and potentially lower
costs for NASA.15 Government can bring a government market and the start of
a commercial market without narrowing the field to several winners. Private
organizations can bring innovation and potentially lower costs. Each can bring
much more if the PPP is truly creative and broad in its scope and cooperation.
One result may be the conversion of a government program that needs
tax dollars to one that is commercial and pays taxes. New Zealand is one
of many examples of where the PPP process and the dynamic effects it can
produce for government can be shown.16
The Lunar Transportation startup team has in the past created commer-
cial companies that have achieved an order of magnitude in cost reduction.
A commercial microgravity service is available in the form of a Mid-Deck
Locker service for $2m/locker at SPACEHAB and a similar potential mag-
nitude at Kistler Aerospace in launch costs.17,18 The same startup team has
created Lunar Transportation Systems, Inc.19
Public Private Partnership Model

The Public Private Partnership has been used within NASA with
success.20 The Public Private Partnership has been explored21 and now is
ready for discussions with interested space agencies.21
Enabling Technologies
This In-Space transportation architecture, as described briefly in this paper,
does not depend on the development of any new launch vehicles. It does
depend on the development of five emerging technologies: 1) an autonomous
rendezvous and docking system, 2) a new autonomous payload transfer
system, 3) a new spacecraft to spacecraft cryogenic propellant tank trans-
fer system, 4) an autonomous propellant tank tapping system, and 5) an
autonomous lunar payload offload system. Developing these technologies
is less risky and less costly than investments in ETO transportation or cryo-
genic propellant transfer technologies. These emerging technologies, except
AR&D, are developable by ground tests and our program plan includes flight
demonstration on early robotic missions to the Moon.
Lunar Payload Capabilities

The initial fleets of reusable spacecraft4 are designed to fit the payload
capabilities of Delta II Heavy class launch vehicles, commercial RLVs or
other vehicles, but the Earth to Orbit vehicle payload bay defines the size
of the LTS vehicle system. Basically, the larger the diameter of the initial
payload, the more capable and efficient the LTS highway scales up. Lunar
Lander spacecraft can deliver payloads of up to 8 metric tons from LEO to
the lunar surface, depending on where and how frequently they are refu-
eled on their way to the Moon. This architecture is capable of delivering
800 kg to the lunar surface directly from LEO without the need to refuel
in space. It is capable of delivering payloads of 3.2 metric tons to the lunar
surface with refueling at L1 only. Comparable payloads can be returned
from the lunar surface to the Earth with refueling at one or more of those
locations.
Existing Trade Routes created by Prudhoe Bay Oil are depicted graphically
in Figure 9.4 showing the different methods used for the commercial logistics
route to and from the Arctic. Figure 9.4 details the four logistics routes. The
first trade route shown in blue in the original figure and the greatest tonnage
at pennies per pound was transported on leased 300’ long barges towed by
ocean tugs from ports on the west coast of the United States to a point off
shore of Point Barrow, AK. These barge fleets sometimes as large as 40 barges
would circle a month or more waiting for Arctic Ocean ice to recede from the
shoreline so these barges could race 300 miles to Prudhoe Bay to unload at
the North Slope Oil Fields at Prudhoe Bay. In 1975−79, ice receded two out of
four summers and unloading was accomplished, but for two summers the
ice failed to provide the unloading opportunity and large Soviet icebreak-
ers and other means were used. The second logistics route shown in green
in the original figure was by commercial air for humans and critical cargo
at approximately $5 per pound. The third logistics route shown in violet in
the original figure was overland truck with oversized fuel tanks, because
Trade Routes Used to Develop Prudhoe Bay Energy Gaps in the Past
The senate energy

committee is considering
the largest construction
project in the history of
mankind.
Natural gas pipeline
is #5 trade route.
1. Barges
2. Air
3. Trucks
4. Pipeline
Figure 9.4
The logistics routes used on the development and recovery of resources at Prudhoe Bay, AK in
the 1970-1980 timeframe. Trade route emerges, because of a logistics market driven by resource
recovery by Mankind. Route 5 is emerging now after 40 years, because it is a market logistics
driven link sensitive to the economics between the resources and the users.
Prudhoe had no diesel fuel and the truck logistics price varied greatly
around a dollar per pound. The fourth system shown in dark blue was the
pipeline itself, which took 8 days to transport oil 800 miles and cost pennies
per pound to operate even when including the initial $8 billion of private
money used to construct it.
The oil field development is also important as an indication of the amount
of private money capable of being raised, if the return is significant. While
this LTS initial logistics system is not meant to transport crews to and
from the Moon, it is meant as a technology development testbed to prove
reliability through repeated non-critical cargo mission of a later crewed
Earth–Moon transportation system capable of sustaining the commercial
development of the Moon and allowing NASA to move to destinations
beyond Earth.
Scalability
This new Lunar Transportation System is scalable. A follow-on fleet of larger
spacecraft, designed to fit the payload capabilities of Delta IV Heavy class
launch vehicles can transport payloads of up to 30 metric tons from LEO to
the lunar surface, depending on where and how frequently they are refueled
on their way to the Moon.5 These larger and later LTS spacecraft are capable
of transporting crews to the lunar surface and returning them to the Earth.
They also have the capability to provide heavy cargo transportation to sup-
port a permanent lunar base.
Cost Reduction
The non-recurring costs to develop this Earth–Moon transportation system
are much lower than the cost of developing systems that use more traditional
architectures because there are fewer unique developments and it relies on
existing launch systems.
A significant reduction in lunar mission costs comes from the reusability of
the major elements of this system.5,6 The largest cost in operating this system
is the delivery of the spacecraft, the propellants, and the lunar payloads
from the Earth to LEO, which could be a government cost and an increase
in NASA budgets. Our commercial company plans to bring the Earth–Moon
transportation infrastructure from the Earth to LEO on existing expendable
launch vehicles, but it could easily provide NASA with a second commer-
cial customer for their new larger diameter (10 m) payload Ares vehicles.
Big vehicles, like the space shuttle and the new exploration vehicles, require
many launches per year to spread the overhead. Perhaps as much as 70% of
the cost of each lunar mission will be to transport the LTS infrastructure
from Earth to LEO. While these NASA vehicles are expensive to operate,
the development cost of a significant new launch capability represents at
least 100 launches of existing EELVs and many years of lunar transportation
operations.
Our commercial company is prepared to start now using existing hard-
ware. When propellants can be manufactured on the Moon, Earth–Moon
mission costs may be reduced by 60% or more. If and when reusable Earth to
LEO launch vehicles become available, lunar mission costs may be reduced
by a further 60% or more.
Schedule
Because this system relies on existing technologies and existing ELVs and
only requires the maturation of several enabling technologies, it can deliver
payloads to the lunar surface relatively quickly and well within NASA’s sched-
ule for robotic and human lunar exploration, if a start can be immediate.15
The Bottom Line

This lunar architecture is based on concepts that reduce lunar mission life
cycle costs and technical risks, improve reliability and crew safety, accelerate
lunar mission schedules, and allow for the routine delivery of lunar payloads
on a two-way highway between the Earth and the Moon.
Innovation on the Moon Reusing LTS Hardware

Lessons Learned Summary
Prepositioned Logistics
Before major resource recovery work is started on the Moon, these mining
companies need incentives to spend the risk money to recover resources from
the Moon. The Alaskan incentive was mining leases. The incentives used
in the Transcontinental Railroad were mineral rights to land under the track
as the track was laid. The 80’ soft coal seams mined 600 feet under these origi-
nal Transcontinental Railroad mineral rights still have value as incentives.
Lunar incentive is or can be mining leases on the Moon. The North Slope
of Alaska drew $20 B in private funds from the largest oil companies in the
world by using drilling leases in similar manner. These same companies
and/or other companies of similar risk takers asked various industries for
studies on how to get the oil off the North Slope after it was found and devel-
oped. They also set up the design and materials to build the facilities and
pipelines into the field and how to get the oil out. They asked submarine,
pipeline, railroad, aerospace industries and others for suggestions, proposals
and studies.
Each industry oddly enough suggested solutions using their industry.
Submarine organizations suggested giant submarines, railroads suggested
train tracks on the tundra, etc., only to be ruled out by a very shallow Arctic
Ocean, difficult tundra foundation problems for rail lines, and other techni-
cal and cost barriers. The tundra, for example, thaws the top 5’ every year
making gravel roads, runways and railroads very difficult or impossible.
Some industries suggested aircraft as an alternative, but the movement
of mass cargo should be as economical as practically possible and it is not
realistic to move mass cargo on the same hardware as people, given the
economics involved. Most people can understand the choice for the oil flow
out as the pipeline, but little was said about the four transportation systems
used in construction for the flow of crew and materials into the oil field
development and out. Each of these four logistics systems had a different
cost, speed, safety, surge storage, weather sensitivity and mass transport
capability.
Depending on any one transportation of these logistics systems for all
cargo and human passenger transport would have caused many cost prob-
lems, plus no single system could operate all the time. All of the logistics
routes were commercial and most were available with competitive pricing.
Logistics Transportation Systems and Storage

Figure 9.4 provides a brief depiction of the logistics transportation and
storage methods used including: First, aircraft, 737 passenger and cargo
jets, 3 flights per day, hauled up to 12,000 workers and high value cargo
pallets of materials forgotten or critical to operations like welding rods,
sockets, tools, etc., at about $5 per pound. Surge storage of critical cargo
and materials plus staff located in Fairbanks, Anchorage and the lower
48. Winter travel was delayed for weeks at a time due to weather and the
gravel strip didn’t always remain serviceable in the summer thaw. Second,
heavy highway trucks with 1500 gallon tanks north of Fairbanks required
for the round trip, because Prudhoe didn’t have gas or diesel, but burned
benzene in all vehicles, which was cracked from the oil in a small refinery.
Winter travel was too severe at times for trucks. Trucks cost about $1.00 per
pound of cargo. Third, ocean going 300’ long barges towed by ocean tugs
with entire buildings on board, probably cost pennies per pound to trans-
port, but only work well when Mother Nature blew the ice from 300 miles
of Arctic shoreline for ~30 days in August. Figure 9.4 shows the Beaufort
Sea 300-mile shoreline east of Point Barrow, which failed to open fully 2
out of 4 summers. Barges were used in only one direction and storage was
in fabrication yards in Seattle and San Francisco. Half the time the ice and
shallow Arctic Ocean were major problems forcing summer work into con-
struction winter work. Finally the fourth logistics route, the pipeline, only
works in one direction, takes eight days, 2.1 million barrels a day, but con-
struction costs were increased by the permafrost foundation problems and
difficult terrain. Some pump stations used natural gas, some oil for power.
Large storage at the south end and transportation estimated cost pennies
per barrel transported. A fifth trade route may emerge as the very expen-
sive natural gas pipeline discussed in Congress.
Logistics Lessons Learned12

1. Arctic engineering and construction are different than regular
construction: Recognize that lunar engineering and construction
techniques will be ~10 times more severe and more different than the
difference between normal engineering design and construction in
the lower 48 compared to Arctic engineering and construction,
impacting everything from packaging requirements to mass of
large structures and equipment. Recommend Lunar Engineering be
a course at interested universities. The lunar environment is more
difficult.
2. No single transportation or logistics system worked all the time:
Weather and ocean ice precluded each logistic transportation route
at different times, so more than one was required and probably
would be required for significant surface operations on the Moon.
Recommend at least four different lunar logistics routes using differ-
ent vehicles with different hardware to be considered, so the launch
failure of one vehicle will not impact the safety of the lunar crew and
that pre-positioning of logistics be considered as part of any logistics

plan. Suggest more than one system.
3. No single transportation or logistics system offered the afford-
ability for all materials: Recommend multiple government agencies
attempt to encourage multiple logistics transportation routes to and
from the Moon. Smaller affordable systems can be commercial and
more frequent in delivery.
4. Sometimes you need something so quickly that transportation
cost is overshadowed by need: Recommend a last minute emer-
gency cargo system be considered similar to throwing a part on a jet
flight at the last minute and paying the increased cost. It happened
every day on the slope with hundreds of companies filling about
half of all passenger flights with cargo pallets and paying the cost.
More frequent helps.
5. Once a logistics system is created, commerce flourishes: Recommend
commercial alternatives be considered early. Non-workers or tour-
ists would pay $1,000 to fly to Prudhoe Bay in the summer just to
look at the tundra flowers and look at what $12 billion could build.
The tundra flowers were smaller than a fingernail and underwhelm-
ing. Hotels were nonexistent and food was difficult. Plan for lunar
tourists early.
6. Some packing crates were used for a second purpose, because
they were available14: Recommend the use of Henry Ford’s method
of specifying crate materials and using them later as Henry did as
oak running boards for the Model A.
7. Even equipment used in transportation needs to have a second use
at the destination: Recommend reuse of tankage, and everything be
considered for reuse in some form.
8. Tooling and fasteners can be standardized and provide second
use opportunities: Recommend agreeing on fewer, but standard
fasteners and the ability to take items apart and repair or reuse.
9. The labor intensive work is done in the lower labor cost area and
transported assembled to the high labor cost area when possible:
Recommend equipment, structures and other items be assembled by
the future lunar worker at least once on Earth and “repairable think-
ing” be a part of all lunar thinking.
10. In the use of piece parts to be assembled on the slope, we suffered
from single parts in structural steel, for example, not making it to the
assembly site due to logistics handling, mis-marking and storage
requiring a new fabrication on the slope for the part or adaptation
of a mis-fabricated part. Recommend parts, boxes and all items be
marked with bar codes plus “Plug-and-Play” information accessible
from a space suit.
LTS Earth—Moon Transportation System Reuse

The lunar Transportation System proposed is for non-critical cargo initially
and may become reliable enough for crew transportation to and from the lunar
surface at some later date, when reliable unmanned flights are repeatable with
sustained success, safety and comfort. The nearer term market includes a vari-
ety of missions to test and refine our in-space flight architecture and architec-
ture support bases (propellant depots in LEO and Low Lunar Orbit (LLO)),
LEO missions as an unmanned tug, missions in and beyond LEO to the L1
point in support of facilities in that part of space and missions to lunar orbit.
The size of the LTS vehicles may offer more trips to and from the lunar
surface than the larger vehicles and provide some benefit in the frequency
of flights. This proposed system builds a two-way transportation highway
between Low Earth Orbit and the lunar surface, either from LEO directly to
the lunar surface for smaller payloads, or from LEO by refueling in cislunar
space for heavier payloads and for payloads returning from the Moon. The
system uses a small fleet of reusable spacecraft, supported by a small fleet
of expendable spacecraft, to transfer payloads in LEO, to transfer propellant
tanks at specific locations in cislunar space, and to transport payloads to and
from the lunar surface. The system uses existing ELVs to transport its entire
infrastructure from the Earth to Low Earth Orbit and one could consider
using government vehicles in some cost sharing manner suggested later.
Entrepreneurial Opportunity
The same team that brought researchers the mid-deck locker in microgravity
offers a special small surface delivery package for your creativity, inventions
and special equipment for the purpose of “prospecting” the lunar surface.
Figure 9.5 is one idea.
On Earth we use FedEx, with package pickup at your door and no return
delivery. To the Moon you can use the LTS vehicles and on the Moon’s sur-
face you are on your own, after we gently set you down. The mid-deck locker
became an industry standard for researchers in the microgravity environ-
ment created by the SPACEHAB Module in low Earth orbit. The mid-deck
locker was and still is a 2 cubic foot locker that costs $2 m and used an aver-
age of 125 watts of power and averaged 42 lbs flying on the space shuttle.
SPACEHAB still offers this smaller module version of an existing NASA
Module called Spacelab started by an entrepreneurial startup company
and manufactured in Italy by an early portion of the current Alenia Spazio
Aerospace conglomerate. The space shuttle has launched the module and/
or their evolving components 22 times with the launch scheduled in the fall
of 2007. Launched in this special commercial SPACEHAB Module are 60 or
80 individual lockers prepared and controlled by independent research-
ers with astronauts providing on orbit hands on services as required. This
The Pack Burro
Side
View
Growth
User Installed
Basic Pack Burro

Contains Delivery of 2
Mars Rover Pictured
Basic Platforms
use Similar Technology
Std. Wheels
Sm Battery Owner installs special equipment, 10 Jan 2007
Solar Array tests, FedEx one complete unit for Top NTS
Communications, transport the moon & keeps one View
Control & Cameras unit for lab demo to test reactions
via Internet to control signals for lunar unit
Figure 9.5
The Prospector’s Pack Burro on the Moon’s surface. Controlled remotely via the Internet, free
to roam around and perform experiments.
cooperation between NASA and a small entrepreneurial company allows

NASA to utilize the back half of the space shuttle payload compartment for
other payloads. An estimated 2,000 such experiments have launched since
the company started in 1983 and many of those 2 cubic foot experimental
setups are ready to launch again. But the space shuttle has reached the end
of its useful life and these experiments must transfer to Space Station and
the Express Rack pricing and with a different launch vehicle and orbital
accommodations.
If such an exploration package could be delivered to the lunar surface and
landed effectively for use via the Internet, then what actions are required for
its care and accommodation in this new environment besides transporta-
tion? First, it needs a name but it is not a mid-deck locker but has the same
approximate size. It is not as cheap as an order of magnitude or two less than
the traditional lander packages in cost. It does not just sit there on the surface,
but goes out and prospects at the command and control of its “Prospector”
on Earth. It does not sense the lunar environment with sensors, but travels
out into the lunar environment and actually accomplishes things like pros-
pecting and many other things at the direction of the owner. This platform
needs locomotion, but rover technology should be able to provide a small
platform with wheels and a solar array with some additional expense. In fact
a whole list of equipment, sensors, solar cells and camera can be carried on
the traveler rover for the prospecting of the lunar surface. Does positioning
one’s rover over a part of the Moon become a claim, because it is occupied?
Well, that may not be entirely clear at this early stage.
Well, let’s get back to a name. Maybe this little package is a bit like a
miner’s “burro.” It carries equipment for the miner; it is packed by the
miner with the needed tools and becomes an active assistant to the min-
er’s activities. Could the “burro” come back to the LTS vehicle for food
and water and reconfiguration; well maybe. Is there a limit to how far
such a wireless “burro” could go; probably. If the burro came back to the
“barn” could it be repaired, fed with new software and repacked? If the
standard chassis were combined with standard bolt on components, it is
realistic to think that such a feeding could take place at the “barn.” Could
universities all over the world have duplicates in their labs to test the
software before it is fed to the burro; well maybe. Could students learn by
doing and be inspired by the exercise; very likely. Could the “burro” ever
come home to Earth; probably not for a while. It must work until worn
out and wait to be picked up as a museum article for the university’s
museum.
What would such a “burro” look like? Not all burros would look alike.
They have four feet and consume basic food and water, but each has a per-
sonality of its own. The Lunar “Burro” is likely to evolve to fit the lunar
environment, much the way the Mars rovers evolved and became very adept
at traveling across the Mars surface. A “burro” is the miner’s friend and the
miner has a mission, a life long mission of finding something of value that
the miner can recover his or her investment in time, energy, creativity and
money. The miner of the American West was a dreamer and explorer driven
to find resources of value and to recover those resources for reward for the
many years of effort.
Lunar Transportation Systems, Inc. proposes the “burros” for sale program.
Figure 9.5 depicts the basic “Pack Burro” concept and outlines the basic plat-
form and the anticipated hardware to be supplied for a price, which includes
the one-way transportation to the lunar surface. The “Pack Burro” package
includes a platform frame, some wheels and basic wireless communications,
solar power and small batteries and a lifting eye. LTS expects to transport the
“burros” to the lunar surface and place them on the regolith. The “Standby”
ticket price on our vehicle is expected to reflect the mix of customers.
We don’t know much about “burros,” but other entrepreneurs do and
we will help you sell your equipment in this out of this world miner’s
community. A platform with some wheels with communication gear with
cameras might be a good start on a “burro.” It has been suggested that small
exploring and innovative unmanned devices operated by inventive creative
people could establish a beachhead for resource miners on the Moon and
the same technique can be used to explore the universe. Maybe LTS as an
entrepreneurial company on the frontier of a new celestial body can be the
“General Store” by helping to sell “gold pan like support equipment” and
transporting “burros” to the region. Maybe LTS could get interested in
setting up a corral, restoring the “burros” feet like a burro might get horse-
shoes and some “hay” and new batteries, when they are hungry. This is not
just our idea. We are not smart enough to think of all this by ourselves, but
like the resource miner of the American West and countries all over the
world, we see opportunity for great wealth in finding lunar equivalent to
“gold“ and the “burro” can help.
Reusability
A key feature of this Earth–Moon transportation system is that the two prin-
cipal spacecraft, the lunar Lander and the Propellant Transporter are fully
reusable. The lunar Lander transports payloads from LEO to the lunar sur-
face and back. The Propellant Transporter transports cryogenic propellant
tanks from LEO to any place in cislunar space where the lunar Landers need
to be refueled. When approximately $100k per pound is spent transporting a
vehicle to the lunar surface, then its value on the surface should be explored
in all ways.
Shared Vehicles
Figure 9.6 is the LTS vehicle being serviced by a lunar service or utility vehi-
cle. This surface utility vehicle is transported to the Moon on an LTS vehicle,
assembled with a crew, uses various methods to make use of local materi-
als and provides services and materials to other organizations as well as
provides LTS with services. The Basic Frame of the surface vehicle comes
without the mass required to provide the stability and non-tipping capabili-
ties in the 1/6 gravity of the Moon. Rather, regolith and/or melted regolith
are added to compensate for the massive counterweights, and other normal
one gravity stability problems. The 1/6 gravity is different than one gravity
in that it appears to increase the tendency to tip as a vehicle goes around
a curve, because the mass holding it down on the road is greatly reduced.
Crane counter weights need to be local materials, hopefully reduced in vol-
ume by melting. This counter weight mass can be local materials, but a revo-
lution is required for the designers of the equipment. Local mass can be used
to fill volumes of voids within the vehicle.
The utility and function of the “Live off the Land” vehicle uses Power Take
Off Units (PTO) for each end, which save power from the basic vehicle, but
add versatility and increased functions for the vehicle. The first vehicle will
have to dig, plow, grade, microwave in place the regolith, carry large items
like payloads, tanks, vehicles and building materials including lifting into
place, plus some unknown functions yet to be determined.
The components of larger mining machines going to the Moon’s surface
must be small enough for LTS P/L bay, delivered in pieces and assembled on
the lunar surface. The only real size constraint is the diameter of the origi-
nating vehicle delivering from Earth to an LTS vehicle in orbit. LTS expects
Basic frame from Crane jib

LTS vehicle
LOH tank
LOX tank LOX tank
Lunar electric
motor wheel
units
PTU each Ramp

Lift
end
platform
Figure 9.6
LTS uses utility vehicle for surface tasks.
this diameter to quickly expand to 10 meters or more with the advent of

commercial resource recovery operations beyond Earth. Manned operation
of the lunar surface utility vehicle is one of several methods of operation and
would include a pressurized cabin with provisions for removal of exterior
space suits and recharging of suit consumables plus a safe haven using the
mass of the vehicle counterweight and frame as a radiation shield.
The remote control operation from Earth or anywhere in between is
thought to be a part of surface vehicle hardware and capable of a gradu-
ated preplanned upgrade path of many segments. We expect a 30 to 50 year
design life given the transportation cost.
The full reuse of hardware can be carried one step further to the com-
ponent level. The Electric Wheel Units, for example, can be interchangeable
and capable of repair on the Moon. Limiting the piece count and compo-
nent count may seem to be limiting commerce and discouraging differences
between commercial products from different companies, but reuse must, in
the early development stages, take center stage for cost reasons.
A master mechanic, the usual innovator on remote construction projects
shown in Figure 9.2, must be given a reasonable chance at keeping hardware
operational and the more remote the base is the more difficult and expensive
the “problem,” even on Earth. Fasteners, wiring, tires, EVA suit items, bat-
teries, solar arrays, containers, beds, reusable water bottles and a myriad of
other well labeled logistics items fit into a general reuse policy of cost reduc-
tion using “Smart Logistics” techniques.
That is why lunar surface vehicles, like Earth vehicles, have hook locations,
outriggers, tires of different types, weight shifting to increase traction and a
Large diameter
tanks for sale
Basic frame
LTS
Lift
platform
Figure 9.7
Surface utility vehicle loads payloads and propellant.
multitude of new challenges imposed by the lack of air, increased tempera-

ture extremes, long night operations, both manned and remote operations
and many more with all to be in the public glare. Special functions for the
possible LTS operations include a Platform Lift capable of reloading the LTS
vehicles with propellant and payloads as shown in Figure 9.7. Also needed
is the ability to reuse the LTS tanks and to collect and recover the gaseous
oxygen from the lunar miner.
Increased Payload Capabilities

The size of the payloads delivered to and from the Moon depends on where
and how many times lunar landers are refueled on their way to and from the
lunar surface. This system is capable of delivering 800 kg to the lunar surface
directly from LEO without the need to refuel in space. It is capable of delivering
3.2 metric tons to the lunar surface with refueling at L1 only. And it is capable
of delivering up to 10 metric tons to the lunar surface with refueling at MEO,
at L1, and in lunar orbit. Comparable payloads can be returned from the lunar
surface to LEO or to the Earth with refueling at one or more of those locations.
Cooperative Plants
Figure 9.8 is an early processing plant and again early operations are crude
and minimized until a market actually buys the product and services avail-
able. Then the commercial financing flows quickly to spend the money
required to meet the existing market, but upgradeable to more capability and
production, so as to lead or stimulate the early market and follow the market
with easier to raise private capital as the market grows or disappears.
Cryo out
Plant
Gas in
Figure 9.8
Surface propellant plant converts gaseous recovered resources to cryogenic propellants.
This means the NASA government funding of all up front budget expen-
ditures are changed in the commercial world to the way most of the com-
mercial world builds in a high cost remote environment. The plant basically
converts gaseous oxygen stored and transported in reusable tanks into LOX
in as efficient way as possible given the cost and schedule. The processing is
thought to be easier if ice is present in significant quantities on the Moon and
the plant can be planned and even conceptualized including transportation
planning prior to the first trip to the Moon. This advanced thinking allows
commercial space entrepreneurs the ability to raise the private capital and
organize the transportation in parallel to early NASA efforts rather than in
series and after traditional government space development.
The plant will require a lot of power, needs radiation protection and staff
plus significant automation. This may be an opportunity for commercial
sources to fall in love with a future market, develop the hardware, test the
processes, determine the power source and provide the service plus related
surface facilities and transportation with NASA encouragement in a Public
Private Partnership.
The plan could include the developmental pull of He3 into the venture
rather than fighting for DOE budgets in an Earth environment where DOE
has no real incentive to consider He3 research. On the Moon the “Living off
the Land” using He3 becomes easier to sell and incentivize research to move
in a different way. Incentivize in this meaning or case means to provide a
motivation for moving in a new direction in a manner similar to the oil com-
panies on the North Slope, who agreed to burn benzene in most equipment
and power plants instead of a more expensive alternative gasoline and/or
diesel. It was accepted practice in the Prudhoe Bay Oil Field that a small
refinery would crack the oil on site and use benzene as a power source for
almost everything. The cost was modifying the carburetors on the equip-
ment and the saving was a small “cracking plant” refinery instead of a full
refinery producing several blends of fuel. The decision for these commercial
“big oil” companies was an easy one to make and had probably been made
on every new remote oil field for the last few decades. Benzene is a colorless
and flammable liquid with a sweet smell and a relatively high melting point.
Benzene is also carcinogenic and when spilled tended to melt the threads of
the Arctic Parkas before damaging the cloth itself.
He3 is positive for health reasons and may be helped by the hard vacuum
of the Moon. Research is a major economic driver to eventually use He3 to
power all lunar activities for the same reasons as benzene was used on the
North Slope, availability and “living off the land.”
Surface Transport Enhanced Use Leasing

Figure 9.9 depicts a Lunar Transportation Systems utility vehicle as a
transportation service on the surface of the Moon using the surface util-
ity vehicles and transporting empty, gaseous tanks and the full tanks
(same tank, different mass and contents) of cryogenic propellant for a
launch using resources recovered and processed into propellants on the
Moon. Commerce continues into other commercial services financed by
private money, because NASA and other space agencies see the value of
saving their budget dollars and applying the techniques of Public Private
Partnership agreements.
Other commercial services could include propellants for LTS use, “live
off the land” services for company town, like oxygen, water, local transport
services, camp construction and management including logistics, propellant
for sale to others, incoming payload handling, return payload handling and
other commerce.
Container Reuse
Figure 9.10 depicts containerized cargo. It took mankind 40,000 years of trade
route development on Earth before containers evolved; why start at zero
again? Traditional aerospace design includes an integration process between
the payload and the vehicle, but no integration tie to vehicle can save money
LOX tank Basic frame reloaded
Frame
loaded Basic frame
on
Plant
Tractor GOX tank
Figure 9.9
Surface utility vehicle transports recovered resources and production propellants to and from
the plant.
Diameter
depends
on ETO
diameter
Stackable lip
Beam
Top lift
eyes
Divided
volume
Plug & play Beam
Figure 9.10
LTS container freight with reuse on several levels on the lunar surface.
and permit the most effective and affordable vehicles to be used on each dif-
ferent leg. LTS does not anticipate a complex integration process between the
cargo container and the LTS vehicles except structural.
Our structural tie allows the quick transfer payload from one vehicle system
to another, much like the containers transferred at ports, where a transfer occurs
from ocean to land-based transportation. This changing of vehicle require-
ments also occurs at LEO where the ascent up from the Earth and through the
gravity well requires a different vehicle. The no integration and standard con-
tainer size is OK for 90% of the unmanned cargo and oversize equipment can
be accommodated on a relatively affordable non-manned vehicle. In Alaska,
for example, the human passenger and emergency cargo for them probably
made up less than 1% of the total mass transported to the remote base and to
pay the expense to fly everything would have been wasteful.
The container design could include some Special Features to assist crews
on the Moon, including solar cells with batteries to provide a small amount of
power for a plug and play content of the container output interface. Containers
are customer sensitive and configured in many forms including liquid, dry,
pressure, with hatches, cryogenic with mini coolers, and many others.
Special Mining Customers

Special customers are accommodated in a variety of ways including Figure 9.11,
where the LTS basic vehicle is modified and is reused, because the LTS basic
LTS, Inc.
Reuse vehicle
on the moon
Figure 9.11
Special drilling accommodation on the lts vehicle.
stack is used to land special drilling equipment. This service encourages inno-
vation, permits a design to accommodate Drilling Operations and telescopes
to cut the cost and increase functionality. Figure 9.12 depicts the drill opera-
tion using the LTS hardware as the initial structure and a mining system that
uses a dragline to move regolith to a central processing plant. While this may
be more expensive than processing regolith in place, it does provide a shaft
operation, which is another option used by the mining industry on Earth.
Figure 9.12 shows the Shaft Sinking/Drilling mining operation possible.
All LTS hardware needs commercial launch vehicles to launch each of the
four types of LTS hardware from Earth to LEO. This first vehicle sets the diam-
eter of the LTS hardware and can be on government vehicles, EELVs, ELVs,
commercial vehicles and on vehicles yet to be created. The remaining passive
minimum payload dispenser and the final stage are available for discard or
reuse as mass for a propellant platform of other uses, because each pound of
mass has $5k to $10k of valuable invested transportation energy in it in LEO.
To use this discarded item to replace something that must be launched at
$10k per pound leads to cost reduction on a potentially significant scale. This
discard mass with potential value could be viewed as the modern day equiv-
alent of the land and mineral rights given to the Transcontinental Railroad
builders as they built track. The track laying companies got every section of
land they touched and in turn sold it for operating capital. Their customers
were railroad customers, towns, cattle men and mining companies.
In the past the government has stimulated private investment with incen-
tives. The Transcontinental Railroad, for example, gave two organizations
land deeds and mineral rights for each mile of track laid. The issue was how
Dragline Processing Facility Regolith pile Regolith

Reuse of LTS vehicle
pile
frame
Regolith dragline
Dragline Processed regolith

bucket
Regolith
processing equipment
from dragline Reused
tanks for
By product bricks
processing
Living volumes
Dragline back L2 in reused tanks
haul lines to a
movable anchor
L2
Reused tanks Vertical shaft capability

as req’d
Regolith pile
Figure 9.12
Reuse of the LTS vehicle structure telescopes into a shaft sinking/drilling mining operation.
to finance the railroad. The incentive worked so well that opposing track-
laying crews went 200 miles past the other in Utah without connecting. In
the 1840s western America was a remote wasteland between the Mississippi
River and the West Coast. A gold rush in California helped make the railroad
a reality. The railroad sold the land and the mineral rights to get the private
investment to lay the track, buy the hardware and create future customers.
Conclusions
Commercial operations on the Moon’s surface can happen and will happen
sooner or later.22 Lunar commerce can emerge in parallel with the President’s
Space Exploration vision, if government is prepared to join with commercial
organizations to explore and implement realistic cooperative ventures ben-
efiting both sides.
The Public Private Partnership may be the method of cooperation between
government and commercial organizations, because both sides can benefit.
Before private money flows into exploration activities, investors need to see
an open ended “Financial Home Run” much in the way big oil developed
Prudhoe Bay Oil field. Figure 9.2 depicts one method of mining and recovering
lunar resources leading to the recovery of resources from the Moon. Figure 9.2
depicts a University of Wisconsin-Madison research concept11 for recovering
the lunar regolith by heating it to drive off the volatiles and recovering those
volatiles for further processing and use in propellant sales and for use on the
surface of the Moon. The recovered products can be near term consumables for
the lunar outpost and later the propellants NASA requires to go to Mars and
beyond. The regolith is excavated, continuously conveyed into the machine
and heated to drive off the volatiles for recovery with the processed regolith
returned to the surface and/or made into products for use on the Moon.
Figure 9.3 suggests a Public Private Partnership to stimulate private money
flow into the recovery of resources. It is too early to predict the cost savings
resulting from the use of lunar propellant, but for our company such pro-
duction, once in place, could provide a 60% reduction in our operations cost,
because propellant is a large part of the operations cost. Lunar Transportation
Systems, Inc. is prepared to work with resource development organizations,
willing to be the first customer for lunar produced propellant and abandon
our vehicles on the surface to stimulate their reuse in surface facility cost
reductions. Sharing the transportation from Earth to LEO with government
may be the first step in cooperating on a large scale within a Public Private
Partnership providing the underpinning of sustainable commerce supported
by private investment.
Remote resource recovery bases on Earth have been on the leading edge
of mankind’s quest for resources on our planet and as we move beyond our
planet, resource development is still a major driving force providing the eco-
nomic and political sustainability for continued exploration.
The development of the Moon is like the North Pole. Early explorers want
to plant the flag and gain prestige. When commercial developers came to the
Arctic some 50 years later, they were interested in profits through resource
development and recovery. They also brought $20 B in private risk capital
in the 1970s and after finding 18 other oil fields they have invested several
hundred additional billions coming out of profits.
References
1. Schmitt, Harrison, “Return to the Moon,” Copernicus Books, New York, 2006,
personal conversations, speeches and page 111.
2. Lunar Transportation Systems, Inc. Website, www.lunartransportationsystems.
com With alternative 7 minutes of color early animation video at YouTube web-
site http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26Y5w0vqtIU.
3. Kistler, Walter P., “Conceptual Design of an Earth – Moon Spacecraft Fleet,”
Lunar Transportation Systems, Inc., Bellevue, Washington. January 15, 2004.
4. Kistler, Walter P., "The Design of Lunar Transportation Spacecraft," Lunar
Transportation Systems, Inc., Bellevue, Washington, February 2nd, 2004.
5. Kistler, Walter P., "Some Design Details of the Propellant Dispenser, the Propellant
Transporter, and the lunar Lander Spacecraft for an Earth–Moon Transportation
System". Lunar Transportation Systems, Inc., Bellevue, Washington. Disclosure
Document to the U.S. Patent Office, Washington, DC, February 10, 2004.
6. Taylor, Tom, "Lunar Transportation Spacecraft System Drawings for Patent
Application". Lunar Transportation Systems, Inc., Bellevue, Washington,
February 15, 2004.
7. Kistler, Walter P., Bob Citron, and Tom Taylor, “A New Earth – Moon
Transportation System Concept,” AIAA/NASA First Space Exploration
Conference, Orlando, Florida, January 30th to February 1, 2005, in preparation.
8. Kistler, Walter P, Bob Citron, “Highway to the Moon,” NASA Strategic Roadmap
paper, Lunar Transportation Systems, Inc., Bellevue, Washington, December 2,
2004.
9. Walter P. Kistler, Bob Citron, and Tom Taylor, “To the Moon: Commercially,”
SOLE—The International Society of Logistics, 41st Annual International
Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 15–17 Aug 2006, also in condensed ver-
sions in Logistics Spectrum, Volume 40, Issue 4, Dec 06 ISSN 0024-5852, Lunar
Transportation Systems, Inc. Bellevue, Washington 98004.
10. University of Wisconsin-Madison, College of Engineering, Advisor Gerald L.
Kulcinski, Associate Dean for Research, Madison, WI 53706-1691, LTS support
of Grad Student: Matthew Gadja, a second year graduate student in engineering
physics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. College of Engineering, Advisor
Gerald L. Kulcinski, Associate Dean for Research, Madison, WI 53706-1691.
11. “A Lunar Volatiles Miner,” www.nasa-academy.org/soffen, Matthew Gadja,
a second year graduate student in engineering physics at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison. Presented a talk on the design of a lunar miner at the
International Conference on Engineering, Construction, and Operations
in Challenging Environments in Houston, Texas. University of Wisconsin-
Madison, Fusion Energy Institute.
12. Taylor, Thomas C., Four years on the North Slope of Alaska working four
separate projects in the construction of the Prudhoe Bay Oil Field Facilities,
1975–1979.
13. Personal experience on the North Slope as a Civil Engineer and Supt. of crews
in the assembly and construction of the Flow Station 1 and Flow Station 2 built
in the lower 48 and assembled into a $1 billion facility to separate the seawater
and natural gas from the oil.
14. Used six large packing crates for other structures such as tool sheds, crew rooms
and lunch.
15. Public Private Partnerships, Public Private Partnerships, http://ncppp.org/,
“Public Private Partnerships,” “Reminders,” The National Council for Public-
Private Partnerships, 1660 L Street, NW, Suite 510, Washington, DC 20036,
R. Norment, Exec. Director.
16. “Market Reform: Lessons from New Zealand”, Rupert Darwall, http://www.
policyreview.org/apr03/darwall.html, ONLINPolicy Review, 21 Dupont Circle,
NW, Suite 310, Washington, DC 20036.
17. SPACEHAB, Inc., an entrepreneurial startup company in commercial space offer-
ing affordable access to microgravity via 22 space shuttle missions, www.spacehab.
com, Start-up Team of Walter P. Kistler, Bob Citron and Tom Taylor, 1983, raised
~$300m in private funds, U.S. Patent 4,867,395, www.pat2pdf.org free copy.
18. Kistler Aerospace Corporation, an entrepreneurial startup company in com-

mercial space offering affordable access to space via a 2 stage Reusable Launch
Vehicle (RLV), www.rocketplanekistler.com, anticipated launch 2009-10 as win-
ner of NASA COTS award of $207m, Start-up Team of Walter P. Kistler, Bob
Citron and Tom Taylor, 1993, raised ~ $860m in private equity, U.S. Patent
5,927,653, 6,945,498.
19. Lunar Transportation Systems, Inc., an entrepreneurial startup company in
commercial space offering potentially affordable access to the lunar surface via
commercial logistics architecture, Start-up Team of Walter P. Kistler, Bob Citron
and Tom Taylor, 2004, raised private equity, U.S. Patent 7,114,682, 7,118,077,
7,156,348.
20. Ball, J., “Public Private Partnership Opportunities at NASA,” PPPs For Federal
Properties Workshop, Washington, D.C. December 6, 2006, www.ncppp.org.
21. Taylor, T.C., “Maximizing the Commercial Space Transportation with a Public-
Private Partnership,” AIAA-2006-5883, AIAA Space Operations: Mission
Management, Technologies, and Current Applications Book: Chapter 2 Space
Operations, Revision of SpaceOps 06 Paper in Rome, same title.
22. Lunar Roundtable Conference, Las Vegas, NV, 17–19 July 2006, “Bridging the
Gap From Earth Markets to New Space Markets” Report, Page 27 of 75, avail-
able at www.lunarcommerceroundtable.com click on “Event Archive” and
“Roundtable.”
10
Rocks to Robots: Concepts for Initial
Robotic Lunar Resource Development*
Lee Morin
Astronaut Office, NASA Johnson Space Center
Houston, Texas
Sandra Magnus
Houston, Texas
Stanley Love
Houston, Texas
Donald Pettit
Houston, Texas
Mary Lynne Dittmar

Dittmar Associates, Inc.
Houston, Texas
Lee Morin, M.D., PhD, received a BS degree in mathematical/electrical

science from the University of New Hampshire in 1974; an MS degree
in biochemistry from New York University in 1978; doctorate of medi-
cine and microbiology degrees from New York University in 1981 and
1982, respectively; a master of public health degree from the University
of Alabama at Birmingham in 1988; and an MS degree in physics from
the University of Houston–Clear Lake in 2009. His space flight experi-
ence is STS-110 Atlantis (April 8−19, 2002), the 13th Shuttle mission to visit
the International Space Station, during which the crew delivered and
installed the S-Zero Truss.
Sandra Magnus, PhD, NASA Astronaut received a BS in physics and an
MS in electrical engineering from the University of Missouri-Rolla in 1986
*The opinions expressed are the personal views of the authors, and do not reflect current
official NASA or U.S. Government policies or programs.
129
and 1990, respectively, and a doctorate from the School of Material Science
and Engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology in 1996. Selected
by NASA in April 1996, Dr. Magnus reported to the Johnson Space Center
in August 1996. Her space flight experience includes STS-112 Atlantis
(October 7−18, 2002), an International Space Station assembly mission
during which the crew delivered and installed the S-One Truss. On her
second mission, she served as a flight engineer and NASA Space Station
science officer for International Space Station Expedition 18 (November
2008−March 2009).
Stanley Love, PhD, NASA Astronaut earned a BS in physics from Harvey
Mudd College, Claremont, California, in 1987. He attended the University of
Washington in Seattle, receiving an MS in 1989 and a doctor of philosophy
degree in 1993. Selected by NASA in June 1998, he reported for training in
August 1998. His space flight experience is STS-122 Atlantis (February 7−20,
2008), the 24th Shuttle mission to visit the International Space Station, during
which the crew delivered and installed the European Columbus Orbiting
Facility.
Donald Pettit, PhD, NASA Astronaut received a Bachelor of Science degree
in chemical engineering from Oregon State University in 1978 and a doctor-
ate in chemical engineering from the University of Arizona in 1983. Selected
by NASA in April 1996, Dr. Pettit reported to the Johnson Space Center in
August 1996. His space flight experience is as follows. He completed his first
space flight as Expedition 6 NASA Space Station Science Officer aboard the
International Space Station (November 2002–May 2003). His second mission
was aboard STS-126 Endeavour (November 14−30, 2008), the 27th Shuttle/
Station assembly mission.
Mary Lynne Dittmar, PhD, is president and CEO of Dittmar Associates,
Inc. She received a BA in psychology and an MS in human factors psychol-
ogy in 1980 and 1985, and a joint doctorate in experimental psychology and
human factors engineering, 1989, all from the University of Cincinnati.
Dr. Dittmar worked as NASA consultant in Human Factors between
1989 and 1995, while a faculty member at the University of Alabama in
Huntsville. She managed Boeing Mission Operations and Astronaut/
Cosmonaut Training Integration for the International Space Station
Program between 1995 and 2001, and carried out long range strategic
planning for Boeing Space Systems between 2002 and 2004. She founded
Dittmar Associates, Inc. in 2004, specializing in strategic planning, sys-
tems engineering, communications planning, training, and evaluation of
emerging technologies. She has published more than 50 articles in science,
aerospace, engineering, business, and the humanities, and is the author of
The Market Study for Space Exploration (paperback; 2004, Dittmar Associates,
Inc., Houston, Texas).
Rocks to Robots 131
Introduction
Despite epochal exploration achievements a generation ago, lunar devel-
opment has not yet materialized, and the vision of sustained coloniza-
tion of other worlds has remained out of reach. In this paper, we propose
a step-wise approach to the planning, design, development, building, and
expansion of human/robotic presence on the Moon. The key concept under-
lying this approach is the use of bootstrapping—creating building blocks
that in turn lead to more capability to make more building blocks—using
local lunar resources to the greatest possible extent. We believe that this
approach will yield lower-cost missions with high return—a productive
materials processing capability that simultaneously generates increasingly
more materials and more processing ability, leading to the rapid accumula-
tion of construction materials and industrial manufacturing capacity. One
of the main obstacles of reaching and re-supplying an off-world presence is
the immense transportation cost, which is largely driven by the need to use
impulsive chemical rockets to leave the Earth’s gravity well. The problem
is neatly described by the rocket equation, which determines the propor-
tion of payload achievable given a desired velocity change. Contained in the
equation is an exponential term which behaves in the same manner as com-
pounded interest. At the high velocities required to establish and maintain
an Earth orbit, the rocket equation dictates that vehicles consist of almost
nine-tenths propellant, leaving only a small amount of up-mass possible
for payloads. This fact, together with the need for precision machinery con-
structed of high grade metals and other exotic materials have contributed to
the extreme costs of spaceflight.
The historical success of attempts to establish remote outposts has largely
depended on the willingness and ability of explorers to utilize local resources
and adapt to local conditions. The degree of dependence on distant mother-
lands inversely determined the long term viability of the outpost. Despite
abundant or even lavish initial outfitting, expeditions not adapting to local
conditions and optimizing the use of available resources have failed.
Today lunar exploration has become of prime interest to the increasing
number of space-faring nations of the world.1,2 The establishment of lunar
outposts is just one of several goals planned or proposed by the United
States,3 as well as by other government and privately-held organizations.4,5,6
Such remote outposts will provide many challenges, not only in technology,
but also in sustainability and development. One hundred percent reliance on
Earth resources will not only be prohibitively expensive, but will also ignore
the historical outcomes outlined above. For a complex enterprise in such a
remote location to be successful, lunar resources must be utilized.
With the abundant raw materials and sunlight available on the surface of
the Moon,7,8 exponential growth rates in materials and processing capacity
can be attained. Done efficiently, development of the Moon will largely

become an enterprise of transporting information rather than mass. By
mainly using matter already on the Moon and developing infrastructure
exponentially, we can overcome the limitations imposed by the unfavor-
able exponential of the rocket equation and eventually realize sustainable
off-Earth presence.
We propose a series of low cost, unmanned, lunar robotic missions using
standard expendable launch vehicles. We must carefully select material pro-
cessing payloads and strategies that are scaled to be within the capabilities of
the modest initial missions. Selected processes will be on a kilowatt-kilogram
scale at most. They must utilize immediately-available materials and energy
sources, and must immediately produce apparatus and knowledge that
directly furthers the enterprise. The objective is to bootstrap our way to con-
siderable lunar infrastructure and industrial capability without requiring
new heavy Earth launch capability or waiting until manned outposts are
established.
Some of the advantages to our proposal are:
• It results in permanent infrastructure on a stable platform (the
Moon) that accumulates with “compound interest”—unlike facilities
in Earth orbit, which are lost when orbits decay.
• It can be started quickly, and significant results can be obtained
within the span of a few years.
• The technical risk is low. All the technical ingredients are well
understood; it does not require a breakthrough invention.
• It can utilize existing expendable launch vehicles. No new launch
vehicles are required.
• It offers tremendous near-term outreach, inspirational, and educa-
tional benefits.9
• It will stimulate graduate scientific and engineering education by
providing ready access to the space environment for solving prob-
lems and developing technology for immediate space application.
• As the project develops it promises to make space very tangible to
the public at large, increasing public appreciation of the value and
relevance of our national investment in space.10
• Eventually many people will have a chance to experience lunar tele-
presence, which “puts you there.”11,12
• It is affordable and is “pay as you go.” Each mission is independent,
and the cost of each is mainly that of an expendable launch vehicle.
• It is open ended. The more you do, the easier it is to do more.
• It fosters entrepreneurial and commercial space activity. The robots
are on the Moon, but the business activity, knowledge and jobs are
here on Earth.
Rocks to Robots 133
• It opens a vast frontier the size of the continent of Africa. (The Moon
has been called the “Eighth Continent.”) People, especially children,
will see a role for themselves there.
Establishing Robotic Telepresence

The first step in our approach is to establish robotic telepresence.13 Dexterous
robots controlled from Earth will be landed on the lunar surface and used to
develop material science processes applicable to abundant lunar materials,
particularly the lunar regolith.14 Essentially we will be establishing a “lunar
glovebox”—with the box on the Earth and the gloves on Moon.
Space-based robotics have been widely used.15,16,17 Not only have we sent
robots to distant worlds to explore and transmit data, but we also utilize dex-
terous, human-in-the-loop robots18 as an integral part of the manned space
program. By exploiting the experience gained over the many years of NASA
robotic exploration and development and capitalizing on ever-advancing
robotic technology, we plan on operating robots on the Moon by controlling
them from Earth. Furthermore, the robots need not be as complex as top-
of-the-line space or surgical robots, or previous NASA models. A simpler
class of robots similar to industrial assembly robots, radioactive or explosive
material remote handlers, or even a backhoe would be extremely useful on
the Moon if operated by telepresence.
The operator, who sits in a control room on Earth, can view images
down-linked in near real time, with a delay of only ~3 seconds required
to transmit a signal round-trip from the Moon. Using virtual reality and
feedback techniques the operator will feel immersed in the lunar environ-
ment; in essence be a “telepresence” on the lunar surface. This approach
permits direct application of the full adaptive capability of the human
mind to the remote task. Such a system allows for a much more adaptable
and capable robot compared to one that is preprogrammed to execute tasks
autonomously.
When complex robotic processes are required, telepresence robotic tech-
nology is currently highly advanced and capable of extreme dexterity.19
Surgical robots are an excellent example of the ability to perform delicate
tasks.20 Medical systems are being developed that do not require the human
controller, the surgeon, to be in the same room as the patient and robot.21,22
Of particular concern in such systems is the problem of latency. Studies
are underway to understand the effects. In one case a mock vascular sur-
gery has been performed remotely with latencies of nearly one second, with
great interest in exploring even higher time delays.23 Dexterity and toler-
ance of latency are relevant to our application. We seek to provide functional
dexterity comparable to a human hand in a space-suit glove and to learn
to work efficiently despite the ~3 second lunar latency. Techniques such as

using graphical predictors of robotic motions displayed as images, together
with tools and interfaces designed with latency in mind can optimize robotic
control.
Robotic telepresence is central to the proposed plan. The use of telepresence
robots will allow set-up, assembly, configuration change, and maintenance
to be done remotely from Earth. With each subsequent mission additional
telepresence robots will be commissioned. As the robotic presence on the
moon increases, the cadre of experienced operators will also increase. Each
phase will build on the previous phase as the inventory of tools, parts, stock,
and know-how grows.
Applying Robotic Telepresence

The robotic telepresence will be applied to begin utilizing lunar resources to
build a self-sustaining system. There are several key objectives that must be
met in order to realize the concept of “exponential growth” in materials and
materials processing. These include studying and understanding the bulk
material properties of regolith in the lunar environment, developing appro-
priate processing techniques, and establishing a source of energy. Each goal
builds on the previous one allowing development to proceed in an increas-
ingly efficient and effective manner.
First, we must understand and learn to exploit the mechanical properties of
bulk regolith in the lunar environment. We must be able to manipulate rego-
lith mechanically. Key capabilities include digging, grading, piling, entrenching,
and tunneling. We must devise techniques for digging into the hard packed
material that is found below the first few centimeters of the lunar surface. In
addition, we must be able to sort the regolith into components based on size
and other properties.
We must also learn to exploit the electrical and magnetic properties of
regolith so processes using these properties can be designed. For example,
due to the presence of nanophase iron, the magnetic properties of regolith
will be very useful. Regolith also exhibits similarities to abrasive materials
used on Earth for grinding and polishing ceramics, glass, and other surfaces,
and should find similar applications on the Moon. Finally, and of particular
importance for ongoing operations, we must also create strategies to control
the finest component of regolith, the lunar dust.
Although we have gaps in our knowledge, a great deal of information on
the physical properties of regolith is already available as a result of Apollo
and other programs. Using this information, various relevant material pro-
cesses have already been developed. For example, if regolith is heated it melts
and will fuse to form an opaque obsidian-like glass.24,25,26,27 A key process
Rocks to Robots 135
that weakens glass is interaction with water molecules. However, because

the Moon is so dry, lunar glass is expected to be much stronger than glass
formed on Earth.28,29
Examples such as the one above demonstrate that the properties of rego-
lith, in combination with the unique environmental characteristics of the
Moon, offer tremendous potential for developing and testing technologies,
materials and industrial processes leading to permanent habitation on the
lunar surface. We have developed a series of key objectives—which may be
thought of as milestones—to be accomplished early in the development of
the program.
Key Objective 1: Melting the Regolith Using a Solar

Furnace and Learning to Manipulate the Melt to Form
Bricks, Bars, and Other Structural Elements
Because of the excellent vacuum on the Moon a very simple solar furnace can
be built. It could consist of a light, metallized Mylar-type parabolic reflec-
tor focused on a crucible of regolith, or perhaps even a parabolic pit on the
ground with a similar focusing method.
Key Objective 2: Sintering Regolith with Microwaves to

Form Objects, and Characterizing Their Properties
Regolith contains nanophase iron which couples well with microwave energy,
therefore microwaves can also be used to heat regolith efficiently.30,31 If heated
enough, regolith can be sintered with microwaves to form a solid.32,33,34 This
presents many possible applications including forming shaped objects, pav-
ing surfaces, perhaps even creating monuments of commercial value. It
could also be the basis for a stereolithography-type process to form detailed
objects.
Key Objective 3: Demonstration of Vapor Deposition Capability

The superb lunar vacuum allows vapor deposition to be a straightforward
process. On the Moon, deposition can be performed without the overhead
of vacuum pumps and chambers required on Earth. The reagents are heated
and vaporized, and the plume is directly deposited on the substrate. Small
quantities of reagents brought from Earth, such as aluminum, can be vapor-
ized and deposited as thin films on surfaces to form coatings. Mirrors made
in this manner can be used to concentrate solar energy or build additional
solar furnaces. Likewise, metal deposition onto a spherical bowl-shaped exca-
vation on the lunar surface can create an antenna dish, useful for enhancing
communication with Earth. (The dish can be aimed without moving it, by
positioning a feed horn like a miniature Arecibo.35) Vapor deposition of met-
als and thin films is an important industrial process for lunar development.
Key Objective 4: Demonstrate In-Situ Solar Cell

Production Using Robotic Telepresence
Energy is a critical requirement. By applying semiconductor reagents (brought
from Earth) as thin films on ceramic substrates, solar cells can be produced
in-situ. Technical processes to produce solar cells in-situ from lunar materi-
als have already been demonstrated in the laboratory on Earth.36,37,38,39,40,41
Concentrated sunlight is used to melt and fuse the regolith in place, forming
in place an eggshell-thin crust of glass on the lunar surface. This glass layer
serves as the substrate for thin-film deposition of the semiconductor materi-
als, forming solar cells. Thin film layers of only a few microns are adequate.
Cells made in this manner yield efficiencies in the range of 6-10%. Even
though these efficiencies are at the low end of what is technically feasible
for photocells,42 we have the vast surface of the Moon at our disposal, and in
principle the solar cell area necessary to attain any desired power level can
be achieved. The portion of such solar cells that must be brought from the
Earth is small.
Key Objective 5: Demonstrate an Iron Producing Capability

and Begin Scaling This Capability to Production Levels
One of the uses for an abundant source of energy is metal production. Iron
is the metal most readily extractable from regolith. It is also the most useful
single metal to have as a raw material due to its mechanical stiffness, mag-
netic properties, and the number of versatile alloys which can be made with
it. The main drawback of iron, its tendency to corrode, will not be of concern
in the dry, oxygen-free environment of the Moon.
Some iron (a fraction of one percent) is already present in regolith as reduced
metal, namely as nanophase iron. Additional iron can be extracted from fer-
rous oxide (FeO) in the regolith. In the laboratory, FeO has been reduced
to oxygen and iron by electrolysis at high temperatures, using a mixture of
aluminum, calcium, and silicon oxides as a solvent—essentially the main
components of regolith itself.43,44,45,46,47,48 One drawback of this method is the
corrosion of the anode caused by the hot oxygen created by the process. Since
we are much more interested in producing iron than oxygen at this stage,
we propose to redirect the hot oxygen to oxidize more FeO into Fe3O4. This
disproportionation reaction, where FeO is simultaneously oxidized to Fe3O4
and reduced to iron, is well known.49,50 The Fe3O4 produced is a potential
feed stock for other uses including abrasive, magnetic and ferrite technology.
In addition, bulk Fe3O4 provides for a very stable and compact form of oxy-
gen storage. The oxygen can be recovered as water by heating with hydrogen
in a reaction very similar to the well-known ilmenite process.
Once iron can be extracted at production levels, the stage is set for a broad
array of follow-on technology including alloys, forming and machining
techniques, powder metallurgy, electromagnetic machinery, and microwave
Rocks to Robots 137
and “vacuum-tube” electronic devices to name a few. As extraction activities

scale up, additional regolith trace elements will become increasingly avail-
able, providing expanding opportunities for material applications.
Another process requiring energy that will eventually be developed is
oxygen extraction from the regolith. However, handling oxygen as a com-
pressed gas or cryogenic liquid is very difficult and requires complex preci-
sion machinery as well as strong, gas-tight vessels, seals, and plumbing to
collect, compress, handle, and store the oxygen. While oxygen extraction is
well beyond the initial capability of the proposed robotic development plan,
a rudimentary demonstration may be possible during an early mission.
Key Objective 6: Set the Stage so Additional

Telepresence Capability Can Be Produced In Situ
This is a longer term objective, but is the key to achieving the “compound
interest” at the heart of this proposal. The energy and materials produced by
the methods above are used first to supplement, and then gradually replace
Earth content in subsequent telepresence facilities. By learning to turn rego-
lith into telepresence workstations, or “Rocks to Robots”, we close the circle
to exponentially grow the most important commodity of our budding lunar
information industry—lunar telepresence itself.
Early Construction
As the key objectives described above are progressively met, a source of
building materials manufactured from local resources (regolith) will have
been obtained. The development of basic construction techniques can begin.
A series of key objectives concerns construction, including the creation of
structures such as work surfaces, foundations, pathways, and fundamental
architectural structures such as arches. These form the next “plateau” in
our bootstrapping approach; once the mastery of rudimentary construction
techniques is achieved, more complex projects can be undertaken.
One example of an early project might be the construction of a prototype
lunar shelter, perhaps similar in shape to a miniature hanger based on a
trench with paved walls. Once built, such a structure can be characterized
for radiation shielding, thermal stability and other properties important for
eventual human habitation. Additional regolith can be used on the outside of
the structure to enhance desired characteristics such as radiation shielding
and micrometeorite protection.
Another goal will be to learn how to build pressure vessels. To use pres-
sure vessels we must also be able to produce and manipulate gases. Pressure
vessels will be useful as prototypes for structures such as tanks, green-

houses, and, of course, human habitats. Ideally before the first human lunar
landing, we could have a decade of experience with lunar construction.
The First Mission51

The first mission will be a demonstration of fundamental technical capability.
There are two main objectives. The first will establish a dexterous telepres-
ence that can dig and manipulate regolith, assemble and operate apparatus,
and process various samples. The second is creation of a regolith material
processing lab that includes a solar furnace to bake and fuse regolith. This
telepresence lab will also be able to characterize and analyze samples, micro-
wave regolith, perform vapor and thin film deposition, make experimen-
tal solar cells, and perform experimental iron oxide reduction. Subsequent
missions will build on these successes and extend these initial telepresence
capabilities.
Summary
This proposal outlines a plan for the development toward a self-sustaining
outpost on the Moon, and provides several key objectives that, if met, would
see us well on our way to that goal. Starting with the creation of a telerobotic
presence on the Moon and utilizing that capability to develop material pro-
cessing techniques, the expansion of a lunar outpost will occur exponentially
with minimal costs associated with transportation of materials from Earth.
In addition, the missions can be scaled to fit within the available launch sys-
tems, thereby minimizing start up costs normally associated with new space
projects.
Much of the technology proposed for use on the Moon is well understood
and has been in use on Earth for decades; the challenge will lie in estab-
lishing and controlling our “lunar glove box” to apply these already mature
techniques. With each success comes knowledge, experience, and materials
useful in facilitating and accelerating the development and success of the next
phase. We believe that such a modular approach, building on the success of
previous missions, and utilizing the lunar resources is the most efficient and
cost effective manner to establish and develop a permanent lunar presence.
With Earth-to-Moon transportation costing many tens of thousands of dol-
lars per pound, the value-add of lunar manufacturing is immense.
Rocks to Robots 139
References
1. Lunar Enterprise Daily: http://www.spaceagepub.com/Daily.html
2. On India’s First Lunar Probe: http://www.isro.org/chandrayaan/htmls/
home.htm
3. On the President’s Vision for Space Exploration: http://www.whitehouse.
gov/space/renewed_spirit.html; http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/
releases/2004/06/ 20040616-6.html
4. Eckart, P., The Lunar Base Handbook—An Introduction to Lunar Base Design,
Development, and Operations, McGraw-Hill, 1999.
5. On the President’s Vision for Space Exploration: http://www.whitehouse.gov/
space/renewed_spirit.html; http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/
06/20040616-6.html
6. Wingo, D. Moonrush: Improving Life on Earth with the Moon’s Resources, Apogee
Books Space Series, 2004.
7. Jolliff, B.L., Wieczorek, M.A., Shearer, C.K., Clive R. Neal, C.R. New Views of The
Moon Mineralogical Society of America, Reviews in Mineralogy and Geochemistry,
2006.
8. Heiken, G., Vaniman, D., French, B.M., Schmitt, J. Lunar Sourcebook: A User’s
Guide to the Moon, Cambridge University Press, April 26, 1991.
9. Dittmar, M.L. Engaging the 18-25 Generation: Educational Outreach, Interactive
Technologies, and Space. In Proceedings of AIAA Space 2006, September 19–21,
San Jose, CA. Paper #AIAA 2006-7303. Washington, DC: AIAA, 2006.
10. Dittmar, M.L. Sustaining Exploration: Communications, Relevance, and Value.
Parts 1 & 2. The Space Review, Nov. 12, 2007 and Nov. 19, 2007. Accessed at http://
www.thespacereview.com/article/1000/1 and http://www.thespacereview
.com/article/1005/1.
11. Craig, M.K. NASA’s Value to the Nation: 50 Years of Lessons on Sustainability.
In Proceedings of AIAA Space 2007, September 18–20, Long Beach, CA. Paper
#2007-9931. Washington, DC: AIAA, 2007.
12. Dittmar, M.L. Gen Y and Space Exploration: A Desire for Interaction,
Participation, and Empowerment. Paper presented at the AIAA 3rd Space
Exploration Conference, Denver, CO, February 26–28, 2008. Accessed at www.
nasa.gov/pdf/214675main_Dittmar.pdf.
13. Minsky, M., Telepresence, Omni, pp. 45–52, June 1980.
14. Regolith (Greek: “blanket rock”) is a layer of loose, heterogeneous material cov-
ering solid rock. It includes dust, soil, broken rock, and other related materials.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regolith.
15. Heer, E. Remotely Manned Systems: Exploration and Operation In Space, California
Institute of Technology, 1973.
16. Launius, R.D., McCurdy, H.E. Robots in Space, The Johns Hopkins University
Press, 2008.
17. Space Automation, http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Advanced_Automation_
for_Space_Missions/Appendix_4D.
18. Robonaut references: http://robonaut.jsc.nasa.gov/; http://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Robonaut.
19. Costello, A.J., Haxhimolla, H., Crowe, H., Peters, J.S. Installation of Telerobotic
Surgery and Initial Experience with Telerobotic Radical Prostatectomy, BJU Int.
Jul 2005; 96(1):34–38.
20. Rosen, J. and Hanaford, B. Doc at a Distance, IEEE Spectrum NA 39, October 2006.
21. Anvari, M. Remote Telepresence Surgery: The Canadian Experience, Surgical
Endoscopy Apr 2007; 21(4):537–541, Epub 2007 Feb 6.
22. Anvari, M., McKinley, C., Stein, H. Establishment of the World’s First Telerobotic
Remote Surgical Service: for Provision of Advanced Laparoscopic Surgery in a
Rural Community, Ann Surg. Mar 2005; 241(3):460–464.
23. These studies were performed on the NASA NEEMO 9 and NEEMO 12 mis-
sions, http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/NEEMO/index.html.
24. Kokh, P. Aboriginal Lunar Production of Glass, Moon Miners’ Manifesto #96 June
1996, Section 6.9.3.2.096.of the Artemis Data Book.
25. Magoffin, M., Garvey, J. Lunar Glass Production Using Concentrated Solar
Energy, AIAA-1990-3752 Space Programs and Technologies Conference,
Huntsville, AL, Sept 25–27, 1990.
26. Allen, C.C. Bricks and Ceramics, LPI Technical Report 98-01, 1–2.
27. MacKenzie, J.D. and Claridge, R.C. Glass and Ceramics from Lunar Materials,
Space Manufacturing III, Proceedings of the 4th Princeton/AIAA Conference, J. Grey
and C. Krop, eds., pp. 14–17, Paper No. 79–1381 (May 1979).
28. Mendell, W. W. ed., Mechanical Properties of Lunar Materials under Anhydrous,
Hard Vacuum Conditions: Applications of Lunar Glass Structural Components,
in Lunar Bases and Space Activities of the 21st Century, Lunar and Planetary Inst.,
Houston TX, 487–495, 1986.
29. Carsley, J.E., Blacic, J.D. and B.J. Pletka, Vacuum Melting and Mechanical Testing
of Simulated Lunar Glasses, in Engineering, Construction and Operations in Space
III, edited by W.Z. Sadeh, S. Sture, and R.J. Miller, Amer. Soc. Civil Engin., 1219–
1231, 1992.
30. Taylor, L.A., Hill, E., and Liu, Y. Unique Lunar Soil Properties for ISRU
Microwave Processing, Space Resources Roundtable VII, Colo. Sch. Mines, ext.
abstr. 2005.
31. Taylor, L.A. and Meek, T.T. Microwave Processing of Lunar Soil, Proc. Int’l Lunar
Conf. 2003/Int’l Lunar Explor. Work. Grp. 5, Amer. Astronautical Soc. 108, 2004,
pp.109–123.
32. Taylor, L.A. and Meek T.T. Microwave Sintering of Lunar Soil: Properties,
Theory and Practice, J. Aerospace Engr., July 2005.
33. Taylor, L.A., Schmitt, H.H., Carrier, W.D., and Nakagawa, M. The Lunar Dust
Problem: From Liability to Asset, First Space Explor. Conf. Orlando 2005 AIAA
2005–2510.
34. Taylor, L.A., Hot-Pressed Iron from Lunar Soil, Space Resources Roundtable II,
Colo. Sch. Mines, ext. abstr. 2000a.
35. Illingworth, V. and Clark, J.O.E. Facts of File Dictionary of Astronomy 4th Ed.
Market House Books/Checkmark Books New York, p. 24, 2000.
36. Freundlich, A., Ignatiev, A., Horton, C., Duke, M., Curreri, P., Sibille, L. Manufacture
of Solar Cells on the Moon, Conference Record of the Thirty-First Photovoltaic
Specialists Conference, 2005. IEEE Volume, Issue, 3-7 pp 794–797, Jan 2005.
37. Ignatiev, A., Freundlich, A., Solar Cells for Lunar Applications by Vacuum
Evaporation of Lunar Regolith Materials, NASA Report: IAF PAPER 92-0158,
Accession Number: 92A55620; Document ID: 19920072996 (1992).
Rocks to Robots 141
38. Criswell, D.R., Ignatiev, A. Production of Solar Photovoltaic Cells on the Moon,
NASA Report: Accession Number: 91N26044; Document ID: 19910016730 (1991).
39. Ignatiev, A., Chu, C.W. Epitaxial Thin Film Growth in Outer Space, NASA
Report: Accession Number: 89A51849; Document ID: 19890064478 (1988).
40. Ignatiev, A. Solar Cells for Lunar Applications by Vacuum Evaporation of Lunar
Regolith Materials, NASA Report: Accession Number: 91N26047; Document ID:
19910016733 (1991).
41. Freundich, A., Ignatiev, A., Horton, C., Duke, M., Curren, P., and Sibille,
L. Manufacture of Solar Cells on the Moon, NASA Report: Document ID:
20050110155 (2005).
42. Green, M.A. Third Generation Photovoltaics-Advanced Solar Energy Conversion,
Springer-Verlag: Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 3–4, 2003.
43. Curreri, P.A., Ethridge, E.C., Hudson, S.B., Miller, T.Y., Grugel, R.N., Sen, S., and
Sadoway, D.R. Process Demonstration For Lunar In Situ Resource Utilization—
Molten Oxide Electrolysis, NASA Report: NASA/TM—2006–214600.
44. Sadoway, D.R., Khetpal, D. From Oxygen Generation to Metals Production: In
Situ Resource Utilization by Molten Oxide Electrolysis, In: Materials Research at
MIT Electrochemical Processing of Materials Research Reports 2003. Sponsorship:
NASA.
45. Sadoway, D.R. Towards Lunar Simulants Possessing Properties Critical to
Research & Development of Extractive Processes, Lunar Regolith Simulant
Materials Workshop, Huntsville, AL January 25, 2005, http://est.msfc.nasa.
gov/workshops/lrsm2005_program.html.
46. Khetpal, D., Ducret, A.C., and Sadoway, D.R. From Oxygen Generation to
Metals Production: In Situ Resource Utilization by Molten Oxide Electrolysis,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, http://amelia.db.erau.edu/nasacds/
200307Disc1/research/20030060573_2003069287.pdf
47. Khetpal, D., Ducret, A. and Sadoway, D.R. Towards Carbon-Free Metals
Production by Molten Oxide Electrolysis, TMS Meeting, Charlotte, NC March
17, 2004, http://web.mit.edu/dsadoway/www/MOE.pdf
48. Sadoway, D.R. Electrochemical Processing in Molten Salts: From “Green”
Metals Extraction to Lunar Colonization, Department of Materials Science and
Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, http://iusti.polytech.univ-
mrs.fr/MOLTEN_SALTS/IUSTI_EDITION/70/edito70.pdf
49. Cornell, R.M. and Schwertmann, U. The Iron Oxides 2nd Ed. Wiley-VCH
Weinheim, 2003.
50. Schwertmann, U. and Cornell, R.M. Iron Oxides in the Laboratory 2nd Ed. Wiley-
VCH Weinheim, p. 13, 2000.
51. Morin, L. Rocks to Robots: A Biological Growth Approach to Rapid Lunar
Industrialization, presented at NASA Ames Research Center Lunar Conference,
June 2006.
11
Solar Cell Fabrication on the
Moon from Lunar Resources
Alex Ignatiev and Alexandre Freundlich

Center for Advanced Materials, University of Houston
Houston, Texas
Klaus Heiss and Christopher Vizas

High Frontier
Alexandria, Virginia
Alex Ignatiev, PhD, is distinguished university professor of physics, chem-

istry, and electrical and computer engineering. Dr. Ignatiev is a graduate of
the University of Wisconsin and Cornell University where he received his
PhD in materials science in 1972. He is a former Fulbright Fellow, associ-
ate editor for Vacuum, and is the director of the Texas Center for Advanced
Materials. He has been elected to the International Academy of Astronautics
for his work in advanced materials development in space, and has been the
recipient of the NSM Alumni Achievement Award, the Texas State Senate
Recognition Award, and the City of Houston Science Recognition Award. He
has developed the Wake Shield Facility space science payload that has flown
three times on the Space Shuttle for the study of thin film growth in the
vacuum of space. His research interests are focused on advanced thin film
materials and device development and surface chemical interactions that
form the basis for thin film growth. Recent efforts have been in the research
of optical micro-detectors for artificial retina, thin film solar cells, thin film
solid oxide fuel cells, thin film oxide resistive random access memory, and
the fabrication of thin film solar cells on the Moon from lunar resources. He
is the author of over 300 published research papers, holds 15 patents, and
has been instrumental in the spinoff of five companies taking UH advanced
materials technologies into the private sector.
Abstract The use of the indigenous resources of the Moon can result in
the development of a power system on the Moon based on the fabrication of
solar cells by thin film growth technology in the vacuum environment of the
Moon. This can be accomplished by the deployment of a moderately-sized
(~200 kg) crawler/rover on the surface of the Moon with the capabilities of
preparation of the lunar regolith for use as a substrate, evaporation of the
143
appropriate semiconductor material for the solar cell structure, and deposition
of metallic contacts and interconnects. This unique process will allow for the
emplacement of a lunar electric power system that can reach a 1 MW capacity
level in several years of crawler operation. This approach for the emplacement
of an electric power system on the Moon would require the transportation
of a much smaller mass of equipment to the Moon than would otherwise
be required to install a complete electric power system brought to the Moon
and emplaced there. It would also result in an electric power system that was
repairable/replaceable through the simple fabrication of more solar cells.
Introduction
Energy is fundamental to nearly everything that humans would like to do in
space, whether it is science, commercial development, or human exploration.
If indigenous energy sources can be developed, a wide range of possibilities
emerges for subsequent development. Some of these will lower the cost of
future exploration, others will expand the range of activities that can be car-
ried out, and some will reduce the risks of further exploration and develop-
ment. This picture is particularly true for the Moon where significant electrical
energy will be required for a number of lunar development scenarios, includ-
ing science stations, lunar resource processing, and tourism. We present an
approach to generate electrical energy on the Moon through the in-situ fabrica-
tion of thin film solar cells on the surface of the Moon. In supplying this electri-
cal energy by in-situ fabricated solar cells, the costly transport and installation
of an immense number of solar cells to support the energy need will not be
required. The fabrication of solar cells on the surface of the Moon can be accom-
plished by the deployment on the Moon of a mobile solar cell fabricator, which
will utilize the resources of the Moon to fabricate solar cells on location.
Lunar Solar Cells

The generation of electrical energy on the Moon can be undertaken through
the fabrication of thin film solar cell directly on the surface of the Moon. The
Moon has an ultra-high vacuum environment at it surface (~10E-10 Torr) and
hence there is no requirement for vacuum chambers to undertake vacuum
deposition of thin film materials and devices. The Moon’s surface also con-
tains all of the natural resources from which to fabricate thin film silicon solar
cells: silicon, iron, magnesium, calcium, rutile, aluminum, etc., can be made
available for thin film silicon solar cell production. The ultra-high vacuum
Solar Cell Fabrication on the Moon from Lunar Resources 145
environment at the surface of the Moon allows for the vacuum deposition of
thin film silicon solar cells directly on the surface of the Moon without the
need for vacuum chambers. As a result, thin film solar cells can be directly
fabricated on the surface of the Moon through the integration of both a rego-
lith processing step that is robotically undertaken to extract the needed raw
materials for solar cell growth, and a solar cell vacuum deposition process
undertaken by an autonomous robotic rover that lays down continuous rib-
bons of solar cells directly on the lunar regolith surface.
Regolith processing on the Moon to extract metallic and semiconducting
elements needed for solar cell fabrications can be accomplished by a num-
ber of processes.1–4 For silicon extraction, carbothermal reduction has been
proposed for several abundant silicates, including anorthite (CaAl2Si2O8)
and pyroxene (Ca,Mg,Fe)SiO3. Anorthite is abundant in both maria and
highlands rocks, pyroxene is most abundant in the maria. Most of these pro-
cesses required a closed cycle process on the Moon to reduce the resupply
of reagents from Earth. Electrolytic processing is also a possible approach to
extraction of elements from regolith. Preliminary studies in the development
of silicon solar cells from silicon extracted from simulated lunar regolith by
electrolysis have been undertaken,5 and show that such silicon can be used
to fabricate thin film silicon solar cells through vacuum deposition.6 It is well
to note that although the electrolysis-processed regolith silicon was of mod-
erate quality, i.e., not semiconductor grade, the vacuum deposition step for
the thin film growth pre-purified the silicon through vacuum purification to
yield moderate quality solar cells.5
Regolith reduction and silicon production however, are very energy inten-
sive processes, and there is a number of competing reduction processes that
can be applied to lunar environment. The major constraints for processes on
the Moon are the need to encapsulate processes that use volatiles due to the
Moon’s vacuum environment, and minimization or elimination of materials/
make-up materials to be brought from Earth (especially so for carbon contain-
ing materials that are not found on the Moon). With this in mind, magma elec-
trolysis comes to the forefront as a viable method for application on the Moon.
It requires no volatiles, and can utilize directly the regolith. Of principal con-
cern for magma electrolysis is the need for stable electrodes and higher level
of electrical energy. The former requires some R&D to optimize electrode
performance, and the latter can be mitigated by the fabrication of lunar solar
cells prior to deployment of the regolith processor. In such a “bootstrapping”
approach the initial amount of material to be used for solar cell production
on the Moon will need to be brought from Earth. This would then allow for
the fabrication of an initial amount of thin film solar cells on the surface of
the Moon (nominally ~50 kW capacity) the energy from which could then be
utilized by follow-on missions which will focus on processing the regolith for
materials extraction to continue to “feed” the thin film solar cell fabricators.
In a case where all of the source material may be brought from Earth, then
a variety of semiconductor materials systems are available from which to
Figure 11.1
SEM micrograph of a thermally melted JSC-1 regolith simulant.
fabricate thin film solar cells. In such a case, it may be best to choose a system
where the thin film solar cell fabrication power budget is as low as possible.
However, for the purpose of fabricating thin film solar cell from in-situ materi-
als focus needs to be maintained on the use of silicon, which is prevalent on the
Moon, and thus the silicon solar cell structure becomes the structure of choice.
On Earth, silicon solar cells are not typically vacuum deposited on glass
substrates but are principally fabricated from single crystal wafers not
unlike those used for semiconductor device fabrication. However, as noted,
the Moon possesses an ultra-high vacuum surface environment; hence vac-
uum deposition of silicon can be well used on the Moon. Terrestrially, thin
film silicon solar cells, when vacuum deposited, are typically deposited in
crystalline form on single crystal substrates. Vacuum deposition on glass is
problematic due to atomic disorder in the grown films, and when cells are
achieved, they typically have low efficiencies (~3-5%). This, however, may
be acceptable for the lunar environment since large areas of low efficiency
solar cells can be fabricated on the Moon to give the required TOTAL power
needed for lunar use, i.e., quality can be traded off for quantity.
Top contact
n silicon
p silicon
Back contact
Regolith glass substrate
Figure 11.2
Schematic cross-section of lunar solar cell.
Figure 11.3
Artist’s drawing of Cell Paver fabricating thin film solar cells on the surface of the Moon.
For a thin film solar cell, the substrate presents the most massive part of the
structure. A common terrestrial substrate for thin film cells is glass. Nominal
SiO2 glass is not readily available on the surface of the Moon; however the
lunar regolith can be melted to form a glass that is quite suitable as a solar
cell substrate. The melted regolith simulant (JSC-1) exhibits a resistance of
greater than 1011Ω, and shows a smooth surface morphology consistent with
good substrate material (Figure 11.1).
A typical lunar solar cell structure is shown in Figure 11.2, where melted
lunar regolith is the substrate, a metallic back contact layer is evaporated
onto the regolith substrate, p- and n- doped silicon is then evaporated onto
the contact layer, a top contact is deposited onto the silicon through a contact
mask and an antireflection coating can then be deposited on top of the whole
cell. It has been shown that in addition to being a very favorable substrate
layer for silicon solar cells, evaporated regolith has excellent optical trans-
mission properties and can be used as an antireflection coating for enhance-
ment of fabricated solar cell efficiency. In this manner, all the components of
a thin film solar cell are available for fabrication of thin film silicon solar cells
on the surface of the Moon.
These lunar solar cells would be fabricated by a facility deployed on the
surface of the Moon. A movable “crawler”—a Cell Paver, of ~150 kg mass
would traverse the lunar surface depositing solar cells7 as part of the traverse
(Figure 11.3). The Cell Paver wheeled vehicle could clear larger rocks and
boulders from the terrain directly in front of it, thus preparing a bed for the
fabrication of the lunar glass substrate onto which the solar cells would be
directly fabricated by vacuum deposition.
The thermal energy required for each set of the evaporations in the above
process would be obtained from direct solar energy collected by an array of
small parabolic concentrators used to focus the solar energy and couple it
into fiber optic bundles routed over the Cell Paver to whatever location it is
needed. A large array of concentrators can be made so that the source mate-
rial evaporation and regolith melting can be effectively undertaken. The fiber
optic bundles would first focus energy to regolith melting to form the regolith
glass substrate. They would then be moved to a metal evaporator for bottom
electrode deposition. This would be followed by silicon (p- and n-doped)
evaporation, top electrode evaporation, antireflection coating evaporation,
and finally metallic interconnect evaporation to form the solar cell depicted
in Figure 11.2.
The in-situ solar cells would be fabricated while the Cell Paver is moving.
Individual cells would be connected in alternating series/parallel fashion
by the deposition of thin film metallic strips (wires), and thus the intercon-
nected cells would form arrays. In this manner, the crawler could continue
to migrate over the lunar surface (maneuvering around large obstacles) and
continuously lay down solar cells on an undulating landscape.
It is projected that in the initial version of the Cell Paver, silicon solar cells
of ~1 m width and ~5% efficiency would be deposited on the lunar surface at
a rate of approximately 1 m2 per hour giving the Cell Paver a motive speed
of about 1m/hr. The cells would be integrated into a power system with both
built in by-pass transistors also grown by thin film methods as part of the
solar cell growth, and periodic array-grouping junctions which would be
connected to a power management and distribution system to be brought
from the Earth.
As noted, the initial set of lunar solar cells could be fabricated from raw
materials brought from the Earth. Approximately 20 kg of raw materials
Figure 11.4
Artist’s drawing of the Regolith Processor which would extract raw materials from the regolith
by magma electrolysis.
would be required for the fabrication of ~50 kW of thin film solar cell elec-
tric power capacity. Beyond this amount, additional raw materials would
need to be extracted to feed the Cell Paver. A Regolith Processor (Figure 11.4)
would be required for this purpose. Noting that the initial run of the Cell
Paver resulted in the fabrication of ~50 kW of solar cells, this power capacity
could be used for regolith processing as well as follow-on development of the
lunar site. The Regolith Processor would then be a second robotic vehicle8
deployed on the Moon at the lunar solar cell production site. The Regolith
Processor of ~150 kg mass would use power from the fabricated lunar solar
arrays to process the lunar regolith to yield up to 200 kg of raw materials
per year including silicon, iron-silicide, and aluminum among others. These
raw materials would then be supplied to the solar cell crawler to continu-
ously fabricate large numbers of silicon-based solar cells. These two vehicles
would comprise the initial facility for the development of a lunar solar power
system. The projected yield for this two-facility system is ~1MW capacity
of solar cells fabricated over a 5-year period. It is clear that a series of such
facilities deployed on the Moon could result in the generation of a significant
amount of electrical energy on the surface of the Moon.
It is well to note here that this energy scenario for the Moon recognizes
the economics of energy in space in that taking only the tools to the Moon
to fabricate solar cells can be much more cost effective in the long run than
just bringing the solar cells themselves and erecting them on the Moon. An
initial cost analysis of the two scenarios indicates that at the current price
of ~$1,000/W for space solar cells, and current projected lunar launch costs
of ~$150,000/kg, the economic break-even point in bringing or fabricating
solar cells on the Moon is approximately 125–150 kW. It is well to know, how-
ever, that this assumes only one-half year of operation for the Cell Paver/
Regolith Processor. The projected lifetime for the Cell Paver and the Regolith
Processor (based on past performance of deployable planetary robotic vehi-
cles) is ~5 years. Hence, the deployment of the Cell Paver system for a near-
term need for ~125 kW of electrical power capacity will result in a total of
~1 MW capacity after the five year operating period—a major benefit for
timed expansion of a lunar base.
The longer-term development of lunar solar cell power systems would
be driven by several factors including expanding needs for lunar electri-
cal energy, energy needs for sis-lunar space, and electrical energy needs on
Earth. The latter electrical energy need—energy for Earth—is one that will
require a significant amount of lunar solar cell fabrication. To support this, a
second generation of Cell Pavers and Regolith Processors would need to be
developed that would benefit both from improvement of processes gained
from first generation facilities operation on the Moon, and from advance-
ment of the science and technology of thin film silicon solar cells.
Preliminary studies have indicated that thin film silicon cell efficiencies
could reach up to 10% through the optimization and control of grain size
in the thin film silicon to consistently yield grain sizes larger than 2 μm.9
The integration of higher efficiency thin film silicon solar cells (> 8%) with
the ability to fabricate them at an increased rate (> 6 m2/hr) would yield
~2 MW/yr growth capacity per Cell Paver II. One hundred of such sec-
ond generation Cell Pavers deployed on the Moon could therefore result
in 200 MW capacity of lunar solar cells fabricated in one year, and 1 GW
of lunar solar cells fabricated in a 5-year period. The existence of such a
large solar energy capacity on the Moon can now significantly impact the
electrical energy environment on the Earth. Transporting 1 GW of electrical
energy to the Earth from the Moon can be accomplished by energy beam-
ing technologies. Both microwave and laser energy beaming have been
discussed and proposed previously, especially in light of recent comments
on space solar power generation and power beaming from artificial satel-
lites containing massive solar cell arrays.10 Such artificial solar cell satel-
lite concepts are more complex and costly as compared to using the Moon
and its resources as a solar power satellite, not only because it is an excep-
tionally stable platform on which to collect and transmit energy, but also
because it is a platform on which the solar cell arrays can be built using
in-situ resources. Even though a good deal has been said about microwave
and laser power beaming, much is still needed in the technology develop-
ment to realize high efficiency power beaming over large distances and at
high power levels. The communications industry has done much to move
the power beaming technology forward. However, their interests are to
principally transmit a microwave signal to a widely dispersed area on the
surface of the earth. For power beaming this concept needs to be inverted
to address the transmission of a significant amount of power to a localized
spot on the surface of the Earth. Progress in this arena is expected, with the
promise of near-term realization of efficient and effective power beaming
over large distances. This coupled with the ability to fabricate immense
solar cell capacity on the Moon will enable a new lunar electrical energy
source for Earth consumption.
Conclusion
The ability to “live off the land” brings a new paradigm to space exploration
and utilization for the space programs of the world. Electrical energy will be
required everywhere man or robots go in space. The development of space-
fabricated solar power as described here can significantly lower the costs
of operating in space, and will provide an energy-rich environment where
rapid expansion of space activities can be undertaken. Furthermore, expan-
sion of the scale of lunar solar cell array development to realize GWs of cell
capacity can enable energy beaming to the Earth to help alleviate a portion
of Earth’s energy problems in the near future.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported in part by the NASA Cooperative Agreements
NCC8-239, NAG9-1287, CAM through the State of Texas, and the R.A.
Welch Foundation. The contributions of Drs. Michael Duke, Laurent
Sibille, Peter Curreri, Sanders Rosenberg, and Charlie Horton are gratefully
acknowledged.
References
1. S. D. Rosenberg, G. A. Guter, and F.R. Miller, “The On-Site Manufacture of
Propellant Oxygen Utilizing Lunar Resources,” Chem. Engr. Prog., 62, 228,
(1964).
2. D. Bhogeswara Rao, “Extraction Processes for the Production of Aluminum,
Titanium, Iron, Magnesium and Oxygen from Non-terrestrial Sources,” Space
Resources and Space Settlements, NASA SP-428, (1979).
3. C. Knudsen and M. Gibson, “Development of the Carbotek Process for Lunar
Oxygen Production,” Engineering, Construction and Operations in Space II,
American Society of Civil Engineers, 357, (1990).
4. S. D. Rosenberg, P. Hermes, and E. E. Rice, “Carbothermal Reduction of
Lunar Materials for Oxygen Production on the Moon,” Final Report, In Space
Propulsion, Ltd., Contract NAS 9-19080, (1996).
5. A. Ignatiev, T. Kubricht, and A. Freundlich, “Solar Cell Development on the
Surface of the Moon,” Proc. 49th International Astronautical Congress, IAA-98-
IAA 13.2.03, (1998).
6. A. Ignatiev and A. Freundlich, “Lunar Regolith Thin Films: Vacuum Evaporation
and Properties,” AIP Proceedings 420, 660, (1998).
7. A. Ignatiev, A. Freundlich, C. Horton, M. Duke, S. Rosenberg, S. Carranza, and
D. Makel, “CETDP Final Report,” NASA (March, 2003).
8. A. Ignatiev, A. Freundlich, M. Duke, S. Rosenberg and D. Makel, “The Fabrication
of Silicon Solar Cells on the Moon using In-Situ Resources,” Proc. Intl. Astro.
Cong. IAA-00-IAA 13.2.8, (2000).
9. Final Report NASA SBIR #NNM04AA65C, “Lunar In-Situ Fabrication: The
Manufacturing of Thin Film Solar Clle on the Surface of the Moon,” (July, 2006).
10. See as Example: Special Issue of Ad Astra, “Space-Based Solar Power,”
(Spring 2008).
Section III
Outer Space Habitat Design

12
Multidisciplinary Approach
for User Reliability
Irene Lia Schlacht

Cand. PhD Human Machine System
Dipl. Industrial Designer
Technische Universität Berlin
Irene Lia Schlacht is an Italian designer born in Milan. After various experi-
ences and several publications on the outer space field, she is now studying
for a doctorate at the Technische Universität Berlin, under Prof. M. Rötting.
The doctorate’s title is ”Visual Design for Outer Space Habitability.” She
earned a design master’s degree in 2006 from the Politecnico di Milano;
her thesis was titled “Colour Requirement in Outer Space Habitats” (Prof.
D. Riccò). She was also an outer space human factor researcher at Università
di Torino (Prof. M. Masali). After completing a report on outer space color
design during her stage at Thales Alenia Space Italy, she directed an experi-
ment on color perception in microgravity, taking parabolic flights with the
European Space Agency (ESA) in September 2006. The goal of her research
is to improve the working conditions of astronauts using design and ergo-
nomics. Today, together with experts in several fields from several countries,
including the Japanese space artist Ayako Ono, the Italian space anthropolo-
gist Prof. Melchiorre Masali, and the American Psychologist Scott Bates, she
has created an outerspace research group called www.Extreme-Design.eu.
Cand. PhD Human Machine System, Dipl. Industrial Designer, Technische
Universität Berlin, Department of Human Machine System.
Introduction
A house is a machine for living,…one uses stone, wood, cement, and
turns them into houses or palaces; that’s constructions, call it for a skill.
But, suddenly, you touch my heart; you make me feel good. I’m happy. I
say it’s beautiful. This is architecture. It is Art.
(Le Corbusier cit. Guilton, J., 1981, p. 17, 18)
155
Abstract The space habitat can be improved, to improve the living con-
ditions and the safety of the astronauts, feeding-up human sensitivity, well-
being and happiness with ergonomics, design, art and psychology.
Space habitats are artificial ecosystems designed for human space missions.
With the current technology a mission to Mars will take about 3 years.
Throughout that time the astronaut crew will be confined in their artificial
habitat. In such long duration confinement the habitat design becomes a pri-
ority in order to guarantee the mental and physical well-being among space-
travelers.
A multidisciplinary approach to Human Centered Design will be the correct
methodology to build an artificial ecosystem able to give healthier support
to the human life and its cultural expression.
Human factors, design, art and psychology should be considered from the
preparatory stage of the habitat design in order to obtain a product fully
adapted to the humans needs.
In this group of essays, experts from different fields suggest their viewpoints,
solutions and designs to increase the habitability of outer space.
International Space Station, © NASA.

Multidisciplinary Approach for User Reliability 157
The Space Habitat

Looking to create habitats for long duration space mission, we must consider
the thinking of Wright: “The nature of the design therefore should be some-
thing hand methods could do better than machinery. It was impossible to
say how far we could go in any direction with machines, probably not very
far.” (Wright, F.L., 1955, p. 302)
The Space habitat is an artificial ecosystem with the maximum of self-
sufficiency. Its aim is to sustain human life in the space hostile environment.
In the ISS (International Space Station), for example, water is recycled with the
earth ecosystem concept: from the wet wipes to the urine of the astronauts all the
water of the station is filtered and lastly reprocessed also as drinkable water.
Now these habitats are far from being recognized as being comfortable,
pleasant and fully efficient. People may mistakenly believe that the ISS is
close to the Star Trek spacecraft, but that’s not the reality today. The concept
of “Space Habitability” and “Space Habitat Design” now are only applied to
minimum human survival. A reflection on the goals of long time duration
missions (like journeys to Mars or the lunar settlement), or even the increas-
ing interest in the new activity of space tourism, leads to the obvious conclu-
sion that space accessibility has to be improved.
“Outer space habitat design” is one that is focused on human factors and to
increase the happiness of the user. The space habitat is an HT (high technol-
ogy) complex habitation that at present is nearer to a machine and computer
hardware than to a human habitation. User-machine interaction in a space
habitat has to be considered from both sides: user and machine. The func-
tionality of the human habitat has not to be misunderstood with one of the
machine: to increase accessibility to the outer space extreme environment.
We must also plan for the safety and the psychological well-being of the user.
Living confined in an artificial environment without natural stimuli can
change our needs and sense perception. Reality can be perceived differently
and most importantly, we can have problems due to sensory deprivation. We
need to stimulate the senses with a variety of stimuli, to maintain our con-
sciousness, against the constancy of an artificial environment.
To understand the needs of outer space habitability, we can think of the
space habitat as an artificial ecosystem like an aquarium, where all the ele-
ments placed inside are the product of human choice and forethought with
the aim of obtaining a completely self-adequate environment. Each element
is planned to sustain the equilibrium of the artificial ecosystem. Thus the
question: Is the happiness of the fish part of the equilibrium? How can we fly
into the Universe without Art, Nature and Design?
This paper considers not merely the economic factors (as an increase of
the user’s productivity), but also to remember that in terms of the interaction
between humans and computers there is still a human being who needs to
feed his spirits and needs to be happy after taking his eyes off the computer’s
monitor. That is the basis for the ability of doing good work.
Outer Space Habitat Design has as its goal not only to protect life but also
to increase the comfort and the well-being of the crew, designing a habi-
tat considering human factors such as feelings “to the advantage of greater
productivity and higher level of the quality of life on board” (Dominoni, A.,
2002, p. 33) and also for human cultural expression.
To present a different solution for the astronauts’ psychological well-being,
the following questions will be examined in this paper:
• What happens to the human being in the weightless Outer Space

habitat?
• Which are the needs and the problems that have to be considered in
a confined environment?
• Why the design of visual and perceptive factors has primary
importance?
• How natural stimuli (plants, solar cycle, seasons, etc.) can improve
human well-being?
• What is the role of Art in the enhancement of astronaut’s well-
being?
Methodology
Psychological, social, technical and mission-related aspects which are
closely connected to the habitat architecture are further amplified in iso-
lated and confined environments and can endanger the whole mission.
With an incorporation of these issues into the design, stressors can be
decreased or eliminated.
(Aguzzi et al., 2006, p. 4)
Multidisciplinarity
Outer Space Habitat Design is proposed here as a subset of Extreme Design
that incorporates and connects multidisciplinary topics from the early phase
of the design. The multidisciplinary approach is a methodology with the aim
of creating the basis for mental and physical well-being in the space envi-
ronment. The main disciplines considered are Anthropology, Architecture,
Art, Communication, Design, Ergonomics, Philosophy, Physics, Physiology,
Proxemics, Psychology and Semiotics, all of which are applied to the space
environment. In this group of papers, different specialists from different fields
and different countries present their designs, experiments and hypotheses in
a way to give specific solutions on how to increase habitability in space.
Summary of This Group of Papers:

1. Melchiorre Masali, Marinella Ferrino: “Outer Space Anthropology”;
human bio-cultural adaptation in space environment, human factors
for the space habitability.
2. Irene Schlacht, Henrik Birke: “Outer Space Visual Design”; light
color and biological stimuli to increase space habitability.
3. Ayako Ono: “Outer Space Art”; sound, Zen and art as natural ele-
ments for the astronaut’s psychological support.
4. Scott Bates, Joshua Marquit: “Outer Space Psychology”; plant as nat-
ural stimuli to increase space habitability.
As a conclusion is presented “Open Space Technology”, a methodology for the

application of the multidisciplinary approach to space habitability design.
Approach
Nature alone is truthful; it can inspire man-made works. But do not treat
Nature as landscape painters do and show only his outward appearance.
Search for the cause, the form, the animating spirit of things and synthe-
size this in the ornaments that you design.
(Le Corbusier cit. Guilton, 1981, p. 114)
Natural Design has not its purpose to copy the habitat system present in our
mother planet, but to synthesize the stimuli that can guarantee the human to be
a terrestrial being also in space (not a space hybrid or human machine hybrid).
Outer Space Habitat Design is approached in a multidisciplinary way based
on a Natural Design philosophy. This approach is not everlastingly linked to
the re-creation of the natural mother planet system but by the use of bio-
stimuli to guarantee the life, and the logic of the natural habitat context.
Natural Design is meant to have:
• Eco-mimesis1 stimuli: re-creation of terrestrial psycho-physiological

stimuli that humans as terrestrial animals need in order to have a
satisfactory quality of life.
• Eco-mimicry: the habitat has to be developed not with Earth logic
but with the logic of the natural context.
1 Eco-mimesis: Eco from Greek “environment,” “milieu” and Mimesis “simulation.” Is a term
to define milieu inspired Design, as a process of innovation for the habitability of extreme-
environment. It involves mimicking the environmental stimuli to produce an ecosystem able
to guarantee life needs in extreme environment. In common with Eco-mimicry it takes into
account the local extreme environment characteristics. It can be applied to the outer space
human habitability, it considers the Earth eco-stimuli (in which human species evolved) as
a need for the survival in non terrestrial and/or artificial conditions. (Copyright: Melchiorre
Masali, Irene Lia Schlacht, 28-11-2007, www.Extreme-Design.eu)
The basics of terrestrial stimuli that we need are: Variation and Variability,
to obtain a state of consciousness, opposite of the inanimate artificial stimuli
that create a sense of deprivation and a feeling of drowsiness.
Quoting Birren (2006), an artificial environment should stimulate the sense
perception as it happens in Nature through the variation of color, light,
sound, temperature, etc. The static condition is unnatural and perishable
(Schlacht et al., March 2005).
As Ono, Schlacht, Masali stated at the 2007 International Astronautical
Conference: “Natural Structures could be created to guarantee human well-
being in an extreme context, such as a long duration mission on the Moon“
(Ono et al., 2007).
In order to enhance the efficiency and well-being of the crew, in terms of
the design of colors and interior décor, it is therefore necessary to recall the
normal physical and psychical conditions whose characteristics are variety
and variability in time (Bretania 2003).
Assumptions
Outer Space Habitat Design is concerned with space traveling2 and space
settlement of conscious humans as users, taking into account the achieve-
ment of a normal life during and after the outer space experience. In the
following papers, authors from different disciplines discuss their views
on increasing space habitability on the basis of the following specific
assumptions.
A. Outer space habitability is of primary importance in specific

context:
Long duration missions (L.D.)
Short duration missions that need quality of life (e.g., Mission
tester for L.D.)
Space tourism
Outer space cultural expression
B. Habitability must be design for a conscious user (e.g., the space trav-
eler should not be in hibernation)
The user has to experience reality and is able to express himself
on it;
The user needs to have a good quality of life to be able to create
and be motivated;
The user needs to know the importance of mother planet protection;
2 This concept is also present in Asimov’s Laws of Robotics.

C. The outer space User is natural:

The user is not genetically manipulated;
The user is not under drug effects;
The user is not artificially or surgically modified.
D. The habitat should guarantee psycho-physiological well-being dur-

ing and after the space mission. The following problems have to be
solved in habitat design:
Mental problems (psychological awareness and responsiveness
within the space context);
Physical problems (weightlessness and gravity difference effects,
radiation influence);
DNA modification (radiation exposure, attitudinal selection of
pre-existing traits);
Possibility of normal life on Earth after the mission;
Outer space environmental risk for the habitat safety (microme-
teorites, radiations, crew psycho-physiological reliability, etc.).
Confutation of the above mentioned assumptions could be the basis for other
future and different designs. Projects not based on this assumption cannot
be related to Space Habitat Design as presented in this paper. The foreseen
speculations related to habitat design may appear to some extent science
fictional, for example: the hypothesis of complete hibernation during space
travel, so in this case there won’t be need for a habitable habitat but only for
a shield and medical care robotics.
Also the hypotheses (against Assumption C) of artificially creating a human
being able to live in space. This has already been seriously considered; one of
the most interesting suggestions supposes a brain without bone and muscle
that doesn’t need artificial gravity to survive in long duration mission.3 This
assumption is not against the use of artificial gravity, but rather taken as
an assumption that the weightlessness effect on the human body has to be
resolved in the way that the human being can be able to return to his normal
terrestrial life after the space experience.
For example, the use of Virtual Reality can be matched with the habitat
design concept as a support for the real habitat facilities; however it cannot
be used as a total substitute for the real habitat dimension4 because it may
3 This hypothesis has been made during the Space Training meeting in Kusadasi, Turkey April
2007. As a part of the space training part of the group created a fantascientific society on the
moon called “Ay xx”. This invented society was guided by a brain without body, able to live
without gravity on moon orbit.
4 The use of virtual reality as a total substitute for the real habitat dimension has been used as
a basis of fantascientific stories such as the Matrix. In this movie, people are living in a special
amniotic liquid, and connected in a completely programmed reality.
have influence on the reality awareness (Assumption B). However, the main
assumption for the space habitability is that the space habitat can be trusted
to protect the human being as a natural traveler.5
Glossary
In this set of papers, particular considerations are given to the following spe-
cific disciplines. Short definitions of the kind of philosophical approaches
are presented first:
Extreme Design: It is a branch of Design with a multidisciplinary approach
that intends to increase the life quality in the extreme framework at
the limits of the human survival, finding design solution and sup-
porting cultural expression (www.extreme-design.eu, June 2007). It
creates designs proficient to solve the psycho-physiological stress
factors created by:
a. physical problems (radiation, different gravity or weightless-
ness and body adaptation)
b. psychological conditions: distance from mother Earth, feel-
ing of life risk (cause: space dust, meteorites…technical break
down), stress.
c. confinement problems: dimensional (interior spatial restriction),
temporal (mission time not easy to be re-schedulable), social
(groups dimension limitation), biological (abstention from the
natural earthly stimuli).
Outer Space Extreme Design: multidisciplinary approach intended to find
design solutions for outer space extreme framework. It is the applica-
tion of extreme design at the maximum level between the extreme
contexts: in outer space, however it takes all the typologies of psy-
cho-physiological pressure of the confined environment.
Outer Space Ergonomics: is the application of human factors scientific
knowledge concerning human-machine interface to the design
of objects, systems and environment for human usability in outer
space.
Outer Space Anthropology: Space Anthropology—the study of exaptations
(Latin: ex and aptus): potentialities or archetypes of the function now
needed within the new environment, pre-existing in the human spe-
cies, that allows the physical and cultural adaptability to the outer
space (as an aspect of the ongoing human evolution and cultural
development) (Ferrino M., 2004; Masali M. et al. 2005).
5 Travel is defined as process or time involved in a person or object moving from a location to
another.
Outer Space Psychology: as a specific topic in the area of Applied Psychology,

addresses the impact of the living and working conditions in space
and during space flight on human behavior, performance, mood, and
behavioral health. It includes basic issues of human adaptation to the
extreme conditions in space as well as operational issues of selec-
tion, training, and support of astronauts. (Manzey, 6.2007, courtesy
personal communication)
Outer Space Art: “Contemporary art which relies on space activity for its
implementation” (Malina, R., 2002), in the space habitat it is able to
interact with the feelings and the moods of the habitants, opening
their minds and increasing the well-being.
Outer Space Design: A discipline that is aimed to “contribute to the
process of improving living and working conditions in space,
considering - at the design stage - all the human factors that
are indispensable for creating a ‘personnel-friendly’ environ-
ment: it must be comfortable, pleasant and efficient” (Dominoni,
A., 2002, p. 65)
Outer Space Visual Design: design of visual input in the outer space con-
text, meant to increase the well being in the user’s experience utiliz-
ing human factors and cultural expressions.
Natural Design: “discipline based on natural elements” aims to create
“context of art and design interaction that will increase the psycho-
physiological well-being.” There are two main philosophies about
it; one presupposes to “use the natural elements present in the local
environment” and the other the recreation of natural element: evok-
ing natural structure or stimuli (as “variety and the variability of
terrestrial stimuli”) (Ono et al. 2007).
References
Aguzzi, M., Häuplik, S., (2006), Design Strategies for Sustainable and Adaptable
Lunar Base Architecture. IAC-06-D4.1.03 Paper presented at the meeting of the
International Astrophysical Conference, Valencia, Spain.
Birren, F., (2006). Color & Human Response: Aspects of Light and Color Bearing on
the Reactions of Living Things and the Welfare of Human Beings. Copyright
Wiley & Sons 1978. Paperback: USA
Dominoni, A., (2002). Industrial Design for Space. Cinisello Balsamo, Italy: Silvana
Editoriale.
Guilton, J., Guilton, M., (1981). The Ideas of Le Corbusier on Architecture and Urban
Planning. New York, United State: George Brazillier.
Malina, R., (2002). The Definition of Space Art. The OURS Foundation. Retrieved May
24, 2007, from http://www.arsastronautica.com/definition.php
Masali, M., Schlacht, I., Fubini, E., Riccò, D., Dominoni, A., Bertagna, G., Boeri,
C., Ferrino, M., Gaia, E., (2005). La percezione sensoriale in ambienre spa-
ziale Micerogravitazionale; ricerca delle relazioni sinestetiche con il colore.
ASI Proposta per la presentazione di nuovi progetti sull’abitabilità spaziale.
Unpublished investigation, Dipartimento di Biologia animale e dell’Uomo,
Università di Torino, Italy.
A.A, V.V, NASA (1995). Man System Integration Standards, NASA-Std-3000, revision
B, Charter 8.6.2.2 Visual Design Considerations, Volume I. Houston, USA: Nasa
Johnson Space Center. Retrieved May 24, 2007, from http://msis.jsc.nasa.gov/
Ono, A., Schlacht, I., Masali, M., (2007). Abstract: Lunar Zen Garden; Natural Design
as a Key for Reliability in Space Extreme Environment. Hyderabad: India, 58th
International Astronautical Conference.
Schlacht, I. (July 2007). Extreme Design. Retrieved July 2007 from www.extreme-
design.eu
Schlacht, I., Ferrino, M., Masali, M. (2005) Interview on Color Design in Space. Turin,
Italy: Unpublished investigation Archives: Thales Alenia Spazio Italia, Turin
Human Factor Department”.
Schlacht I. L., Masali M., Ferrino M. (2006). Interior Design and Sensorial Perception
in Microgravitational Outer Space Environment. Journal of Biological Research
81(1): 112–115
Schlacht, I., (2006) Il design del colore negli habitat spaziali. Requisiti per la proget-
tazione del colore in ambienti estremi extraterrestri. Unpublished master thesis,
Politecnico di Milano, Italy.
Hermann, M., About open space – an executive summary, Chicago 2005 (www.
openspaceworld.org)
Owen, H. (2003) The practice of peace, Berlin.
Additional Reading
Bond, P., (2002). The Continuing Story of the International Space Station. Springer.
Chichester (England).
Masali M., Ferrino M., Schlacht I. (2005) L’uomo nello spazio: ricerche di adattabilità.
La progettazione del benessere nella postura, prossemica e nel colore. Atti del
XVI Congresso degli Antropologi Italiani (Genova, 29–31 ottobre 2005). Il pro-
cesso di umanizzazione. Antonio Guerci, Stefania Consigliere, Simone Castagno
(a cura di). Edicolors Publishing, Milano Italy 641–650.
Sloan A. W. (1979). Man in Extreme Environments. Charles C. Thomas Publisher.
Springfield (USA).
13
Anthropology: Physical and Cultural
Adaptation in Outer Space
Melchiorre Masali
Physical Anthropologist, Università di Torino
Marinella Ferrino
Ergonomist and Physical Anthropologist
Thales Alenia Space Italia
Monica Argenta
Cultural Anthropologist
Margherita Micheletti Cremasco

Physical Anthropologist, Università di Torino
Melchiorre Masali is a retired professor of physical anthropology at the

Turin University. Starting from a technological background, his works con-
centrate on the analysis and interpretation of the interaction of Man with the
natural, cultural, technological and outerspace environment and adaptive
variations of the early and recent populations. His studies are particularly
focused on the relationship of Man with the artificial environment, based
on the problematic of the interpretation of body architecture, posture and
shape. He is an honorary member of the Italian Society of Ergonomics (SIE),
Physical Anthropologist of Universita di Torino, SIE Italian Ergonomist
Society scientific board member, Human Factor Consultant of Thales Alenia
Space Italia.
Marinella Ferrino, PhD in physical anthropology and Certified European
Ergonomist (EurErg). She operates in the Physical Architecture−Ergonomics
Department of Thales Alenia Space Italy. She is a member of the Columbus
industrial team in support of the (ISS) International Space Station program
performing configuration/human factors verification for payload engineer-
ing integration of U.S. payloads destined for the Columbus Module. She
has been involved in several EU projects focused on virtual reality tools
development for aerospace applications including habitability, space design,
and human behavior in extreme environments in support of the future
165
Moon/Mars missions. Ergonomist and physical anthropologist, SIE Italian

Ergonomist Society certificated as European Ergonomist (Eur-Erg) Thales
Alenia Space Italia.
Monica Argenta earned her BSc in anthropology at Goldsmith’s College,
University of London, and her MA in applied social research at Westminster
University. A teaching fellow at the University of Milan and Padua, she
works as a consultant for several Italian governmental and local authorities.
Interested in gender and intercultural studies, she is currently conducting
research on Caribbean communities working in extreme environmental con-
ditions on the Alps. Cultural anthropologist, BA anthropology, MA sociol-
ogy, London University.
Margherita Micheletti Cremasco, PhD is a biologist with a PhD in physical
anthropology and postgraduate Master of Ergonomics Faculty of Humanities
expert in Cognitive Ergonomics. Certified as European Ergonomist (Eur-Erg
by CREE), researcher of physical anthropology in the Faculty of Sciences,
Turin University. Her scientific activity regards mainly the following
research topics: anthropometric and biomechanical surveys on present and
past Italian population, children anthropometrics regarding secular trend,
and relation among obesity, lifestyle, sports, and habits about technology
use. Most of her activity is in the field of posture analysis in working with
VDT, biomechanical workload evaluation, and risk analysis in the industrial
field. She teaches courses in anthropology, anthropometry and ergonomics
at Turin University. Physical Anthropologist/Certified European Ergonomist
(EUR ERG) Lab. of Anthropometry and Ergonomics, Faculty of Sciences
Turin University, Italy.
Abstract Man’s challenge to live in Outer Space reflects on the domains

of both physical and cultural anthropology: new forms of biological adaptation
and new social structures may be a strong challenge for the studies of Man,
insofar as Mankind faces specific environmental conditions that may affect
locomotion, working capabilities, living conditions and particularly well-being.
Interior design and interface usability mainly depend on human characteris-
tics that are modified by the different environmental circumstances. Humans
are the product of biological and cultural adaptation to our planet achieved
over millions of years of Primates and Hominids species’ evolution and of the
development of intelligence, speech, and manual capability. Body shape may
be different; things may not be in the expected place, but also kinship and
sexual relationship terrestrial models may be difficult to transfer to extremely
long space missions. This essay is intended to elucidate some aspects of the
understanding of existing human traits’ performance in a new uncommon
environment. The process, known as “exaptation,” allows to correctly infer
the biological and cultural built-in mechanisms to design man-environment-
machine interfaces for a correct approach to Man’s trial to live in Space.
Anthropology: Physical and Cultural 167
Introduction
Body shape may be different, things may not be found in the expected place,
gravity may be absent, weaker, or distorted by centrifuge, squirrel cage or
constant acceleration engines (for example the americium ions engine pro-
posed by Carlo Rubbia), but also kinship and sexual relationship earthly
models may be hardly transferred to extremely long space missions or
settlements.
The fundamental environmental factor that makes critical the adapta-
tion of humans is the absence of gravity or its modification. Gravitation
force is the most stable environmental factor on Earth and all evolution-
ary history of living beings involves a positive adaptation to it: Being
unsuitable for this factor means inexistence! This is quite true particu-
larly for species that are strongly affected by gravity, like birds, tree-
dwelling primates, but also upright walking Man is a typical product of
a gravitational adaptation by antagonism to gravity force. Strange as it
might seem, we have found a model, an archetype, an exaptation of the
whole process of 1g/0g adaptation in our evolutionary background, in
a Madagascar lemur, the Sifaka (Propithecus diadema). Among these pri-
mates, upright locomotion is characterized by the typical vertical cling-
ing and leaping tree dwelling combined with upright land locomotion
and the stunning ballistic behavior in the leap that creates instantly, but
continuously repeated 0g conditions (Lombard et al., 2002). Nevertheless,
zero gravity, Moon gravity, Solar system planets and moons, hypo and
hyper gravities are conditions never experienced by terrestrial organisms
except, maybe, microorganisms dispersed in space by the solar wind. So,
how may adaptation proceed according to evolutionary laws? On Earth,
there have been, according to Mayr, evolutionary momentums of funda-
mental importance such as from aquatic life to land life, from land life to
flight, that were possible only to the carrier of a truly improbable combi-
nation of traits, and this would explain why such processes have been so
infrequent.
In view of an anthropological approach to Space, in which, instead of
millennia, the available time for adaptation is infinitesimally short, the
process can be only found in the domain of “exaptations” (from Latin
ex = previous and aptus = adapted; Gould and Vrba, 1982). Within the
“exaptation” framework, an organism’s characteristic is not necessarily a
product of natural selection as far as its current use is concerned. Instead,
an organism’s characteristic could come from an “archetype”, already
developed under specific environmental pressure, but well-designed in
response to requiring new environmental conditions. A good example of
human “exaptation” in Outer Space could come from our sensory organs
equilibrium and vision.
Background
Body movement, orientation, and posture are strongly influenced by grav-
ity and vision: Gravity works on the equilibrium organ, the “vestibular
apparatus”1 of the inner ear first and foremost, represented by the ampoule
and semicircular canals. The system is silent under microgravity steady and
uniform motion conditions, but reacts to linear and angular inertial varia-
tions. Examples include our upright forest ancestors (Ardipithecus ramidus,
Orrorin tuagenesis) as well as bipedal and tree clingers.
One of the cases of deep transformation that may affect the interface
relationship and may be the “0g Weltanschauung,” not in the common
philosophical sense, but in a real sense of world viewpoint, is the orienta-
tion or the sight line with respect to changed body shape. The sight line
drops 25–30 degrees down with respect to the Ohr-Augen-Ebene (OAE)
or Frankfurt horizontal Plane (Frankfurter Verständigung, 1884: Man that
looks at the horizon of the classic view of the anthropological tradition). As a
matter of fact, we look about 5 meters away on the ground to see way ahead
and, maybe, obstacles and perils. In an evolutionary frame this means an
extraordinary conflict with the rotation of the basicranium and the increas-
ing of the occipital surface.
According to Delattre, a positive effect of this process was the “hominisation”
(becoming Man) of the head, generating a bigger brain and a bent pharynx:
intelligence and speech as the curved vocal tract allows the tongue to modulate
the resonance cavities that produce the vowels. The adaptation is not a chang-
ing of the gravity force, but the rotation of its vector direction with respect to
the body axis. This means a “gravitational revolution” for mankind.
In the framework of this research we think Man is on the edge of a second
“revolution” in which microgravity is the dominant force to play a role. As
a consequence, if vestibular and self perceptive systems are defective, the
aptitude to know where one is in space can be taken over by auditory, visual,
and tactile senses. In particular, vision becomes of paramount importance.
Vision in space can be considered by different aspects: eye-body posture
relationship and changing of light parameters perception mainly related to
the so called neutral posture.
Human Body Shape and Environmental

Interaction in Microgravity
Body shape, according to D’Arcy Thompson (1917, 1969) depends on
the variation of the scale relationship with the body itself and the sur-
rounding physical world, insofar as Nature always operates respecting
the proportions, so that all things have their correct measure. Marcus
Vitruvius Pollio and Leonardo Da Vinci used geometric grids based on the
ancient Greek Òργυιά , the measure of the extended arms divided in eight
feet up to Durer and Le Corbusier to get measures and proportions for a
painting sculpture and design. Nevertheless the human body, as all liv-
ing beings, is not the outcome of a drawing board blueprint, but the result
of a process ruled by genetic information, growth hormones, nutrition,
weight and muscular forces acting on the body and its skeletal structure. In
earthly gravity a healthy person will reach his predictable shape through
a growth process regulated by genetic heritage, orthostatic mechanisms,
bone-muscle strength interaction, self-perception, visual and vestibular
reflexes. Nevertheless pathologies such as poliomyelitis show that without
the correct stimuli the proper body shape is not achieved. Even though
a spacecraft crew is usually composed by adults, this may not be true in
future. Furthermore, keeping the healthy body shape of adults is quite a
medical and kinesiological challenge even on Earth! The well known neu-
tral posture in 0g may not be pathology and may be fully reversible, but
0g generates a distorted relationship among the bodily geometry, such as
between hands and the eyesight line.
A real comprehension of such problems in the actual context of outer Space
requirements calls for strong feedback from the final users, the astronauts.
This would increase the knowledge of user needs and would allow us to
integrate dimensional, physiological, psychological and behavioral patterns
in order to understand the new “culture” of space on-orbit and to reorient the
habitability requirements in the design loop of future projects.
For the crew a spacecraft, or a space settlement, is a combined Laboratory–
Office–Home place and it embodies ethical, social, and cultural aspects that
must be assessed to determine a viable architectural design. In other words,
habitability criteria should be based on a Human Centered Design approach
which consider the specific zero-gravity constrained on conditions of life in
outer space. The interior design of a Habitation Module involves a rethink-
ing of human well being aspects that include applications of crosscultural
knowledge such as: standards of living, environmental aesthetics, attitudes
to crowding, proxemic aspects, like the use of space and time—i.e. the sort of
anthropological issues tackled by Edward T. Hall.
Physical and cultural anthropological issues may offer significant insights
to interior designers creating privacy and recreational areas and, of course,
sustain a workplace for long term spaceflight missions. Evaluation criteria
are needed to define parameters useful to orient the layout of the habitation
module interior design. For this, a general environment re-definition is nec-
essary. Infra-cultural conditions of the crew interacting with each other and
living in zero gravity conditions where restraint needs, orientation, posture,
and visual perception are strongly modified with respect to Earth can not
be left out. The human body and culture also have a strong impact on the
perception of the working zones, therefore, time, space, social roles and task
90°
Horizontal reference
One-G
line of si
Zer ght 10°
o-G
β line
of s
igh 14.7°±2
t
χ
Vertical
Reference ε
Horizontal
111°±6
Reference
Figure 13.1
Weightless neutral body position.
typologies need dedicated tools to define a new index of socialization and

comfort for the design process.
To define human proximity, visual interaction and comfort index, both
quantitative and qualitative data have been collected in some past tests and
experiments. For example, the relationships between real posture and digital
mannequin simulation can be determined in order to obtain quantitative values
(angles, distance, and orientation) starting from qualitative values (behavior and
visual interaction). As an example of the applicability of such research, an anal-
ysis was performed to evaluate laptop computer used by different percentiles
male and female in various Space Station areas and layout conditions.
In the same way, we may consider some of the results obtained using
Habitability Concept Models for the ISS workplace design (Ferrino and Gaia,
2002, 2003a, 2003b). These aspects focus on the real user’s needs and are
considered added value to increase the quality of the habitable crew inter-
disciplinary ways of thinking, where engineering, proxemics, and anthropo-
logical requirements have shared goals.
Figure 13.2
Virtual mannequin (JACK®) analysis (Courtesy of NASA and Alcatel Alexia Space, Italy).
In particular, specific software programs such as the Digital Mannequin

(JACK) together with CATIA modeling are the main tools used for acces-
sibility, visibility, operability and human interface evaluations. A European
Union (EU) Project on Virtual Reality Environment (VIEW) was developed
with the aim to introduce this tool for training and body movement analysis
in real time (Kalawsky, 1993; Boher et. al, 1997).
Employing virtual dimensions for workplace design implies multidisci-
plinary aspects, bringing together expertise and know how from the fields of
architecture, psychology, ergonomics, and mental health, etc. Inevitably, this
approach is concerned with individual and social issues of work organiza-
tion and innovative interface such as Virtual Environment techniques. These
ventures take a user centered approach, with a strong ergonomic, human-
factors and psychology background.
Conclusion
Assuming its comparative perspective and conclusions as a proper point of
view for our investigations (Lombard et al. 1002) we looked at Delattre and
Fen’s pioneering art studies that stated that the human shape should be seen
as a product of basicranial remodeling, driven by the transition to an upright
posture by the function of the labyrinth. We found a model, an archetype
(Exaptation) of the whole process of 1g/0g adaptation in a Madagascar Lemur,
in the vertical locomotion of the Propithecus characterized by the typical

vertical clinging and leaping tree dwelling combined with upright land loco-
motion and the stunning ballistic behavior in the leap. Thus, we recognized in
this species a proper comparative model to study Human adaptive behavior to
terrestrial erect posture and, with a little bit of imagination, to the zero grav-
ity on board spacecraft. Following the experiments of nature in our ancestry,
this may be a model of exaptation for our future adaptation. 1g/0g adaptation
could be already contempleted by our evolutionary history and should not be
necessarily considered pathology. However, body shape and posture are cen-
tral to our understanding of the world and are strictly linked to the symbolic
meaning humans are accustomed to give to it. Anthropology, both physical
and cultural could offer some interesting insights and practical applications
in the attempt to forsee and design our development in Outer Space.
References
Burzio, L., (2002). Abitare lo spazio: user needs and user orientation. Unpublished
master thesis, Politecnico di Torino, Italy.
Burzio L., Ferrino. M., Masali, M., (2003). Laptop Usability Analysis and Human
Centered Design Working in Microgravity. HAAMAHA 8th International
Conference of Human Advance Manufacturing Agility & Hybrid Automation.
Conference Proceedings 26–30 May Rome pp. 361–365.
D’Arcy Wentworth T., (1969). Crescita e forma (1917 Growing and Shape), ed.
Boringhieri, Torino.
Ferrino M., (2002) Home-Office nello Spazio: Ergonomia, Prossemica e Design in
Microgravità (HU) Habitat Ufficio, N.114 pp. 91–93, Milano, Alberto Greco
Editore.
Ferrino M., (2004). Living in Outer Space: Anthropology and Proxemic Methods for
Human Adaptation Analysis in Microgravity Environment. ATTI SIBS
Ferrino M., Gaia E. (2002), Habitability Concept Models for Living in Space IAA
International Astronautical Congress, 16/21 October, Houston, Texas Accepted
Abstract.
Ferrino M., Gaia E. (2003a). Human Centered Design Tools and Virtual Prototyping
Applications in Manned System Design: a Macroergonomic Approach. 2nd
ESA Space Systems Design, Verification & AIT Workshop, Abstract 15–16 April,
ESTEC, Noordwijk, The Netherlands.
Ferrino M., Gaia E., (2003b). Workplace for the Future: A Multi-Disciplined Approach
for Living in Outer Space. HAAMAHA 8th, International Conference, 27–30
May, Rome.
Ferrino M., Masali M., (1997), Modelling and Analysis Tools for Ergonomics Design.
Workshop on Modelling: Methods and Application IMA-CNR Genoa.
Lombard E., Masali M., Gamba G., Ferrino M., Fenoglio A, (2001), Evoluzione della
postura unmana comparata a quella del Propithecus in funzione dell’adattabilità
all’ambiente microgravitazionale: ipotesi interpretative. Lo studio dell’Uomo
verso il Terzo Millennio. Croce di Magara. Spezzano Piccolo ( CS), 25–28
Settembre.
Leoni Zambini M., (1992). Rivista I.B.M.
Additional Reading
Masali M., (1972). Postural Relevance of Sergi’s Temporal Tetrahedron in Primates.
Journal of Human Evolution.
Masali M., Ferrino M., Schlacht I.L. (2006). Ginnastica e Coreografia nello Spazio?
(Gymnastics and choreography in outer space) in G. Trucchi; Atti; pp. 145–146.
Masali M., Schlacht I.L. (2006). Corps et mouvement dans l’Espace. (Body and move-
ment in Outer Space). IXe Universitè Europeenne d’Eté: Anthropologie des
Populations Alpines “Corpo attività fisica e patologia: un percorso dal passato
al presente” Quaderni Asti Studi Superiori. Diffusione Immagine Editore ISDN
88-89277-09-2 pp 50–54) Asti, Italy.
Masali M., Ferrino M., Schlacht I. (2005). L’uomo nello spazio: ricerche di adattabilità.
La progettazione del benessere nella postura, prossemica e nel colore. Atti del
XVI Congresso degli Antropologi Italiani (Genova, 29–31 ottobre 2005). Il pro-
cesso di umanizzazione. Antonio Guerci, Stefania Consigliere, Simone Castagno
(a cura di). Edicolors Publishing, Milano Italy 641–650.
Masali M., Ferrino M., (2001) Antropologia Spaziale: uno spazio per L’Antropologia?
XIV Congresso degli Antropologi Italiani. Lo studio dell’Uomo verso il Terzo
Millennio. Croce di Magara. Spezzano Piccolo ( CS), 25–28 Settembre.
Masali, M. (1994), Il figlio degenere della Macchina per scrivere. Ergonomia 1/4–17.
14
Visual Design: Color and Light for
Well Being in Outer Space
Irene Lia Schlacht

Technische Universität, Berlin
Henrik Birke
Cand. Dipl. Aerospace Engeneer
Technische Universität, Berlin and DLR
earned a design masters degree in 2006 from the Politecnico di Milano; her
thesis was titled “Colour Requirement in Outer Space Habitats” (Prof. D.
Riccò). She was also an outer space human factor researcher at Università
Henrik Birke, Cand. Dipl. Aerospace Engineer, Technische Universität
Berlin and DLR.
Abstract As fundamentals for user well-being in this paper we will

explain why in particular the visual stimuli like colors, light, artistic or
natural visual inputs (e.g., plants) have to be considered as the most impor-
tant factors in outer space design. In this paper is presented an analysis for
175
the visual design requirements of a spacecraft design with an ergonomic

approach, in particular regarding:
1. Habitat Visual Configuration

2. User Visual Conditions
3. Visual Design Requirement and Project
Introduction
How is the perception of space when you float in it? First of all, the orienta-
tion in the first 2–3 days changes physically and becomes completely visual.
However, also the interaction changes and we come by another dimension
of space to become explorable. In the beginning we were just walking on the
2D surface, now we can float in the 3D volume.
This changes entirely the way to make use of the space. There is no up and
down and the concept of floor, wall and ceiling doesn’t have any sense. We
can use all parts as functional, but that may have effects on the orientation
which is already unbalanced.
If we consider a space settlement on Moon or Mars, the configuration will
be influenced by difference of gravity; on the Moon jumping is easy while on
Mars the larger gravity makes it a bit more difficult. The solution lies in the
flexibility, modularity and the variability of the configuration, for example,
in case we need a habitat able to arrive on Mars in weightlessness or artificial
gravity conditions that has to be useful also after the landing. These and
other considerations can be the basis for Outer Space Visual Design.
Contents
As a guideline to solve the problematical question of space environment
visual design and to increase the well-being of the user, the following topics
are to be discussed:
1. Visual condition of the space habitat: arrangement of space, light and

color.
2. Visual perception condition of the user: stress, posture and visual
deficit related with the weightless environment
3. Objectives of the visual design: achieving skills, relaxation, aesthet-
ics (open the mind), increasing the well-being.
Visual Design 177
Background
The Importance of Vision
Vision,1 in comparison with the other sense perceptions, is the most impor-
tant2 body function that allows us to perceive the outside reality. As the
president of the IACC (International Association of Color Consultants)
states “Color and light are the major factors in Man-made environments;
their impact influences Man’s psychological reactions and physiological
well-being.” The author also states that “it is no longer valid to assume that
the only significant role of light and color is to provide adequate illumination
and a pleasant environment” (Manke, F., 1987, p.x).
In the Man–environment relationship, visual stimuli have an active role on
the human organism. Anxiety, headaches, lack of concentration, inefficiency,
bad moods, visual problems, nervousness, and stress can be caused by the
environment (Manke, F., 1987).
Indeed, the interior colors may act on the central and vegetative neuro-
logical system. Even if this factor is minimal, in long term space missions
it will generate strong effects on the psychological mood of astronauts.
This appears to be demonstrated by all the psycho-physiological experi-
ments on the influence of light and of interior color on humans, but even
on apes, chiefly accomplished in America during the 1970s–1980s (Wise
et al. 1988).
The visual topics approached in the context of the weightless environment
are: perception, pollution, orientation, configuration, deficit, needs, and
discomfort.
Visual Condition of the Space Habitat

Today the psychological well-being of the user is not the first factor of interest;
discomfort and visual pollution are factors that are not considered important
in present space stations. The reason is that the International Space Station
(ISS) was created for short duration space missions, where human mental
and physical stability is not the first issue. However, in case of any problems
the astronauts can be replaced in less than a week. Considering the context
of space tourism, long duration missions (and also utilizing the ISS to study
the needs for long duration mission design), the visual condition of the space
habitat needs to make a huge step forward.
1 Visual perceptions are: movements, shapes and colors “caused by certain quality of light
that the eye recognizes and the brain interprets.” Therefore, light and color are inseparable
elements, and, “in the design of human habitat, equal attention must be devoted to their psy-
chological, physiological, visual, aesthetical, and technical aspects” (Manke, F., 1987, p. ix).
2 Approximately 80% of the sensorial information about the world is the visual kind, 1/3 of
the brain function is dedicated to visual information elaboration and in details 83% of our
memory is visual (Romanello, I., 2002).
Visual Orientation
We need a visual design configuration that improves the orientation (Connors
et al. 1985): “On Earth, the vestibular organs and eyes let people know in
which way they are moving and how fast. However, visually induced feel-
ings of self-motion are inhibited if vestibular signals fail to confirm the
motion. It is hypothesized that with exposure to weightlessness, people sup-
press vestibular signal and become increasingly dependent on vision to per-
ceive motion and orientation” (Mallowe 1991).
In microgravity, visual perception acquires even more importance than
usual, as we were able to demonstrate by interviews carried on a sample
of 10 astronauts from different nations between 2005–2006 (Schlacht et
al., 2005). However, self-orientation is of primary importance in the micro
gravitational space environment. Light, Color and Sound can be employed
to expand one’s sense of space, creating different atmospheres to give ori-
entation in space (Aguzzi, Häuplik, 2006, p.4). Investigations related to the
general improvement of orientation in space stations were done by Aoki
et al. (2005).
Visual Configuration for Spaciousness

Visual design is also important for space configuration. As mentioned in
the NASA Standard “As a mission duration increases, there is a greater
tendency for the crew to feel confined and cramped. This can affect psy-
chological health and crewmember performance. The feeling of spacious-
ness can be achieved visually through the arrangement, color, and design
of the walls and position of the space module” (A.A, V.V., NASA, 1995,
p. 8.6.2.2).
In the NASA Standard the factors that are mentioned as influences on the
spaciousness of the visual sensation are (A.A, V.V., NASA, 1995, p. 8.6.2.2):
• Distance of the viewer, space overestimation increase with distance.

• Room Shape, volume overestimation increase in irregular room
shape.
• Viewing along a surface increases the distance perception in rela-
tionship to viewing the same distance along an empty space.
• Lighting and Color, lightness and desaturation increase the volume
perception.
• Items that visually detract from long view axes decrease the per-
ceived room value.
• Windows increase the sense of spaciousness and psychological well
being.
Visual Design: Color and Light for Well Being in Outer Space 179
Actual Main Configurations

The interiors of the ISS have dominant characteristics in accordance with the
US-European and Russian design skills that are fundamentally cultural.
European and USA typology:

- modularity
- cold
- white and light blue
- orientation through labels
Russian typology:
- space ship configuration
- familiar
- different colors: brown floor, white
ceiling, green walls
- visual orientation with color and configuration of the structure
The Russian section turns out to be more pleasant to the astronauts. In the
study of the interior of the Russian module, color design has been applied
to the up and down orientation, also focuses the study of color perception
in 0 g. All these factors have been positively used to increase the reliability,
well-being and the efficiency of the astronauts. (Burzio, L. 2001)
Space Strike from Visual Monotony

The main factor that has to be taken into account in an artificial confined
environment is that the crew is isolated from the natural variability of the
mother earth environment. Having a walk in a garden, seeing the different
colors of the season, watching the sunset, feeling the wind, are all romantic
concepts that make our life beautiful, and are all natural stimuli character-
ized by variability.
Monotony of visual stimuli is a cause of strong discomfort. A key case of
“visual monotony” is the Skylab Space Station 4, where the psychological
aspects were not considered in the course of the mission that led to a hostile
atmosphere and a complete insustainability of the crew. The crew judged
the look of the modules as having little comfortable and emphasized the
lack of chromatic variety: the interiors were mostly grey and the dominant
clothing color was golden brown. The lack of colors and contrasts with the
background caused difficulty in tracing objects.
The crew considered that one of the more pleasant sights was the effect of
the numerous colorful lights crammed on the main dashboard in the twilight.
Figure 14.1
Color inside Skylab.
The only accents of color were the blue anodized handles. The astronauts
suffered from insomnia, irritability and depression. As a consequence of
stressing time schedule and bad environment design, Call, Gibson and Pore
(Skylab 4;16.11.1973/8.2.1974) resorted to the first extraterrestrial strike, later
denied from the same astronauts (Serlenga, S., 2001).
User Conditions for Visual Perception

Perception Alteration
Due to the limited environment and, above all, because of the absence of
gravity in space habitats, the brain perceives reality in a totally different way.
The senses of taste, olfactory, tactile, hearing and sight, turn out altered as a
result of the effects of weightlessness.
The ESA astronaut Roberto Vittori described his mission on the ISS dur-
ing an informal meeting with the author as follows: sensory perception has
been completely overturned, tactile and olfactory and sight were less sen-
sitive and feelings were modified regarding the perception on the Earth.
Moreover, as referred to by the astronaut Umberto Guidoni, images seem
to slide more slowly.
Visual Design 181
These are the main modifications that occur at sensory perception level
(Schlacht, I., 2006):
• Sound: It is sharper
• Olfactory: It diminishes
• Taste: It diminishes and it changes also modifying the subjective
preferences.
• Visual: It diminishes and lightly changes without compromising the
general recognition of the elements.
• Tactile: It diminishes.
All these factors create a much more complex and hardly predictable sen-
sory environment, where the importance of vision stimuli planning becomes
increasingly important. “The important role of vision in a space mission was
already suggested from the first researches that found that a 0 g environ-
ment can alter visual ability.” In the absence of gravity, visual perception is
modified at chromatic level, intensity, sharpness and in the angle of vision
(Connors et al. 1985).
Visual Ergonomics
To create a visual ergonomic environment, we must consider visual altera-
tion that is intrinsic to the space habitat:
• Angle of vision
• Myopia
• Color perception modification
Horizontal ref.
24.7°
OG
of line
sig
ht
Figure 14.2
Angle of vision in microgravity, © Valentina Villa 2008.
Figure 14.3
Effect of myopia on ocular bulbs, © Valentina Villa 2008.
In order to design the spacecraft interiors, we must consider that humans

change posture from normal erected to “neutral” which is similar to the pos-
ture of a fetus. In the neutral posture under zero gravity, the visual angle is
shifted by about a 24 degree slope (about the slope of the Frankfurt plane vs.
the vestibular plane) as a consequence of the physiological tilting of the “ves-
tibule plane” with respect to the “Frankfurt plane,” used by anthropologists
to define the conventional horizontal orientation of head and vision.
Astronaut Myopia
The astronauts suffer from myopia caused by the limited environment in
which they live. The modules of the ISS are of very limited dimensions: The
inside space is a rectangle parallelepiped of square section. The height and
width of the parallelepiped is in general 2 meters and the length varies from
4 to 8 meters, approximately. The only possibility in which the astronauts
can effectively perceive far objects is when they watch the Earth panorama
from the porthole.
An effect of the limited dimensions of the modules is the lack of opportunities
to focus on far objects: the continuous demand for proximal vision and the con-
sequent constant accommodation of the crystalline lens generate the myopia.
Color Perception Modification

According to the architect Daniele Bedini, Space Architecture teacher from
the International Space University in Strasbourg, the eye perceives the colors
are more attenuated in the absence of gravity as a consequence of the minor
oxygen contribution. For this reason colors are proposed to be more intense
(Rita, L., 2000). Also color vision turns out to be modified because of the
modified shape of the ocular receivers in the absence of gravity.
Color Perception Inquiry

A few experiments concerning color perception in weightlessness have been
done, mainly in the 1960s (White 1965, Kravkov 1952, Kitayev-Smyk L. A. 1963,
Wise J. A. 1988, White 1965). The latest experiment was made in 2006 by a
Visual Design 183
Figure 14.4
Astronaut reading a book in microgravity, © NASA.
European student group supported by ESA during parabolic flights. Based on

the anomaloscope3 principle they measured the range in which two color images
were perceived as equal in normal and microgravity conditions. Two tests were
made for the hue red and blue and two tests for the chromatic saturation of yel-
low and the achromatic saturation of grey, which is defined as brightness.
The data of 720 tests in normal gravity and 48 tests in microgravity
recorded by six subjects showed a general changing of hue and saturation (see
following image). In particular, the hue-tests demonstrated on the one hand
a decreasing of the sensibility for the color red in relationship to blue and on
the other hand an increase of the sensibility for red in relationship to green.
Additionally, an increase of the sensibility for green in relationship to blue
could be shown. In the saturation part of the tests first a general decrease of
the brightness-sensibility became evident. Also the sensibility for saturation
of lower saturated yellow became less. What is more, this data showed also an
increase of the sensibility for saturation of higher saturated yellow. The state-
ments about the changes are made only qualitatively due to the low number
of tests with statistical analysis done in microgravity. As a consequence more
investigations should be made in the future, in particular on the hue green
to accomplish the three basic colors. Furthermore the direction of the color
changing should be altered to the opposite to avoid influences of the driven
color path [Schlacht, Birke, Masali—Astra Aeronautica IAC HIM 2007].
The causes of color perception changes is not really clear but a few hypoth-
eses have been suggested. The first one assumes the reason in the change of
position and shape of the lens, so that the focal point on the retina differs
in microgravity from the one in normal gravity, which causes a changed
3 An anomaloscope is an instrument used to test for color blindness. It is able to detect whether
a person is a dichromat or a tritanope. The apparatus was invented by the German ophthal-
mologist and physiologist Willibald A. Nagel (1870–1911) who named it “anomaloskop” in
1907 (Nagel 1907).
1g
Test 4
0g
1g
Test 3
0g
1g
Test 2
0g
1g
Test 1 0g
–256 –60 –40 –20 0 20 40 60 256
Figure 14.5
Mean values of the deviations from “equal color” and RMS-values of the deviations, ©
CROMOS.
use of the 3 kinds of cones. Otherwise, the reason could also be a possible
change in the fraction of oxygen. As mentioned before the cause is not really
understood yet, but the enormous importance of further investigations is
obvious. Especially in the planned long-time missions to Moon or Mars the
well-being of astronauts will be much improved by the use of an adequate
color-concept for the habitats.
Figure 14.5 shows the mean values of the deviations from equal color (black
dots for 1g and yellow dots for micro-g) for all subjects and the RMS values
of the deviations (black horizontal lines), which indicate the fluctuation of
the recorded values. On the left side one can see the starting colors, on the
right side the end colors.
Visual Design Requirement and Project

Visual Design of an isolated and confined space habitat has a strong influence
on the physical and psychological comfort of its users as on the worthiness of
the environment. The feeling of being confined causes unavoidable changes
in an astronaut’s psychophysical conditions. However, the well-being, par-
ticularly in the case of long duration missions, can be considerably increased
through sensorial and psychological stimulations such as light, colors, and
changes in wind direction, hot and cold temperature, which are the charac-
teristics of Earth’s environment and are able to activate vital processes that
are implicit in any human being (Flaborea 2002).
Color has psychologically positive effects: an attractive place reduces the
hard work, improves the interpersonal rendering, productivity and rela-
tionships (Romanello 2002). Color takes part in the cortical activity, in the
Visual Design 185
functions of the independent nervous system and in the hormonal activity;

moreover it stimulates aesthetic and emotional associations (Manke 1996).
From this understanding, it is important to underline the importance of a
structured planning of the colors, to answer to the demand of productivity
and of psycho-physiological well-being correlated to it.
Color and Art

In a field such as that of space exploration, where technology is of primary
importance, also artistic expression can provide answers to really felt needs.
Here follows a contribution from the space artist Liuccia Buzzoni, special-
ized in color applications for astronauts’ creativity and well being:
Art and especially the use of colours in a world which is deprived of
them, can greatly contribute to the well-being of astronauts, in that it
is reassuring while it also acts as a psychological compensation and an
incentive to creativity.
Each colour has its own vibratory frequency, and colours, with their
positive or negative characteristics, have an effect upon our whole being.
Depriving a person of colours has the effect of making it more difficult
for him/her to believe in himself/herself, as a powerful source of energy
is taken away. Colours in space can be a source of emotions and can
arouse a person’s deepest sense of life. Colours can support the astro-
nauts’ body which otherwise could tend to let itself go, thus affecting
whatever activities the astronauts are carrying out.
Art with its colours is a way to awaken primeval feelings, such as the
instinct of survival which everybody houses in himself/herself. It is also
a way to make people aware of their feelings and fit for communicating
and expressing them.
Art with its colours can help stimulate memory and senses. At a physi-
cal and psychological level it can make it easier for astronauts to find
balance, orientation, stability and a sense of gravity. Bearing in mind the
importance of a creative use of colours on board space stations, a video
has been shot, “Colours in space,” in cooperation with and thanks to the
experience of Roberto Vittori.
The study of the effect of colors upon man in a condition of microgravity is

also at the basis of a research carrying out from Liuccia for ASI (Italian Space
Agency) as part of their research program. The actual experiment about the
effect of colors it was project in the context of Paolo Nespoli’s mission, while
the Turin-based company Altec will be responsible for all backup activities.
How can you paint in space? To this purpose a series of informally painted
transparent plastic plates have been devised. They can be superimposed so
to obtain polychrome effects and personal creations. I have painted the plates
in different nuances of the seven primary colors, bearing in mind the sensa-
tions they evoke and transmit in common experience on earth. Brush-strokes
freely laid … fit for being interpreted … Natural colors, saturated and bold.
Thanks to the colored plates, astronauts can manipulate colors without
Figure 14.6
Color in Space, facility from Liuccia Buzzoni to paint in µg. Project “Colors in Space” is
inserted by the ASI “Agenzia Spaziale Italiana” (Italian Space Agency), into its research pro-
gram. The backup for the experiment is offered to the Altec (Advanced Logistic Technology
Engineering Center) company in Turin and the Institute of Psychology of the Padua University
of Neurosciences, in the context of the Nespoli mission.
dispersing them around. They can also have the feeling of actually painting
and creating. The differently colored plates will be arranged according to
the “artist’s” best judgement on a panel inside a special sliding bag. The bag,
made of a fabric called “Nomex,” is also used to carry the color plates. It can
be put away in the most suitable place in the I.S.S.
The goals of this space research are those of measuring, recording and evalu-
ating the individuals’ reactions to colors when long exposed to microgravity.
We know that on board an orbitating station spaces are restricted.
Moreover, astronauts have to comply with scientific modules. But the aim of
the research is just this: to make it possible to escape routine and to live as
creatively as possible in conditions of microgravity.
To conclude this speech, let me express a wish: may a new place of cultural
synergy come into being, a place where to express creativity, where not to
feel lonely anymore.
Visual Design 187
From the Theory to the Project

In the design of long duration missions, the reliability of man becomes
the successful key of the mission characterized by a confined and isolated
extreme environment. Space Haven Inflatable Unit is an outer space habi-
tat project which has been developed to test this type of reliability. Colors
and interior decor influence well-being, create physiological reactions and
modify the perception of reality. In a confined environment like a “Space
Inflatable Unit,” which is isolated from the natural environment, these reac-
tions are amplified. In the design of colors and interior decor it is therefore
necessary to recall the normal physical and psychical conditions whose char-
acteristics are variety and variability in time (Bretania 2003).
Color Design Objectives

To create a color design of long duration space mission habitats you need
to follow three objectives based on the NASA Standards Requirements (ISS
Interior Color Scheme NASA 2001). These objectives are studied to create a
color design with the aim of a “Human centered philosophy” and to promote
the well-being and the productivity of the user.
1. Psycho-physiological well-being: The light and the colors have psy-

cho-physiological influences on the person, therefore they must be
considered in the project in order to maximize the well-being, to
increase the efficiency and to guarantee the reliability of the person.
2. Orientation: The sense of direction in microgravity after 3/5 days is
totally entrusted to visual perception. For this reason it is necessary to
use an immediate visual configuration created according to instinc-
tive replies to natural signals to which we are accustomed on Earth,
such as ”sky” up and “earth” down. According to NASA Standard
3,000, 8.4.2, 8.4.3-b: The orientation comes first of all through visual
input like color.
3. Activities support: The colors and the light should respect the needs
of several activities, and increase the comfort facilitating functions
and needs such as privacy.
Color Design Requirements

In order to achieve the goals of well being, orientation and activity support,
the following key requirements have been identified in the development of
color design for a space isolated environment. These have been identified by
NASA and ESA:
A. Safety: Color and decor should respect the safety requirements.

B. Visibility: Color and decor should answer to every need of vision.
C. Flexibility: Color and decor should be planned considering their

physical-psychological influence and multi functionality. They
should facilitate both daily life and acknowledgment of the various
activities and needs (Manke 2003).
D. Variation: The environment must be variable in time, must be able
to stimulate senses like in natural conditions, so as to maintain a
normal status of conscience, perception, attention, concentration and
intellectual activity (Deribere 1968).
E. Variety: Color and decor should create a variable environment in
order to obtain a psycho-physiological positive environment.
F. Customization: Color and light should be changeable according to
personal requirements both for work needs and aesthetic taste, par-
ticularly in the personal areas such as the crew quarters. The image
shows an example of requirement applications through a “human
centered design” realized by I-Guzzini’s Italian group. It represents
a habitat isolated from ”terrestrial sun-light cycle” and illuminated
with “Sivra” biodynamic artificial light. In particular, the project
will respect the following requirements:
• Requirement E Variety: The habitat is an isolated and confined

space decorated with various colors.
• Requirement G Naturalistic evocation: The “Sivra” artificial light
recalls the natural sun-light effects.
Figure 14.7
“Sivra”, © I-Guzzini.
Visual Design 189
• Requirement D Variation: The artificial light will re-create the

natural color variations during the course of a whole day.
• Naturalistic evocation: decorated elements, materials, references to
natural landscapes (photographs, pictures, video or colors composi-
tions) should be arranged with the aim of providing direction refer-
ences, relaxing, reducing stress, resting eyes from computer work.
Aesthetic Purposes
For a project regarding internal color and décor for a “Space Inflatable Unit”
we have the following color design.
Color Selection
Colors have been chosen regarding their psycho-physiological nfluences in
order also to provide orientation in space and to support the activities going
on. Regarding color choices, in absence of gravity, due to a minor oxygen
contribution, eyes perceive colors in a more subdued way.
Figure 14.8
Color design of a “Space Inflatable Unit,” © Irene Schlacht 2005.
Color in Orientation
With the aim of making orientation easier, all pavements are grey and all
ceilings are white to give the sense of stability below and open space above.
Every dominant color has been linked to each internal and external floor in
Figure 14.9
Floors color scheme of a “Space Inflatable Unit,” © I.Schlacht 2005.
Visual Design 191
the same order we can find in nature, so that lower floors have colors linked
with earth, while top floors have sky colors.
The crew quarters, even if situated in the central part, are blue in order to
evidence the chromatic sequence of the way; in fact, from the crew quarters
one can only go to the 3rd floor from which it is possible to come down, chro-
matically as well, to the 1st floor.
Color Functions for Each Activity

Implementation
In confined space environments, the use of images or decor showing land-

scapes reduces stress, balances heart pulses and rests eyes.
In order to meet the above-mentioned requisitions, the following imple-
mentations have been considered:
• Decors landscape-oriented: placed in the external wall of the inner

cylinder, where racks are not previewed; they increase the global
orientation and maintain the chromatic dominance of the floors,
while singularly they re-propose the natural chromatic scale.
• Accomplished objectives: all
• Accomplished requirements: flexibility, variation, variability,
customization, natural recalls
• Monitors: communication, relaxation, enjoyment functions (i.e.,
screening water).
Figure 14.10
Implementations “Space Inflatable Unit,” © I. Schlacht 2005.
• Accomplished objectives: psycho-physiological well being,

support to activities
• Accomplished requirements: all
• Boards: used to pin images, post-it and as a meeting point.
• Accomplished objectives: support to activities
• Accomplished requirements: visibility, flexibility, variety,
variation
• Biodynamical light: variable lighting recalling the natural light
effects in the course of a whole day through automatic changes
in intensity, direction, brightness and predominant wave length.
It creates space, provides a sense of time passing and varies color
perception. It includes the positive part of the ultraviolet beams,
so as to make the crew benefit from the exposure to the solar light:
in particular, the reduction of viruses in the air. It is placed “on
top” increasing up and down orientation, and it has adjustable
intensity.
• Accomplished objectives: psycho-physiological well being,
orientation
• Accomplished requirements: all
Figure 14.11
Astronaut reading, © NASA.
Visual Design 193
Conclusions
In terms of human centered design logic, in long duration space missions, colors,
light and interior decor must have among their purposes: psycho-physiological
well-being, orientation, and supportiveness for all activities. It is therefore nec-
essary to recall, through stimulating elements, the “normality” in confined
artificial environments. Physical and psychical conditions can be improved
featuring variety and natural variations occurring in time according to the
principle of natural design (Romanello 2002) (Manke 1996) (Bertania 2003).
References
A.A, V.V, NASA (July 1995). Man System Integration Standards, NASA-Std-3000,
revision B, Charter 8.6.2.2 Visual Design Considerations, Volume I. Houston,
USA: NASA Johnson Space Center. Retrieved May 24, 2007, from http://msis.
jsc.nasa.gov/
Aoki, H., Ohno, R., & Yamaguchi, T. (2005). The effect of the configuration and the
interior design of a virtual weightless space station on human spatial orienta-
tion. Acta Aeronautica 56, (pp.1005–1016).
Bretania, G. (2003). Vivere nello spazio abitato, Laboratorio Colore, Politecnico di
Milano, Milan, Italy. Mimeography.
Burzio, L., (2001). Abitare lo spazio: user needs and user orientation. Unpublished
master thesis, Politecnico di Torino, Italy.
De Grandis, L. (1996). Teoria e uso del color. Mondadori, Milano, Italy.
Déribéré, M. (1968) Dipingere la casa, Zanichelli, Bologna, Italy.
Durao, M.J. (2002). Color in space architecture AIAA 2002-6107, Houston, Texas.
Flaborea, M. (2002–2003) Sistema a luce dinamica per l’illuminazione ambientale
della stazione spaziale internazionale. Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy.
Itten, J. (1965). Arte del colore. Milan, Italy: Il Saggiatore.
Kitayev-Smyk L. A. (1963). Study of achromatic and chromatic visual sensitivity dur-
ing short periods of weightlessness. NASA, Center of Aerospace Information,
Hanover.
Kravkov (1952). Color Vision. Moscow.
Kravkov (1952). Color Vision. Moscow.
Mahnke, F., (1996). Color, Environment and Human Response. New York: Van
Nostrand Reinhold.
Mallove (2001). LIFTOFF TODAY? Shuttle Mission to Explore Space Motion Sickness.
MIT News Office at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge,
Mass. Retrieved July 2007 from http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/tt/1991/
may22/24740.html
NASA, Mary Connors M., Harrison A., Akins F., (1985), Living Aloft: Human
Requirements for Extended Spaceflight, cap: 2–3.
NASA (1995). International Space Station Flight Crew Integration Standard (SSP-
50005 Revision B NASA-STD-3000/T). National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, Space Station Program Office, Johnson Space Center, Houston,
Texas.
NASA (2001). International Space Station Interior Color Scheme (SSP 50008 Revision
C). National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Space Station Program
Office, Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas.
Rita, L. (2000), Ambienti confinati, Newton Artiche.
Romanello, I., (2002). Il colore: espressione e funzione, Hoepli, Milano, Italy.
Serlenga, S., (2001). Studio dell’abitabilità del modulo HAB della Stazione Spaziale
internazionale. Unpublished master thesis, Politecnico di Milano, Italy.
White, W.J. (April 1965). Effect of Transient Weightlessness on Brightness
Discrimination, Aerospace Medicine (page 327–331).
Wise, B., Wise, J., (August 1988). The Human Factors of Colors in Environmental
Design: A Critical Review (Contractor Report 177498) Department of Psychology,
University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Wright, F.L., (1987). Modern Architecture, being the Kahn lectures for 1930, by Frank
Lloyd Wright. United States: Southern Illinois University Press. Carbondale and
Edwardsville.
Wright, F.L., (1955). The future of Architecture. The Architectural Press. London.
United States: Horizon Press.
Additional Reading
Brambillasca S. Schlacht I. L., Masali M. 1.2007 Esperimenti italiani volano in assenza
di peso. pp.19–21, Vol. 86 Aerotecnica Missili e Spazio, ESAGRAFICA srl, Roma,
Italy. (Online at: http://www.aidaa.it).
Durao J.M., Favata P., 2003, Color Considerations For The Design Of Space Habitats,
AIAA 2003-6350, Long Beach, California.
Durao, M.J. (2002). Colour in space architecture AIAA 2002-6107, Houston, Texas.
Fanelli A. 2007. Zero Gravity. pp.42–4, Habitat Ufficio n.137, Alberto Greco editore,
Milano, Italy.
Genko L.V., Task H.L. (1984). Testing changes in visual function due to orbital envi-
ronment, Aerospace medicine research labs, Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio.
Masali M., Schlacht I.L.; 2006. Corps et mouvement dans l’Espace. (Body and move-
ment in Outer Space). IXe Universitè Europeenne d’Eté: Anthropologie des
Populations Alpines “Corpo attività fisica e patologia: un percorso dal passato
al presente” Quaderni Asti Studi Superiori. Diffusione Immagine Editore ISDN
88-89277-09-2 pp 50–54) Asti, Italy.
Masali M., Ferrino M., Schlacht I.L 2006; Ginnastica e Coreografia nello Spazio?
(Gymnastics and choreography in outer space) in G. Trucchi; Atti ; pp.145–146.
Masali M., Ferrino M., Schlacht I. 2005 L’uomo nello spazio: ricerche di adattabilità. La
progettazione del benessere nella postura, prossemica e nel colore. Atti del XVI
Congresso degli Antropologi Italiani (Genova, 29–31 ottobre 2005) Il processo di
umanizzazione. Antonio Guerci, Stefania Consigliere, Simone Castagno (a cura
di). Edicolors Publishing, Milano Italy 641–650.
Visual Design 195
Popov V., Boyko N. (1967). Vision in space travel. Aviatsiya i Kosmonautika No. 3
(page 73–76).
Pugnè F., Stucchi N.(1999). Olivero A. La Percezione Visiva. UTET, Torino, Italy.
Riccò D. (1999). Sinestesie per il design, Etas, Milano, Italy.
Scharff L. (2005). Internet publication of research. Visual Perception. Department of
Psychology Stephen F. Austin State University Nacogdoches (USA).
Schlacht I.L., Rötting M., Masali M.; 2008. Habitability in Extreme Environment. Visual
Design for Living in Outer Space. Doctoral workshop pp. 873–876. Proceedings
of 54.GfA, GfA press, Dortmund, Germany.
Schlacht I.L., Ono A.; 2007. Natural design habitat on the Moon—Lunar Zen garden.
pp. 219–220, 9th ILEWG/ILC 2007, ESA Press.
Schlacht I.L. 2007. Art, Design and Human Metamorphosis in Extreme Environments
MutaMorphosis Book of Abstracts (published on line http://www.mutamor-
phosis.org).
Schlacht I.L., Birke H., Brambillasca S., Dianiska B. 2007 Achromatic and chro-
matic perception in microgravity. CROMOS experiment in the ESA student
parabolic flight campaign. In Monica Monici, ELGRA News. Bulletin. Vol.25,
9.2007 pp.193–195.
Schlacht I.L., Rötting M., Masali M., 2006. Color design of extreme habitats as a psy-
chological support for the reliability (ID: A658026) ESA proceedings. Tools for
Psychological Support during Exploration Missions to Mars and Moon, ESA,
ESTEC, Noordwijik, The Netherlands.
Schlacht I.L., Masali M., Ferrino M. 2006 Light and color like biological stimuli for
well being during long duration space missions. (published online at http://
www.cosis.net: N. reference COSPAR2006-A-00692).
Schlacht I.L., Masali M. 2006 Screens as light biological variable in Microgravitational
Space Environment. (published online at http://www.cosis.net: N. reference
COSPAR2006-A-01114).
Schlacht I.L., Masali M., Ferrino M. 2005 Interior design and Sensorial Perception in
Microgravitational Outer Space Environment. Journal of Biological Research,
Rubettino Editore, Catanzaro, Italy, ISBN 88-498-0859-3.
15
Art: Art as a Psychological Support
for the Outer Space Habitat
Ayako Ono
Artist in Residence at ESA/ESTEC
International Space University, SSP
Ayako Ono is a space artist and an international activist, working in the fields
of art and design, specializing in the relationship between the cosmos and
human beings. Her academic background is fine arts and she has job experi-
ence in computer-based graphic design. She is involved in a space art project
through a joint research project with the Japanese Space Agency and Prof.
Takuro Osaka. She was a member of the student team that proposed a sculp-
ture which uses music to show different movement in Earth’s gravity and
microgravity. She became a leader of the team and took over its fundamental
experiment and activities: art in microgravity and many art exhibitions at
space related events including the first space art exhibition at the International
Astronautical Congress in 2005. Thanks to a scholarship from the Japanese
government she was able to study space art in Europe and the United States
and became an artist in residence at the European Space Agency. She is inter-
ested in interior design including soundscapes, sculpture for micrograv-
ity, and landscape design for the Moon/Mars and their potential for use as
psychological support. After writing her contribution for this book, in April
2009 she began studying for a PhD in psychiatry from the Department of
Behavioral Medicine at Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine.
Abstract While space technologies are advanced, the designs that sup-
port holistic human existence in space tend to lack stimulation for the human
senses. Nowadays, “Art and Science” is commonly stated to have integral
humanistic ideas and abilities. To improve the quality of life simultaneously
in space and on Earth (as a spin-off of space developments), this paper
demonstrates some examples and possibilities. The topics are: the artistic
manipulation of exterior and interior design elements, the possibilities of
Space Art, and the psychological effects of all of these.
The first focus is the role of Art, and the second is the explanation and the
definition of Space Art. The third is examples and projects of Space Art.
Space Art could be Art Therapy and everyone could be an artist because
197
of the psychological benefits. Several examples of psychological support are

demonstrated.
Introduction
In outer space, we face different challenges than on Earth. For instance, the
length of day and night is not like on Earth, and we usually need to stay in a
confined space. As another example, the sunlight in outer space is dangerous
because there is no ozone layer to protect us from harmful radiation. However,
the sunlight can affect feelings positively, so it will be needed for well-being.
The purpose of this paper is to change the sense of value about Art itself
and to think about possibilities of art and design in the context of space. The
focus of this paper is the effect on feelings, how to enjoy Art as a creator, and
supporting the idea that “all humans are creators.” Culture is changing, and
to live in the present society, we need to focus on our own spirit.
Creation of visual arts is helpful to find our real selves. When we create,
our inner feelings will appear. Visual art therapy works in this way (K. Ono,
2005). Improving quality of life through artistic expression is the objective of
this work.
Background
The Definitions of Space Art
The term “Space Art” has many connotations and definitions even among
the practitioners of this genre in the space community. However everybody
agrees that Space Art is a new genre of contemporary—art which relies in
some way on space activity. Roger F. Malina, the editor of “Leonardo: The
Journal of Art, Science and Technology” has tracked its development over
the years. He defines Space Art as “contemporary art which relies on space
activity for its implementation” and lists seven broad categories:
1. Fine art which exploits sensory experiences generated through space

exploration. New landscapes become accessible through space pho-
tography and film. Space illustrators anticipated some of these and
make use of the photographic record from space exploration.
2. Art which expresses the new psychological and philosophical concep-
tions developed through the exploration of space. The primary example
of this is the concept of the Earth as a whole system – a concept made
concrete by the first views of the whole Earth seen from space.
Art 199
3. Art in space, viewed from Earth.

4. Art on Earth, viewed from space.
5. Art in space, viewed in space.
6. The applied arts such as space architecture, interior design and fur-
niture design.
7. Fine art which takes advantage of new technologies and materials
created through space activities. The most important of these make
use of satellite systems to create simultaneous global artworks.
Roger Malina goes on to point out that the works of some of the most impor-
tant illustrators, i.e. Chesley Bonestell, David Hardy, and Ludek Pesek, not
only anticipated some of the results of space exploration, but in some sense
made space exploration possible by generating public interest and support as
well as by helping scientists to plan and illustrate their experiments.
As to the ultimate relevance of space art to space activities, Malina (1989)
states: “The creation of contemporary art is inextricably tied to the process of
creating human civilization. Within this perspective, art making will occur
as a part of space exploration, and in fact art making must be encouraged in
space as one of the ways without which, in the long run, human use of space
will be incomplete and unsuccessful.”
Space artist and planetary scientist William K. Hartmann (1990) cites four
roles for space art:
1. Encouraging scientific exploration

2. Recording historical evolution, planetary exploration
3. Promoting international cooperation
4. Synthesizing information to stimulate new ideas about the universe
and our relationship to it
Landscape
Landscape is scenery and view. Landscape design is the art of arranging or
modifying the features of a landscape, an urban area, etc., for aesthetic or
practical purposes. Landscapes including architecture practice arranging or
modifying the features of Space Art.
Soundscape
Soundscape means an atmosphere or environment created by or with sound,
such as the raucous sounds of a city street or the relaxing sounds of ocean
waves. Soundscape design is a new interdisciplinary art combining the tal-
ents of scientists, social scientists, and artists (particularly musicians).
Both landscape and soundscape design attempt to discover principles
and to develop techniques by which the social, psychological and aesthetic
qualities of the environment may be improved. To the extent that it attempts

to understand individual, community and cultural behaviour, soundscape
design takes the broad perspective of a communicational discipline and
touches such other areas as sociology, anthropology, psychology and geog-
raphy. For universal healing effect, the landscape in space, or spacescape,
design should have virtual nature, such as the grain of wood, artificial flow-
ers, and a natural pattern. Mimicking day and night time is an important
factor to be considered when creating a comfortable environment.
Quality of Life
For astronauts/cosmonauts, isolation, fellow crew members and quality of
life could be issues [Nicogossian, 1992]. Scientists are developing and testing
the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) and sending robotic probes to the lunar
surface with the purpose of returning to the Moon by 2020. The goal is to
work there for increasingly extended periods of time. Therefore, our prepa-
rations need to offer an environment for mankind to live and work in outer
space. For this purpose, it is important that considering what is required in
the environment is given sufficient thought early in the development pro-
cess. Especially from now on, our environment should be symbiotic, collab-
orative, sustainable, and regenerative [Narumi, 2001].
Now, the environment in outer space is a relatively new circumstance
for mankind.
• What is an ideal environment in which mankind could hope to live

and work in outer space?
• What should the environment consist of?
The International Space Station (ISS), spaceship, and lunar base will be con-
fined spaces and people may feel isolated. To improve the environment, we
must focus on the mentality of daily life. The environment should consist of
balance, and we need relaxation for our life. Art and design can help to make
a tranquil mood.
Solutions and Recommendations

Art Therapy, Recreation and Inspiration
If we need to work in outer space for a long time without vacations back to
the Earth, we may have psychological issues. We are creators of our lives.
The creation of Art could be leisure and at the same time art therapy. Also,
Art 201
interior design and spacescape design offer nice ambient atmosphere for
relaxation in place of Earth’s nature.
Key elements
• Art therapy already exists, and its application for Space Art will be
possible.
• Recreation: Art could be a hobby and will be connected to well being.
• Inspiring people: Art and design would be able to encourage more
people, not only astronauts/cosmonauts but also space tourists, to go
and stay there.
Examples of Art Therapy, Recreation and Inspiration

Spacescape (Landscape) Design
In this section, a “Lunar Zen Garden” as an example of spacescape design
and art therapy is introduced (A. Ono, 2007). Zen is a way to struggle with
issues, and there is an unmistakable and increasing interest in Zen Buddhism
among psychoanalysts. The first approach to well-being was stated thus:
well-being is being in accord with the nature of man (Fromm, 1960). Nature
is the keyword of Zen. Also, it is well known that most Japanese gardens
attempt harmony with nature. Spacescape design should also be in harmony
with nature because this will be helpful to get calm feelings. Therefore, Zen
could be basically a technique by which to overcome depression or a mental
breakdown of people in isolated long-term missions.
The aim of this idea is not to promote Zen Buddhism but to propose the
possibilities of Zen gardens including natural form and its therapeutic
effects. This will be a kind of Occupational Therapy and Sandplay Therapy,
as well. Making a garden could be both group and individual work. Rather
than a passive environment, such as only rocks and sand without growing
plants and animals, an interactive space that enables individual and group
exploration of creative design would be a possible tourist attraction. At the
Ryoanji Temple in Kyoto, one of the most famous Zen gardens, to discover
why it has a calming effect on the hundreds of thousands of visitors who
come every year, Kyoto University researchers found that the seemingly ran-
dom collection of rocks and moss on this simple gravel rectangle formed the
outline of a tree’s branches (AA.VV. Kyoto University researchers, 2002). The
researchers found that the unconscious perception of this pattern contrib-
utes to the enigmatic appeal of the garden. As another example, Zen gardens
use rounded forms, and this makes us remember our mother’s body uncon-
sciously (Iwai, 1986).
Landscape gardener Yasuo Kitayama told that stone arrangements don’t
need a technique but that love is everything (Kitayama, 2007). So, we need to
enhance spirituality through creation.
Figure 15.1
Lunar zen garden.
One Zen garden style called “karesansui” literally means dry landscape.
The main elements of karesansui are rocks and sand, with the sea symbol-
ized by sand raked in patterns that suggest rippling water (a dry stream)
with minimal compositions.
These solar panels represent shapes of natural elements (flowers) mounted
on rotating systems to point toward the sun. Colourful solar panels should
be used. Currently, they are being developed at Gifu University in Japan
The rocks and sand engender calm. In karesansui gardens, consider-
able emphasis is placed on the beauty of “empty” space. We may be able to
find a harmony with the Moon’s natural beauty. Four major aesthetic ideals
Figure 15.2
Flower-shaped solar panel.
Art 203
displayed by karesansui gardens are asymmetry, tranquillity, simplicity, and

naturalness (Suzuki, 2002).
Keeping a Zen garden requires a lot of dedication in maintaining it, and by
doing so this type of garden will benefit people both physically and spiritually.
However, this does not necessarily mean that astronauts/cosmonauts have to
turn the soil. They make a plan for the garden before hand and make robots to
turn the soil by remote control. This is also creative work, and the idea and sense
are much more important. The notable point of this lunar base is that it consists
of artistic elements such as flower shaped solar panels and habitat modules;
therefore, the habitat modules were designed to coordinate these elements in a
favourable position such as a fractal because nature is full of fractals.
This spacescape design utilizes habitation modules in fractal shapes like
snowflakes. It is an application of fractal geometries. Self-similarity will make
it easy to add new modules. This area is an example of expansion and is
assumed to use local materials for the buildings. Each public room (kitchen,
gym, laboratory, meeting room) and private rooms (sleeping area) lie next
to a plant cultivation area. Each plant cultivation box will be connected by
pipes, and the length of the pipe should be minimal. Therefore, each room
will have plants. The small parts depicted in black are airlocks to avoid an air
leak and heavy damage. The central core coloured in yellow is regenerative
Life Support Systems (A. Ono et al. 2006).
The Lunar Zen Garden contains a mountain called tsukiyama. Tsukiyama
literally means constructed mountain. The older term was kasan (artificial
mountain). The tsukiyama, which is modeled on Mt. Fuji, is a kind of bor-
rowed-landscape (Schumacher, 1995–2007).
Toilet, kitchen
Private room
Plants cultivation area
Gym, lab, meeting room
LSS
Fractal
Figure 15.3
Module extension concept: fractal.
Outer diameter 4.4 m

2nd Launch
Inner diameter 4.2 m
Sandbag
7m Max 15 m 15 m
4.4 m
2.2 m 6m Lab.
Bed Bed
MELiSSA
2.5 m
Outer diameter 6 m 6m
Storage
30 m
Figure 15.4
Concept of modules inside the lunar Zen garden.
There is another similar design: a white sand Mt. Fuji model called
Kougetsudai at Ginkakuji Temple, a Zen temple which was established in the
15th century. The cone-shaped trapezoid Kougetusdai was a geometrically-
designed mountain and a kind of installation. The creation date and purpose
of this mountain is not certainly known, but it is considered to be an innova-
tive design to enjoy the reflection of moonlight and to feel the pretty view
with the moon placed above the mountain.
The spacescape design on the Moon will be able to use the same method to
enjoy the Earth’s beauty like a blue and green Moon. This installation may be
a tourist attraction. The mountain should be able to contain one aluminium
module and three inflatable modules for radiation shielding. At the same
2nd Launch
Inflatable
Module
Max 15 m,
10–12 m
6m Inflatable 2.5 m
Module
Aluminum 3m
Module
6m 4.4 m
Inflatable Airlock
Module
Figure 15.5
Another view of modules inside the lunar Zen garden.
Art 205
Figure 15.6
Interior design.
time, this mountain will be an aesthetic spacescape design to enjoy both the
Earth and the Moon’s beauty. An important exemplification of these physi-
ological principles is found in the charm of symmetry (A. Ono, et al. 2006).
Private Space
Simple is beautiful, and simplicity is a very important factor in Zen. Accordion
curtains can hide a messy living area and make a private space very easily.
The curtain could be a printed fabric that looks like sand raked in patterns in
a Zen garden. Edible plants also become like photos or displayed art depend-
ing on the frame and simplicity of the design.
Cultivation area will be extended to use edible plants like foliage in each
room. The design should be very simple. Then, the windows look like photos
(refer to the plants section).
Also, music with headphones must be helpful to make privacy because it
can cancel noise and improve someone’s feelings with favourite music. Noise
cancelling headphones will be the easiest way to improve daily life in work-
ing places such as the International Space Station (ISS).
The ISS has a high average noise of low frequency. The noise level inside
of the ISS is about 60dB (see Figure 15.7), but it can be reduced to 25dB to
40dB by olefin hydrocarbon sheets, depending on the frequency difference.
35dB is the maximum noise limit at midnight. As a matter of fact, the venti-
lation system and many electronics make noise in a space module. To make
a comfortable environment in outer space, auditory perception is a key fac-
tor deeply combined with our feelings and vision. Therefore, soundscape
design and music therapy are recommended.
Figure 15.7
ISS interior noise criteria curves (ESA).
Key Design Factor

Perception Contribution
• Color effect
• Indirect lighting
Visual • 1/f fluctuation landscape
√ landscape with natural materials
√ Edible plants as foliage plants
• Audio system (soundscape design)
Auditory • 1/f noise and noise reduction
√ Utilization of 1/f noise for devises
Smell • Aroma therapy

Tactile • Soft & elastic materials
Comfort
Figure 15.8
Proposed solutions.
Art 207
In NASA’s research on human factors for the ISS, there are no strong links
between environmental color and particular judgemental or emotional states
(Wise, et al. 1988). Color decisions are simply considered as questions of per-
sonal taste.
Wise et al. explain “However, the influence of restful color on perception
and feeling strongly relies on rather invariant patterns of simultaneous
and successive contrast produced by their chroma and value dimensions.
Psychological experiments aiming at studying the effects of color on time
perception showed that accurate and normal time perception was observed
only in the presence of green stimulation. Indeed, some color behavior
effects obey a more primitive set of biological imperatives” (Wise, et al.
1988).
Therefore, bright green and several other tones of green are recommended
colors in this proposal.
Common Space
Public Art
An artificial rainbow (see Figure 15.10) could also be made by a spotlight in
a lunar base. This artwork uses a motor to turn the transparent ring, which
transforms the rainbow as it turns.
Figure 15.9
Effect of color.
Art Suitable for Microgravity

The purpose of introducing art suitable for microgravity is to inspire people
through a cultural engagement with the experience of space. After space
tourism is highly developed for us all, microgravity art will be a tourist
attraction. In the near future, cultural dimensions will be important for long-
term space pioneers as well.
Experiment of Space Art by C.S.A.

The “Sound Wave Sculpture” series were artistic experiments of new expres-
sion in a microgravity environment. It was created by Conference of Space
Art (C.S.A.) a Japanese group interested in Space Art (A. Ono, 2005).
Since sound waves create air vibrations, micro particles can be “sculpted”
in a cylindrical container and different music compositions can be used to
generate different shapes and motions. Only light objects react to sounds in a
1g. environment (normal gravity on the Earth), but we noticed that the effects
differed in a microgravity environment. Heavier objects can be moved by
music composed with sinusoidal waves. Particles of different masses showed
different motions. This series investigated the contents and the containers’
shape for future artistic expressions. Music combined with sight is the point
of this piece and many people said it is a sight one never tires of.
A parabolic flight was used for this experiment to make use of the free
falling nature of microgravity environments. On the descent of a parabolic
flight, people and objects inside the plane experience weightlessness.
As a basic experiment, we put spherical styrene foam (2 mm diameter) into
a cylinder, on which a speaker was attached to the side, and we investigated
Figure 15.10
“Round Rainbow” by Olafur Eliasson (Hirshhorn Museum). Such expression will also be a
comfortable spacescape or interior lighting design.
Art 209
Figure 15.11
1 g, “Sound Wave Sculpture 2” by C.S.A.
the relationship between the formations of particles and the frequency of

sinusoidal sound waves. Music composed by sinusoidal waves generated
beautiful reactions in the cylinder.
Results of the Experiment

In the microgravity environment, high frequency sound made a more obvi-
ous reaction, and the movements looked like living things in water.
Figure 15.12
Microgravity, “Sound Wave Sculpture 2” by C.S.A.
Future Prospects
Adding variations of music, the movements of the objects can become more
interesting and comfort inducing. As future possibilities, we can make pub-
lic art in a space resort or its therapeutic effects in small spaces like space
ships. The sounds and motions like water will cause the viewers to think of
the earth. This will also be of interest to scientists.
Soundscape Design
Usually, daily life is full of sound combined with sights. Soundscape means
an atmosphere or environment created by or with sound such as the raucous
sounds of a city street or the relaxing sounds of ocean waves. Soundscape
needs to be designed as a counter balance. Hence, soundproofing or anechoic
rooms and soundscape design for relaxation rooms or private rooms will be
recommended. In addition, if current ventilation systems can be changed,
the electrical fan could be a new model of ventilation system which causes
1/f noise. National, a Japanese company, produced an electrical fan using
1/f fluctuation, and it is well known that 1/f fluctuation exists in nature.
Electrical fans could reduce stress because biological rhythms have 1/f fluc-
tuation. Noise with a 1/f spectrum has been investigated for 80 years, and
there have been many theories. 1/f fluctuation also could be used for music
therapy. Regarding the experimental soundscape design, multi-channel
Figure 15.13
Fractal, 1/f fluctuation and 1/f noise.
Art 211
speakers should be mounted on the walls and will offer sounds of nature
and calm music. Feeling calm sounds over the full body has proven healing
effects. This could be effective for human sensorial stimulation and relax-
ation (A. Ono, et al. 2006).
The techniques of soundscape design include the elimination or restriction
of certain sounds (noise abatement), the evaluation of new sounds before
they are introduced indiscriminately into the environment, the preservation
of certain sounds, and above all the imaginative combination and balancing
of sounds to create attractive and stimulating acoustic environments.
Conclusion
Space Art as Art Therapy may be a hobby for astronauts/cosmonauts that
will help their well-being during their long-term missions. On the Moon and
Mars, delay of communication is caused. To overcome such kinds of stress
and solitude, art will be helpful to keep their mental balance. This section
specified only visual and sound art therapy, but tactile stimulation, taste,
and smell are also important for well-being. Both active and passive experi-
ences through art help mental health. Space Art is not only for Art Therapy
but also stimulation. Good Space Art makes the viewer want to “go there”
and inspires many people.
Future Research Directions

For future opportunities, change of the image of art itself, in other words,
change in thinking would be important. For instance, how to enjoy art as a
creator is different from just a viewer’s experience.
The role of art is to stimulate the imagination and to enhance the sensitiv-
ity of humans. In the near future, when the population increases outside of
the Earth’s atmosphere, Art in space can provide a more positive image of
outer space environment for this radical transformation in terms of health
and for creating new perspectives for the people living on Earth and in space.
Anything could be used for expressions (see Figure 15.14), and everyone is a
creator of his/her own life.
Vibration and Music Therapy

Music is a kind of vibration. More focused on the coenaesthesia is vibro
acoustic therapy.
Figure 15.14
Examples of junk art: empty glass bottles and scrap metal.
Why has music been developed? That is because music contributes to

well-being, i.e. reducing life stress through comfortable music. Music could
make rhythms both mentally and physically effective. There are two types
of music therapies, active and passive. Passive is just listening to music, and
active music therapy is playing a musical instrument or singing a song. As
music therapy, harmonious music and vibration would work for healing.
Art Gallery in Outer Space

This proposal is to build a relaxation room which can be used as an art gal-
lery connected to the ISS or Space Hotel. Astronauts could relax even in
Figure 15.15
Examples of good design.
Art 213
this confined space, and artists could use this place as a new environment
for expression. For soundscape design, the relaxation room will be made
as a totally silent, anechoic room which would have multi-channel speak-
ers mounted on the wall, where astronauts can enjoy quiet sounds to relax
the whole body. They could also enjoy feeling music vibrations with low-
pitch beat sounds, and the lighting pattern could be varied to suit the musi-
cal atmosphere. The room could also have objects and fine art designed to
enhance relaxation through tactile stimulation and sight.
Microgravity Art
Microgravity Art will be developed by many artists in the future. Some proj-
ects already in existence are continuing the investigations. The “Sound Wave
Sculpture” as described above has two directions for development: One is a
bigger dynamic version for a space ship or a space hotel; another is a compact
version which can create visible sculpture from music.
Lunar Zen Garden

This art project will be continued from simulation to completion with the
help of engineers and scientists. Some parts of a simulated Lunar Zen garden
have already been built at the European Space Agency (ESA/ESTEC).
This project will be filmed in the near future and will be shown at an
exhibition.
References
AA.VV., (2002). Zen garden secrets revealed. Kyoto University researchers Japan:
BBC News.
Beuys, J., (statement dated 1973). First published in English in Caroline Tisdall: Art
into Society, Society into Art (ICA, London, 1974), p.48. Capitals in original.
Fromm, E., (1960). Psychoanalysis and Zen Buddhism, Zen Buddhism and
Psychoanalysis. New York (to be published), The USA: The Zen Studies Society,
Inc.
Iwai, H., (1986). Deep Psyche of Colours and Shapes, Japan: NHK Books, p.42.
Ono, A., (2005). Environment Design in Space: Lunar Base and the ISS, Japan: IAF.
Ono, A., Hatanaka, N., Nakagawa, C., Chi, Y.K., (2006). Environmental Design: Space
Art for the ISS and for a Lunar Base, The USA: AIAA.
Ono, A., (2007). Art for Psychological Support, Tools for Psychological Support dur-
ing Exploration Missions to Mars and Moon, Noordwijk, The Netherlands:
ESA/ESTEC.
Ono, K., (2005). Expressive Arts Therapy Drawing, Clay, Music, Drama, Dance.
Japan: Seishinshobo.
Kitayama Y., (2007). Landscape gardener, Professional—Work Site, “Onore wo Dasazu

ni Jibun wo Dasu ”, Japan: NHK.
Narumi, K., (2001). Work of Urban Environmental Design (in Japanese), Japan:
Gakugei shuppansha.
Nicogossian, A.E., (1992). “Meeting Human Needs” 29th Goddard Memorial
Symposium, AAS 91–313. AAS Goddard Memorial Symposium, 29th,
Washington, DC, March 14–15, 1991. American Astronautical Society (Science
and Technology Series, Vol. 81) A95-87467, San Diego.
Schumacher, M., Copyright (1995–2007). Rock Gardens, Dry Landscapes, Hill Gardens.
Karesansui, Kasan, Tsukiyama, Others, A to Z Photo Dictionary – Japanese Buddhist
Statuary, URL: http://www.onmarkproductions.com/html/japanese-gardens.
shtml [cited 1995] [viewed 1. 8. 2006].
Suzuki, D., (2002). What is Zen?, Japan: Kadokawa Sophia Bunko.
Truax, B. (1999). Handbook for acoustic ecology. Cambridge Street Publishing.
England. Soundscape Design, retrieved from: http://www.sfu.ca/sonic-studio/
handbook/Soundscape_Design.html (10 September 2006).
Wise, B.K.. Wise, J. A (1988). The Human Factors of Color in Environmental Design: A
Critical Review, NASA Contractor Report 177498.
Additional Reading
D’Amico and P. Mazzettiome, (1986). “Noise in physical systems and 1/f noise”
Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on “Noise in Physical Systems”
and the 4th International Conference on “1/f Noise” (9–13 September, 1985)
Rome (Italy). Editor Hardbound, Holland.
Naumburg, M., (1953). “Psychoneurotic Art: its function in psychotherapy,” Grune &
Stratton, New York.
Schlacht I.L., Ono A.; 2007. Natural design habitat on the Moon – Lunar Zen garden.
pp. 219–220, 9th ILEWG/ILC 2007, ESA press.
Schlacht I.L. 2007. Art, Design and Human Metamorphosis in Extreme Environments.
MutaMorphosis Book of Abstracts (published on line http://www.mutamor-
phosis.org).
Wakao, Y., (2006). Thinking about Music Therapy. Ongakunotomo-sha. (Japan).
16
Psychology: Natural Elements as a
Well-Being Stimuli in Outer Space
Scott C. Bates
Assistant Professor, Psychology
Utah State University
Joshua Marquit
Graduate Student, Psychology
Utah State University
Scott C. Bates, PhD is an associate professor in the department of psychol-

ogy at Utah State University. With a background in social and environmen-
tal psychology, Dr. Bates has been pursuing the study of the non-nutritive
benefits of having and/or tending plants in space in collaboration with
researchers in the Space Dynamics Laboratory, National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA), and the Institute for Bio-Medical Problems
(IBMP) in the Russian Federation. His PhD is in experimental psychology
from Colorado State University.
Joshua Marquit, BS, is a graduate research assistant in the department of
psychology at Utah State University. His research interests include a wide
array of topics within environmental, social, and health psychology. He has
worked closely with Dr. Scott C. Bates, Space Dynamics Laboratory, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the Institute for Bio-
Medical Problems (IBMP) in the Russian Federation on a project focused
on the non-nutritive benefits of viewing, growing, and/or tending plants in
extreme environments. He is currently working on a PhD in experimental
and applied psychological science at Utah State University.
Abstract The nature of long-duration space flight, including increased

crew autonomy and isolation from standard models of psychological sup-
port, necessitates new models and modes for psychological support (Kanas &
Manzey, 2003). It is our primary thesis that design decisions on the outer
space habitat impact psychological support.
The presence of natural elements in long-duration space mission can be
used as countermeasures; researchers have explored psychological benefit
to exposure to nature.
215
To identifying and understanding the potential benefit of natural stimuli as

plants in space, multiple perspectives, samples and variety of measures and
indicators are presented.
Using Natural Elements in Habitation Design

For our purposes, “natural elements” include any design element that
has a basis in nature. In some cases, they are limited to specific sensory
domains such as images of nature. However, natural elements can also cross
these sense-domains; plants are an example of this as they can be seen,
felt, tasted, touched and even heard. The National Aeronautics and Space
Administration’s Man-Systems Integration Standards (1995) include recom-
mendations regarding architecture design that suggest the use of décor that
feature natural/naturalistic themes for the purpose of stress reduction.
Kaplan (2001) referred to the need to enhance “micro-restorative oppor-
tunities.” This need may be particularly important in the context of space
travel. One well-researched micro-restorative opportunity comes with see-
ing and/or interacting with nature and/or natural elements. The idea that
natural environments, and natural elements in built environments, are
important to people is not surprising. The varieties of humankind’s rela-
tionships with nature can be easily observed across cultures. For instance,
among some groups of indigenous peoples, harmony with nature is clearly
emphasized (Schultz, 2002), while among other cultures nature generally,
and wilderness specifically, is seen as something to be conquered (Nash,
1982). Obviously, the relationship among plants and people is an important
one. Throughout history the meaning of nature to humans has gradually
changed. Nature has been viewed as wild and unfinished, requiring inter-
ventions from humankind to tame and refine. Phrases such as “subdue” and
“dominion over” were commonly used by politicians and natural resources
managers when describing the human role in this relationship. For some,
the meaning of nature was determined by its potential economic value to
humans. The prevailing belief was that “nature was merely…a storehouse of
raw materials: were thought to be valuable only to the extent that they could
be used to create wealth” (Holling, Burke, and Folke, 1998, p. 345). Scientists,
including environmental psychologists, have been grappling with this idea
for some time.
The biophilia hypothesis, for instance, is the idea that humans are drawn
to nature and natural elements—or at least express preferences for nature—
and that this orientation is, in part, based on humankind’s evolutionary
development. Edward Wilson originally defined biophilia as “the innate ten-
dency to focus on life and lifelike processes” (Wilson, 1984, p.1). Kellert (1993)
extended this idea to include that “human dependence on nature…extends
Psychology 217
far beyond the simple issues of material and physical sustenance to encom-
pass as well the human craving for aesthetic, intellectual, cognitive, and even
spiritual meaning and satisfaction” (p. 20). From this perspective, given that
humans developed in a natural environment and that that natural environ-
ment includes a variety of features that can hinder (e.g. poisonous plants
and/or animals; great heights) or assist (e.g. open vistas for easy monitoring
for predators) survival, it clearly follows that humans would likely prefer to
be around particular aspects of nature.
Provided this background, there are two important theories from environ-
mental psychology that can inform this discussion. They are Stress Reduction
Theory, articulated by Ulrich and colleagues (Ulrich, et al, 1991) and the
Attention Restoration Theory, described by Kaplan and Kaplan (Kaplan &
Kaplan, 1989; Kaplan, 1995).
There is mounting evidence from various academic disciplines that nature,
and experiences with nature, have a restorative component. In this way,
restorative environments are those that foster positive emotional affect. Two
theoretical supports for this idea have been generated. The first explanation
was outlined by Ulrich et al. (1991), who argued that specific natural settings
foster “restorative responses.” Some of these “restorative responses” include
stress reduction, anger reduction, and an overall restoration in energy and
well-being. His theory of stress reduction was based on the concept of bio-
philia and the notion that humans have a biologically based affinity toward
nature. This evolutionary perspective states that humans have developed a
“natural” response to natural landscapes and are attracted to and ascribe
specific restorative components to specific natural settings. Ulrich et al.
argued that humans have spent many years co-evolving with nature and
have developed through generations of experiences, a predisposition to affil-
iate with nature, developing a biologically-based affinity for settings that
are natural as opposed to built or urban environments. Additionally, Ulrich
et al. explains that humans experience setting-related stress due to the fact
that many of us spend much of our lives in urban settings. He contends that
we have not been able to adapt to the urban landscape because it has only
affected a few generations of humans.
The second explanation was outlined by R. and S. Kaplan (1989), as well as
Kaplan (1995). The couple argued that the restorative psychological benefits of
nature is directly associated with attention restoration. Attention Restoration
Theory (ART) states that human fascination of restorative environments has
the potential to restore our ability to direct attention to challenges in our
lives. In 1995, Steve Kaplan described the process by which humans restore
their ability to concentrate to challenges. He explained that many of life’s
challenges require a direct concentration or attention to complete. To accom-
plish the task one must exert effort to maintain focus by ignoring distractions
and gratification from emotions or other actions. Directed attention requires
a tremendous amount of effort to maintain, sensitive to interruption and dis-
tractions, and difficult to recapture once lost. Following the completion of
challenges, humans suffer from what is described by Kaplan as “directed

attention fatigue” or mental exhaustion. Directed attention fatigue is a direct
by-product of prolonged, focused attention to the challenge. As result of this
fatigue, humans must find a way to relax and re-energize. Kaplan argues
that recovery from this fatigue requires sleep, which by itself is insufficient,
and involuntary and effortless attention to fascinating activities. One such
activity is viewing natural settings. Natural settings are an important source
of fascination for humans. These settings provide both “soft fascinations,”
such as scenic vistas and sun rises, and an escape from day-to-day chal-
lenges. The act of observing natural settings provides the mechanism for
which stress recovery can occur.
Each of these theories is more similar than different. Both theories find their
origins in landscape preference research and support the notion that experi-
ences with nature have restorative psychological components. Additionally,
both Ulrich and the Kaplans agree that nature is innately important to
humans because of its role in maintaining psychological health. Hartig and
Evan (1993) and Kaplan (1995) argue that the two theories will eventually
evolve into one all-encompassing theory.
There are two important issues that frame our discussion of the impact that
plants and other natural elements can have on people (Bates, Gushin, Marquit,
Bingham & Sychev, 2007). First is the notion of benefit domains. A variety of
benefit domains for plants and other natural elements have been identified.
They are: a) physiological; b) psychological; and c) social. In each case, stud-
ies have been identified that support the notion that the relationship between
plants and other natural elements, and people, can be observably positive. The
second important issue has to do with interaction style—passive or active.
Passive interaction includes looking at other natural elements without direct
interaction. This may include staring out a window, or at a computer screen,
showing images of nature. In addition, this can include simply being in a space
that includes a natural element: having a houseplant, or hearing trickling water.
The active style of interaction includes activities as simple as care-taking for a
plant, as complex as gardening, or as immersive as hiking in nature.
These two dimensions benefit domain and interaction-style, and form an
important diagram that represents the varieties of ways in which the litera-
ture on the plant/human interaction can be framed.
Passive Interaction with Natural Elements

There is evidence that simply having natural elements in our environment
simply to look at may be beneficial (Ulrich and Parsons, 1990). In this passive
manner of interacting with nature, a variety of potential positive benefits
become apparent.
Psychology 219
It seems that humans will, at times, create artificial contact with nature
when real contact is not possible. In a study conducted by Heerwagen and
Orians (1986), the ways in which office workers decorated their work-spaces
were analyzed in an effort to detect if there was a discernible difference
between those workers who had consistent access to a natural view—in this
case, a window—and workers who did not. They found that while all workers
used more nature-oriented material for decoration as compared to non-nature
oriented material, workers with windowless offices used three times more
nature-oriented material than did workers with windowed offices.
One particularly relevant study was conducted by Wise and Rosenberg
(1988), who measured both physiological responses and preferences to nat-
ural elements in a simulated space-station. In this case, the bulkhead was
designed to simulate one of four scenes: a savannah, a mountain scene, mod-
ern abstract art, or blank (which served as a control). The most preferred
scene, based on self-report, was the mountain scene. Additionally, both
nature scenes (savannah and mountain) were more effective at impacting
physiology than either the control or the abstract art.
These two studies support a basic point: people prefer to look at nature-
based stimuli. These results connect well to studies of basic preference for
visual scenes. It is well established in laboratory experiments that people pre-
fer to view landscapes that include plant-life as opposed to built environments
(Ulrich, 1979). For instance, Kaplan, Kaplan and Wendt (1972) found that slides
with images of nature were greatly preferred over those with images of urban
settings. The difference was not accounted for by complexity of the images.
Beyond these preferences for natural stimuli, however, are studies that
were designed to detect potential benefits, across all three domains (physi-
ological, psychological, social) for simply seeing nature.
Three important studies by Roger Ulrich are keys to this idea. In 1979, Ulrich
conducted a study using college students to examine the effects of natural
scenery on stress related to course examination. He found that by viewing a
series of scenes of natural settings, college students could reduce the inten-
sity of the stress induced by course examination. In 1984, Ulrich studied the
impact that natural scenery had on health-recovery by evaluating and com-
paring the outcomes for 46 patients recovering from gallbladder surgery. All
were exposed to one of two room-conditions: a window view with trees, or a
window view of another building. Ulrich found that patients in the recovery
room overlooking the trees recovered more quickly, had fewer post-surgical
complications, received fewer negative evaluative comments from members
of the hospital staff, and used fewer pain-reducing medications. Finally, in
a study conducted in 1991, Ulrich et al. conducted an investigation of the
effects of viewing videos of natural and urban settings following a stress-
ful video. The stress-inducing video was a 10-minute, black-and-white video
used by the industrial industry to reduce on-the-job accidents. The film
portrayed a variety of graphic accidents including mutilations and bloody
situations. Immediately following this video, participants watched one of six
10-minute color videos of urban or natural scenes. During viewing sessions,

participants’ blood pressure, skin conductance, and muscle tension were
measured to determine stress arousal. Additionally, participants were asked
to verbally express their feelings while watching the videos. Ulrich et al.
found that the rate of stress recovery was more rapid for those that viewed
the video of natural settings as opposed to urban settings. Interestingly, they
also found that the participants’ heart rate slowed in both the stressful and
nature videos, but not in the urban video. They hypothesize that the slowing
of the heart rate is a product of heightened attention required by both the
stressful and nature videos but not the urban videos.
Beyond the preferences, physiological impact of seeing nature is the idea
that there are psychological benefits to having nature around us. Researchers
have investigated the impact that nature or natural elements can have on
mood, specifically on negative mood (e.g. depression, anger).
One relatively recent advancement in the study of mood is the use of cogni-
tive priming. Priming is an experimental technique in which participants are
exposed to a stimulus briefly—some at, and sometimes just below, percep-
tual awareness. Two experiments have used this priming technique to assess
mood reactions to natural scenes. In both Korpela, Klemettila and Hietanen
(2002) and Kietanen and Korpela (2004), this priming technique was used
to present nature—or urban—scenes to participants. This priming was fol-
lowed up with human vocal expressions of emotion. Participants were then
asked to make a quick-judgement regarding the affective valence of the vocal
expression. Korpela et al. (2002) found that participants reacted more quickly
and accurately to “anger” stimuli when primed with urban scenes while
reacting more quickly to “joy” when primed with natural stimuli. Thus, they
concluded that nature generates positive affect while urban scenes are more
likely to generate negative affect. In a second study (Hietanen and Korpela,
2002), faces were used as the follow-up stimuli and natural scenes that varied
on their restorativeness and preferences were presented as primes. Again,
positive emotion was associated with restorative nature and negative emo-
tion was more closely associated with non-restorative nature.
Another interesting study of the impact that plants can have on mood was
conducted by Cackowski and Nasar (2003). In this study, participants were
randomly assigned to one of three videotaped highway drives that varied in
their level of vegetation. State/trait anger was assessed, as was frustration
tolerance (time spent on unsolvable anagrams). They found that while anger
did not differ across the conditions, frustration tolerance did: a higher level
of present vegetation was met with more frustration tolerance.
The impact that natural elements have on other aspects of psychological
functioning have also been studied. Examples include Kuo (2001) and Kuo
and Sullivan (2001), who studied the impact of having nature (e.g., nearby
trees and grass) in an urban setting on a sample of urban poor. Kuo (2001)
assessed attentional functioning, and effectiveness in managing major life
issues and found higher levels of functioning among those participants who
Psychology 221
had been randomly assigned to public housing buildings with nearby nature
(Kuo, 2001). In Kuo and Sullivan (2001), levels of mental fatigue, levels of
aggression and violence were assessed in these groups. There, too, so-called
nearby nature seemed to impact these variables positively.
Humans, of course, are not exclusively passive. While the evidence pre-
sented thus far is in support of the idea that minimally having nature, or
elements of design that invoke nature, can create positive psychological
support, the other important aspect is that of more active involvement with
nature or natural elements.
Active Interaction with Natural Elements

While much of what we have summarized has been in the realm of passive-
interaction, design can also include more active elements. More active inter-
action with plants has also been the target of investigation and may inform
design decisions in the context of long-term space missions or other extreme
environments.
One of the primary ways in which one can interact with nature is by simply
walking through it. While there are many studies that examine and describe
this type of interaction, for our purpose we will focus on the type of interac-
tion that is possible in space: gardening.
Researchers have been actively looking at the impacts of gardening for
decades. In this context, several studies emerge as particularly important. For
instance, R. Kaplan (1973) collected self-report data from a variety of types of
gardeners (e.g. community gardeners, home gardeners, plot gardeners) and
found three categories of benefits. These included: tangible outcomes such as
fresh vegetables or flowers; satisfaction outcomes such as desire to work in
soil, or see things grow; and aesthetic pleasure, seeing plants grow or diver-
sion. Each sub-type of gardeners, and a variety of background variables, pre-
dicted these particular outcomes.
The impact that tending to houseplants has on perceived control has also
been studied. In this case, elderly nursing home residents were assigned to
experimental (high-control) and control conditions (low-control; Langer &
Rodin, 1976). In the experimental condition, plants were placed in common
areas and the nursing home residents were told that the maintenance of the
plants was their responsibility. In the low-control condition, plants were
included in the common areas but were cared for by staff. Behavior and self-
report measures showed benefits to participants in terms of alertness, active
participation and well-being. Indeed, these benefits seemed to be sustained
over time as nurses-ratings, as well as medical and mortality data showed
(Rodin & Langer, 1977). In short, perceived control—implemented by using
plants—was associated with better outcomes.
A variety of positive therapeutic effects of working with plants have been

explored. Horticulture-therapy is defined as “the engagement of a person in
gardening-related activities, facilitated by a trained therapist, to achieve spe-
cific treatment goals” (American Horticultural Therapy Association, 2007).
The field of horticulture therapy was established in the 1970s (Relf, 1973)
and continues to flourish across multiple domains (Relf, 1992). The Journal
of Therapeutic Horticulture is published annually and summarizes the use of
horticulture for a variety of therapeutic purposes.
Another example of the potential therapeutic impact nature or natural ele-
ments is found in research by Fabor Taylor, Kuo and Sullivan (2004), who
studied “green activities” and their impact on children with attention-deficit
disorder. In this study, parents of 96 children diagnosed with ADD were
surveyed and asked about weekend and after-school activities that assisted
functioning, and general surroundings. They found that so-called “green”
activities were identified as “best” for symptom management in that they
were related to better post-activity attentional functioning. That is, children
with more green-exposed play settings were rated as higher functioning.
Considering that the current and future psychological dynamics of space
travel (Kanas & Manzey, 2003) impact perceived control, attention and mood
positively, as well as providing interesting and compelling leisure activ-
ity may justify the inclusion of plants and other natural elements in future
design considerations.
Conclusion
Kanas and Manzey’s book, Space Psychology and Psychiatry (2003) includes a
summary of the current state of the art in understanding psychological pro-
cesses, impacts and consequences of space travel. Given the psychological
impacts including the variety of stressors including isolation, confinement,
danger, and monotony since the start of human space travel, psychological
countermeasures have been a topic of exploration. Habitability factors, such
as those outlined herein, provide a crucial support for humans living in
these extreme environments.
Natural Element in Habitation Design: Remarks

Much of the evidence presented in this section has come from studies of the
impacts of people’s interaction with, or viewing of, nature. We believe that what
these studies point toward is the necessity of incorporation of natural elements
Psychology 223
into the design of habitats for space travel. Previously, we have presented options
and ideas for habitation design in terms of visual design, ergonomics and art.
In each of these, it is likely justifiable to include natural elements as a way to
express what E.O. Wilson identified as humankind’s biophiliac tendencies.
Again, humankind’s connection to nature is not a surprise, nor is it new. In
Defiant Gardens, Helphand (2006) reveals the consistency that humans have
created gardens under the extreme circumstances of war or imprisonment.
He concludes that the creation and maintenance of gardens—that most basic
of natural elements—arise from basic human needs for life, connection to
“home,” for hope, for action, and for peace. Ultimately, he noted, “As human
beings we identify with nature’s vitality; it is alive, like us.” (p. 212).
References
American Horticultural Therapy Association. (2007, May 29). Retrieved May 29, 2007,
from http://www.ahta.org/information/faq.cfm.
Bates, S.C., Gushin, V.I., Marquit, J.D., Bingham, G., & Sychev, V.V. (2007, March).
Plants as countermeasures in long-duration space missions: A review of the
literature and research strategy. Presented at the European Space Agency
Workshop: Tools for Psychological Support.
Cackowski, J.M, & Nasar, J.L., (2003). The restorative effects of roadside vegetation.
Implications for automobile driver anger and frustration. Environment and
Behavior, 35(6), 736–751.
Fabor Taylor, A., Kuo F.E., & Sullivan, W.C., (2004). Coping with ADD. The surprising
connection to green play settings. Environment and Behavior, 33(1), 54–77.
Heerwagen, J.H. and G. Orians. 1986. Adaptations to windowlessness: A study of
the use of visual decor in windowed and windowless offices. Environment and
Behavior 18(5):623–639.
Hietanen, J.K. and Korpela, K.M. (2004). Do both negative and positive environmen-
tal scenes elicit rapid affective processing? Environment and Behavior, Vol. 36,
No. 4, pp. 558–577.
Kaplan, R. (1985). Nature at the doorstep: Residential satisfaction and the nearby envi-
ronment. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, Vol. 2(2), pp. 115–127.
Kaplan, R. and Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of natures: A psychological perspec-
tive. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kaplan, S. (1987). Aesthetics, affect, and cognition: Environmental preference from an
evolutionary perspective. Environment and Behavior, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 3–32.
Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefit of nature: Toward an integrated framework.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 169–182.
Kellert, S.R. (1993). The biological basis for human values in nature. In S. R. Kellert and
E.O. Wilson (Eds.), The Biophilia Hypothesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Korpela, K.M., Klemettila, T., and Hietanen, J.K. (2002). “Evidence for rapid affective
evaluation of environmental scenes.” Environment and Behavior, Vol. 34, No. 5,
pp. 634–650.
Kuo, F. E. (2001). Coping with poverty: Impacts of environment and attention in the
inner city. Environment and Behavior, Vol. 33, No.1, pp. 5–34.
Kuo, F.E. and Sullivan, W.C. (2001). Aggression and violence in the inner city: Effects
of environment via mental fatigue. Environment and Behavior, Vol. 33, No. 4,
pp. 543–571.
Nash, B.C. (1982). Wilderness and the American mind (3rd ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration. (1995). Man-Systems Integration
Standards, NASA-STD-3000.
Relf, D. (1992). The Role of Horticulture in Human Well-Being and Social Development.
Timber Press.
Relf, P.D. (1973). Horticulture—a therapeutic tool. Journal of Rehabilitation. 39(1), 27–29.
Schultz, P.W. (2002). Environmental attitudes and behaviours across cultures. In
W.J. Lonner, D.L. Dinnel, S A. Hayes, & D.N. Sattler (Eds.), Online Readings in
Psychology and Culture (Unit 8, Chapter 4), (http://www.wwu.edu/~culture),
Center for Cross-Cultural Research, Western Washington University, Bellingham,
Washington USA.
Taylor, A.F., Kuo, F.E. and Sullivan, W.C. (2001). Coping with ADD: The surprising connec-
tion to green play settings. Environment and Behavior, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 54–77.
Ulrich, R.S. (1984). View through a window may influence recovery from surgery.
Science, 224, 420–421.
Ulrich, R.S. (1999). Effects of gardens on health outcomes: Theory and research.
Chapter in C.C. Marcus and M. Barnes (Eds.), Healing Gardens: Therapeutic
Benefits and Design Recommendations. New York: John Wiley, 27–86.
Ulrich, R.S., Simons, R.F., Losito, B.D., Fiorito, E., Miles, M.A., & Zelson, M. (1991).
Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 11, 201–230.
Ulrich, R.S. and R. Parsons. (1992). Influences of passive experiences with plants on
individual well-being and health. In: D. Relf (ed.). The Role of Horticulture in
Human Well-Being and Social Development: A National Symposium. Timber
Press, Portland, OR.
Wilson, E.O. Biophilia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wise, J.A. and E. Rosenberg. 1988. The effects of interior treatments on performance
stress in three types of mental tasks. CIFR Technical Report No. 002-02-1988.
Grand Valley State University, Grand Rapids, MI.
Additional Reading
Ono, A., (March 2007). Art for Psychological Support, Tools for Psychological Support
during Exploration Missions to Mars and Moon, ESA, ESTEC, Noordwijik,
The Netherlands.
Schlacht I.L., Rötting M., Masali M., (March 2007). Color design of extreme habitats
as a psychological support for the reliability. Tools for Psychological Support
during Exploration Missions to Mars and Moon, ESA, ESTEC, Noordwijik,
The Netherlands.
17
Perspectives: Multidisciplinary
Approach for User Well-Being
Irene Lia Schlacht

Technische Universität, Berlin
earned a design masters degree in 2006 from the Politecnico di Milano; her
thesis was titled “Colour Requirement in Outer Space Habitats” (Prof. D.
Riccò). She was also an outer space human factor researcher at Università
Abstract To create a living quarter in space, of course we must reduce

the cost and increase the productivity, but we should also take art and cul-
ture expression as a part of the basis for the humanity of the human being to
be different from a machine.
As stated in the nine principles of the modern architecture of Frank Lloyd
Wright, we should use “ornament that came out of the nature of the materi-
als, to make the whole building clearer and more expressive as a place to live
in” (Wright, F. L., 1987, p. 74).
225
Introduction
This group of papers has been written by specialists in different fields coming
from different cultures and countries; the main objective is to give specific
solutions and different ideas on how to increase the habitability in space.
Different approaches of the Outer Space Habitat Design have been pre-
sented to point out that to improve habitability we need to make the most
from the start of the project with a multidisciplinary understanding.
Today Art, Psychology, Anthropology and Visual Design are not taken as an
important functional part of the design of space habitats. It is rather a question of
building a system which works well from the standpoint of the technical aspects.
Human protection and the provision of labor and research areas stand in
the foreground, which is comprehensible, since it is absolutely necessary as a
part of the human habitat design also for short duration missions. However
in the context of long time duration missions like space travelling and space
settlement, this way of thinking has to be widened.
The importance of human well being has increased and psychological
aspects are now of particular relevance to the health of the user. The ques-
tion of spacecraft habitability has to be taken into consideration.
Proposing the theory of an American psychologist, two Italian anthropolo-
gists, a Japanese artist and German engineer and pedagogue, we discovered a
common point of view: the relationship with the Natural Design Philosophy.
Natural Design implies the well being of humans utilizing natural local ele-
ments or imported biological stimuli:
• use of natural elements present in the Space local environment (e.g.,

Moon stone)
• evocating natural earth stimuli as structures and inputs to guar-
antee the well being of humans as earthly animals (e.g., day–night
solar circadian cycle, seasonal climate and light variation)
In conclusion, regarding flights to Mars or the creation of a habitat on the

Moon, the engineering elements of the system like energy support, radiation
shielding and propulsion have to be combined from the start of the design
with physical and psychological disciplines to build up a proper human
environment.
Remarks
Outer Space Habitat Design is focused on the creation of the conditions in
which the user can experience space travel and also the importance of the
protection of the Mother Planet.
Perspectives 227
Outer Space is today a place present in the mind’s eyes of everybody! Common
thinking of human beings is that after we caused the destruction of the Earth
we will migrate to another planet to colonize it as common parasites do.
Nevertheless not all of us know that another Earth to colonize has not yet
been discovered; Mars or the Moon are not places that can guarantee human
life, Venus is the extreme of greenhouse effect! There is yet not a reliable
shield to protect humans from space radiation and a solution for weightless-
ness is still remote.
Star Trek’s Enterprise, Kubrick’s Spacecraft, O’Neil-type Space Colonies, are
quite utopist. Still Space may soon become an “Everyone Experience,” as the
Astronauts say1; with the philosophy to get us to discover “how fragile and
precious our planet is.”
Future Possibilities
One discipline itself cannot find the solution for an entire complex system.
However, space-based habitats pose major challenges regarding communi-
cation between varied disciplines. Future research to design the journey and
space habitats needs to focus more on the multidisciplinary demands and
appropriate ways of communication and interaction.
Here Yaari Pannwitz (designer, open space facilitator) and Dominik Ringler
(social scientist, open space facilitator) present the “open space technology”
as a tool, a method as well as a process that enables groups to deal with and
solve complex issues in this context.
Open Space Technology vs. Outer Space Habitat Design

How do we meet the need for an appropriate way of communication in the
multidisciplinary approach? How do we take advantage of chaos to come
up with order? Open Space Technology is a technique invented in USA that
allows the creation of projects with multidisciplinary methodologies; this
technique is applied here to design Outer Space Habitats. Open space is a
proven “large group intervention” which allows us to achieve results in days
for what other approaches require months and years. The open space setting
works with 5 up to 2000 people and takes 1.5 to 3 days.
1 This concept was expressed particularly by the Canadian Robert Thirsk and also by the
Japanese Chiaki Mukai at ISU lecture (Strasbourg November 2006), the Dutch Andres
Kuipers during the success meeting (Köln April 2007), and other astronauts.
By now there are quite a few examples where open space worked suc-
cessfully. “Opening space for outer space” can be applied, for example, in
international projects such as on the ‘‘Moon Mars Workshop,”2 and the
“Space Generation internet community annual meeting.”3
Developing highly complex adaptive (flexible and able to learn) systems in
a chaotic and mostly unknown environment—outer space—open and self-
organising systems in which chaos is appreciated are needed.
Chaos appears in multiple forms. It is always painful if you happen to be
caught in the path, but for all that pain there appears to be a purpose—
opening space in the old order so that the new may appear. It might just
be that this life we hold so dear is less about the established forms, and
existing order, than the journey itself. In which case the chaos we expe-
rience is by no means just a painful incidental, but rather an essential
component, for the journey would clearly cease without open space in
which to move forward.
(Owen 2003, p. 6).
Identifying givens and adapting a minimal level of formal structure is

required to ensure the flexibility to cope with the constant process of for-
mation and adjusting to a constantly changing and highly challenging
environment.
The idea of open space is to get the “whole system” together— opening
space for outer space. No agenda is predetermined, no speeches are held,
and there is actually no plan! There is just a common theme which leads into
a direction. The subject must be complex and urgent, the answer must be
unknown, and multidisciplinary is a must. Self-organization is supported,
communication is highly effective since small groups of people only work on
the issues they are qualified for and capable of getting them done, issues they
have a passion for and are willing to take responsibility for. The participants
create and manage their own agenda of parallel working sessions around the
central theme of strategic importance, interconnecting, e.g., interior design,
ethics, ergonomics, anthropology, psychology, art, design, engineering, com-
munication, philosophy, biology, architecture, medicine, mathematics….
Open Space works best when the work to be done is complex, the people
and ideas involved are diverse, the passion for resolution (and potential
for conflict) are high, and the time to get it done was yesterday. It has been
called passion bounded by responsibility, the energy of a good coffee
break, intentional self-organization, spirit at work, chaos and creativity,
2 ‘‘Moon Mars Workshop’’ (MMW) is an annual meeting organised with the collaboration of
ESA, it consists of a group of young students from different fields and countries that meet for
one week to create new ideas and projects on the theme of Space Habitats.
3 ‘‘Space Generation internet community annual meeting” at the MMW, young students from
different fields and countries that meet for one week to create new ideas and projects on the
theme of Outer Space Design.
Perspectives 229
evolution in organization, and a simple, powerful way to get people and

organizations moving—when and where it is needed most.
(Hermann 2005, p. 1).
Creating adaptive complex systems for outer space is like sitting on a

fence...leaving the well-known behind and jumping into the unknown (giv-
ing up control). The same principles which are used for any open space set-
ting should also work here: whoever comes is the right person, whatever
happens is the only thing that could have, whenever it starts is the right time,
when it’s over it’s over/when it’s not over it’s not over.
Remarks
As a final future input we propose a project where we can apply the “open
space technology:”
• Space tourism: space as “everyone’s experience”

• Natural design: human factors and natural stimuli for well-being
• Space education and communication: space as an experience to learn
respect for the mother planet.
• Cultural utilization of space: space can be used for artistic expres-
sion and to enlarge the human wisdom, not only for economic goals
(the cultural application of ISS is a department of ESA).
References
Guilton, J., Guilton, M., (1981). The Ideas of Le Corbusier on Architecture and Urban
Planning. New York, United States: George Brazillier.
Hermann, M., About open space—an executive summary, Chicago 2005 (www.open-
spaceworld.org)
Owen, H. (2003), The Practice of Peace, Berlin.
Holmann, P. /Devane, T., (2007). The Change Handbook (second revised edition),
San Francisco.
Owen, H., (1997). Open Space Technology: A User’s Guide, Second Edition, San
Francisco.
Owen, H., (1999). The Spirit of Leadership: Liberating the Leader in Each of Us,
San Francisco.
Owen, H., (2000). Power of Spirit: How Organizations Transform, San Francisco.
Chapter Acknowledgments
This work has been possible thanks to the passion and the effort of all the coau-
thors whose teamwork bridged deeply differing cultures, time zones, disciplines,
ages and approaches. To Valentina Villa, the other illustrators a special thanks
for the images, to iGuzzini illuminazione SpA and NASA a special thanks for
the pictures. Thanks to the space artist Liuccia Buzzoni for the contribution in
the Space Design section, Dominik Ringler and Yaari Pannwitz for the contribu-
tion with Open Space Technology section in the Perspectives (final part).
We would like to thank the Chair of Human-Machine Systems, Prof. of
the Technische Universität Berlin for its support, in effort, time, and facili-
ties. Politecnico di Milano: Prof. Dina Ricco, team of “Laboratorio Colore,”
Prof. Giulio Bretagna, Prof. Annalisa Dominoni, Prof. Bandini Buti, from the
Design Faculty and from the Aerospace Faculty: Prof. Amalia Finzi, Prof.
Cesare Cardani, Ing. Stefano Brambillasca. Thales Alenia Space Italia; team of
Human Factor and their collaborators. Arch. Giorgio Musso, Ing. Enrico Gaia,
Dr. Vincenzo Guarnirei, and the Thales collaborators: Ing. Blaine Sessions
(Sofiter), Jaime Forero (NASA), the anonymous astronauts who participated
at the interview on color habitat design. Technische Universität Berlin: Prof.
Matthias Rötthing, Prof. Dietrich Manzey. Cospar and IAA association. The
reviewer and friends Melih Bakirtas and Prof. Baerg from the TU-Berlin. Special
thanks to Ms. Naoko Hatanaka, a student of architecture at The University
of Tokyo in 2006; Ms. Chitose Nakagawa, a student of architecture at Tokyo
National University of Fine Arts and Music in 2006; and Mr. Yong Kyu Chi,
product designer; and COLOSSO Co. Ltd in Seoul, for their generous contribu-
tion of images and ideas.Special thanks as well to the European Space Agency
(ESA) including Mr. Dieter Isakeit and Dr. Bernard H. Foing for the invitation
to ESA/ESTEC, ESA/ESRIN, and the 9th ILEWG International Conference on
Exploration and Utilisation of the Moon, and also for all their cordial support
and assistance. Also special thanks to Mr. Gianfranco Visentin, Mr. Pantelis
Poulakis, Mr. Willem Van Hoogstraten and other specialists for technical sup-
port. All the persons who supported the authors at Noorwijk ESA center with
effort and friendliness. Arch. Alessandra Fenoglio and Dott. Marco Moietta
of the Dept. of Human and Animal Biology of the Turin University for col-
laboration in graphics and library search to part of Anthropology. Thanks as
well to The Art Catalyst including Ms. Nicola Triscott, who organized and
supported the exhibition at ISEC. Also thanks to Arch. Jun Okushi, Space
Projects Group; Arch. Mark M Kohen, and NASA-Ames for their generous
support and encouragement to pursue this analysis. Prof. Takuro Osaka at the
University of Tsukuba for the first opportunity to participate in a Space Art
project in Japan. Leonardo Olats: Prof. Annick Bureaud, Prof. Roger Malina.
Arch. Sandra Häuplik Techical University Vienna and Liquifer team Wien.
Cospar and IAA association. We would like also to thank everyone else not
mentioned but involved for their consultation, time, and support.
Section IV
The Human Condition

18
An Analysis of the Interface between
Lunar Habitat Conditions and an
Acclimatized Human Physiology as
Defined by the Digital Astronaut Project
Richard L. Summers
Department of Emergency Medicine and Department of Physiology and Biophysics,
University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, Mississippi
Thomas G. Coleman
Robert L. Hester
Richard L. Summers, MD is a professor of emergency medicine and an assis-

tant professor of physiology and biophysics at the University of Mississippi
Medical School, where he serves as director of emergency medicine research.
He received his MD degree from the University of Mississippi Medical
Center in 1981. After clinical training in internal medicine from 1981−1982 at
the University of Mississippi Medical Center he entered advanced doctoral
graduate studies in the Department of Physiology and Biophysics under
the tutelage of Dr. Arthur C. Guyton. In 1989 he joined the faculty of the
University of Mississippi Medical Center and became an assistant professor
in the Department of Physiology and Biophysics. After becoming board cer-
tified in emergency medicine in 1993 he switched his emphasis to his present
clinical position. Through his collaborations with NASA, he has investigated
the mechanisms of physiologic adaptations to microgravity. In addition to
his clinical responsibilities, Dr. Summers currently oversees the develop-
ment of the NASA Digital Astronaut Project.
Abstract Background: The physiologic acclimatization of humans to

the lunar environment is complex and requires an integrative perspective to
fully understand the requirements for settlement habitat conditions. A large
233
computer model of human systems physiology (Guyton/Coleman/Summers

Model) provides the framework for the development of the Digital Astronaut
used by NASA in the analysis of biologic adaptive mechanisms. The model
offers a means for the examination of the interface between a lunar adapted
human physiology and potential habitat environments.
Methods: The current Digital Astronaut model contains over 4000 equations/
variables of biologic interactions and encompasses a variety of physiologic
processes of interest to humans during spaceflight. The model is constructed
on a foundation of basic physical principles in a mathematical scheme of
interactions with a hierarchy of control that forms the overall model struc-
ture. Physiologic relationships derived from the evidence-based literature
are represented as function curves within this structure. Different physi-
ologic systems and body organs are connected through feedback and feed-
forward loops in the form of algebraic and differential equations to create a
global homeostatic system. The model also contains a biologic-environment
interface with external conditions such as temperature, barometric pressure,
atmospheric gas content and gravity. During computer simulation studies,
the predicted physiologic responses to a habitat environmental change are
tracked over time.
Results: Computer simulations using the model have been found to accu-
rately predict the physiologic transients seen during entry into, prolonged
exposure to, and return from the microgravity and bed rest environments.
Computer simulation studies suggest that humans with a lunar adapted
physiology would be more vulnerable and less tolerant to extreme changes
in habitat temperature, humidity and atmospheric oxygen content as com-
pared to an equivalent earth-based setting.
Conclusions: An analysis of the interface between proposed lunar habitat
conditions and an acclimatized human physiology as defined by the Digital
Astronaut Project may be important to reduce potential health risks. This
system can be used as a tool in the technical planning and design of lunar
settlements.
Introduction
The potential risks for human health to be considered during extraterres-
trial habitat design are difficult to assess. Predicting the impact of changes
in environmental conditions on human physiology and the allowable varia-
tions in that environment will be an important consideration in the planning
of lunar habitats [1,2]. However, it is evident that there is a certain degree
of human physiologic adaptation to conditions of microgravity exposure
An Analysis of the Interface between Lunar Habitat Conditions 235
during spaceflight and probably also in partial gravity environments. If

lunar habitat environmental structures are developed around established
earth-based human physiology, it is uncertain that these criteria will provide
a safe dwelling for the 1/6 g adapted individual.
Since there is very little data concerning human physiologic adaptations
to the lunar gravity, computer simulations using a mathematical model of
human physiology may provide the only means for assessing the impact
of these habitat conditions on human health. A large integrative computer
model of human systems physiology (Guyton/Coleman/Summers Model)
provides the framework for the development of the Digital Astronaut used
by NASA in the analysis of biologic adaptive mechanisms [3,4,5]. The model
provides a means for the theoretical examination of the interface between
a lunar adapted human physiology and potential habitat environments.
A systems analysis approach using the Digital Astronaut computer model
was employed to examine the possible impact of different habitat environ-
ments on a lunar adapted human physiology. In this paper, an example
of the physiologic effects of an extreme change in habitat temperature is
presented.
Methods
Digital Astronaut
The current Digital Astronaut model is a special adaptation of an existing
benchmark computer model (Guyton/Coleman/Summers model) devel-
oped by the investigators over the past 30 years [3,4,5,6]. The benchmark
model contains over 4000 variables of biologic interactions and encompasses
a variety of physiologic processes of interest to humans during spaceflight
including cardiovascular functioning and adaptation to microgravity, bone
metabolism, neurohormonal adaptations to weightlessness, and general
nutritional and metabolic mass balance. The process of model building is
centered around the concept of a hierarchy of control in which relationships
are constructed primarily on a foundation of first principles (i.e., mass bal-
ances, physical forces). The current Digital Astronaut model will serve as
the framework for continued future model expansion to include a greater
detail of many of the existing systems as well as the addition of other sys-
tems of interest. The model can be solved using common numerical meth-
ods on a variety of computing systems. The software interface supporting
the model is designed to provide for simple interaction of the user through
a desktop platform with current personal computing technology or with
a mainframe. The model and software support system allows scientists
to perform complex systems studies and theoretical hypothesis testing on
specific research questions surrounding human exposure to microgravity

[7]. The model structure is presently specified in compiled C++ code but
is being translated into XML in a component-based format (kidney, liver,
circulation, etc) with a top down profile (molecular to cellular to organ to
system to whole body) and extensive documentation as a part of the model
description. An interface between environmental and biologic conditions is
being developed within the Digital Astronaut Project. The current model
platform allows for analysis of the impact of changes in altitude, baromet-
ric pressure, atmospheric humidity, external temperature and gravity on
physiologic responses (Figure 18.1). Also possible is a prediction of the influ-
ence of changing available water and salt conditions as well as variations in
the atmospheric gases (oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, carbon monoxide) and
nutritional metabolites.
In order to build confidence in the integrity of the predictions by the
Digital Astronaut, it is necessary that the model undergo a rigorous
validation process as each new system completes a phase of development.
The most important part of this process is the comparison of physiologic
endpoints that typify and define the adaptation to microgravity to those
predicted by the model. The model predictions are validated against
experimental findings by demonstrating that the predicted values are
within the 95% confidence interval of the established target value. The cur-
rent model has been validated for general cardiovascular and metabolic
functioning [4].
Figure 18.1
This figure shows the variables that interface between the Digital Astronaut and the external
environment of the habitat in the model. These variables, currently at normal values, can be
modified over a wide range of inputs.
Computer Simulation Studies

As an example of the methodology, the theoretical effect of changes in
habitat temperature on a human whose physiology is adapted to the lunar
environment is compared to that predicted for a human on earth in simi-
lar condition. The analytic procedure involves recreating the scenario of
exposure to spaceflight and subsequent acclimation to 1/6 g for a virtual
astronaut in a simulation environment. The impact of the variation in habi-
tat temperature, barometric and oxygen conditions on human physiologic
variables was analyzed and the sequential changes were recorded during
the time course of the simulated protocol. Utilizing the rich details of the
model, the particulars of the physiologic adaptations to these perturbations
were examined including an examination of the relative changes in the
blood chemistry constituents. This methodology allows us to develop a
sophisticated approach to habitat analysis from the perspective of the very
complex physiologic adaptive process. A similar technique has been used
successfully to understand mechanisms pertaining to biologic adaptation
to spaceflight and the microgravity environment that were not intuitively
obvious otherwise [5,8,9]. By this method we can support the human safety
predictions of our habitat design ideas through an exacting and quantita-
tive approach.
Results
A computer simulation study was performed in which a wide range of human
physiology was monitored for an earth bound astronaut. Simultaneously an
identical astronaut adapted to the Moon’s gravity was observed for com-
parison. After a week of stabilization of physiologic parameters at a habitat
temperature of 72° F, the computer simulation was changed to model an
abrupt change in the environmental temperature to 100° F for both astro-
nauts. The allowable drinking water intake was limited to 2 liters/day
to simulate the limitations in available resources on the Moon. After the
change in habitat temperature, there was a rapid and progressive loss of
plasma volume for both astronauts while the extracellular plasma sodium
concentration rose precipitously. Changes in these and other physiologic
parameters were reflective of the development of a profound dehydration
which was more pronounced in the astronaut on the Moon (Figure 18.2).
The time to development of a clinical condition of heat stroke in the astro-
nauts (as determined by loss of consciousness) was found to be 47 hours
for the Moon based astronaut as compared to 55 hours for his earth bound
counterpart (Figure 18.3).
Figure 18.2
This figure shows the output from a computer simulation using the Digital Astronaut in which
temperature of the habitat is abruptly changed from 72 to 100 degrees Fahrenheit while the
drinking water allowance remains constant. The changes in plasma volume and extracellular
sodium concentration [Na+] over time (minutes) are followed for an astronaut on earth and
compared to changes predicted for an astronaut adapted to the lunar gravity.
60
55
50
45
40
Earth Moon
Figure 18.3
Comparison between a Moon-adapted astronaut and an astronaut on Earth in the time to
development of heat stroke after a change in habitat temperature to 100 degrees Fahrenheit
and a fixed drinking water allowance.
Conclusions
Any design of a lunar habitat should also consider the impact of environ-
mental conditions on human health and safety. The physiologic acclima-
tization of humans to the lunar environment is complex and requires a
sophisticated approach to predict the requirements for settlement habitat
conditions. An advanced analysis of interactions between any proposed
limits for lunar habitat conditions and a human physiology acclimated
to the Moon’s gravity may be important to reduce potential health risks.
Computer simulation studies using NASA’s Digital Astronaut suggest that
humans with a lunar adapted physiology would be more vulnerable and
less tolerant to extreme changes in habitat conditions as compared to an
equivalent earth-based setting. The example provided in this study also
suggests that this system can be used as a tool in the technical planning and
design of lunar settlements.
References
1. Litton CE. Lessons learned studying design issues for lunar and Mars settle-
ments. Life Support Biosph Sci. 1997;4:127–44.
2. Ashida A. Considerations of human’s long stay in closed systems. Acta
Astronaut. 1994;33:149–53.
3. Montani JP, Adair TH, Summers RL, Coleman TG, Guyton AC. Physiological
Modeling and Simulation Methodology: From the Mainframe to the
Microcomputer. J of the Miss Acad of Sci 1989;24:41–54.
4. Summers RL, Coleman TG, Meck JV. Development of the digital astronaut proj-
ect for the analysis of the mechanisms of physiologic adaptation to micrograv-
ity. Acta Astronautica 2008; in press.
5. Summers RL, Coleman TG. Computer Systems Analysis of the Cardiovascular
Mechanisms of Reentry Orthostasis in Astronauts. Comput Cardiol.
2002;29:521–525.
6. Coleman TG. HUMAN: mathematical model of the human body in health, dis-
ease, and during treatment. ISA Trans 1979;18:65–73.
7. Summers RL. Computer simulation studies and the scientific method. J. of
Applied Animal Welfare Sci. 1998 1: 119–131.
8. Summers RL, Martin DS, Meck JV, Coleman TG. Computer Systems Analysis
of Spaceflight Induced Changes in Left Ventricular Mass. Comput Biol Med
2007; 37:358–363.
9. Summers RL, Coleman TG, Platts S. Systems Analysis of the Mechanisms
of Cardiac Diastolic Function Changes After Microgravity Exposure. Acta
Astronautica 2008; in press.
19
Mental Health Implications of
Working in a Lunar Settlement
Chester S. Spell
School of Business−Camden
Rutgers University, Camden, New Jersey
Chester S. Spell, PhD is an associate professor of management at the

School of Business–Camden, Rutgers University. He received his PhD from
the Georgia Institute of Technology. In addition to his interest in extreme
work environments, his current research interests focus on the relationship
between working conditions, employee mental health, and substance abuse
in the workplace. A current project also investigates how employee behavior,
both in and away from the workplace, has been monitored and evaluated
by organizations and how monitoring techniques have changed over time.
His research has appeared in the Academy of Management Journal, the Journal
of Management, the Journal of Organizational Behavior, and the Sloan Review of
Management.
Abstract Technology makes it possible for human beings to live and

work in places that in the past we could neither reach nor have survived
in. Extreme environments present unique opportunities for psychological
research and applications. At the same time, research on the effect of work-
ing in extreme, isolated environments is relevant for planning and staffing a
potential lunar base.
This paper’s purpose is to review what we know about the effect on humans
of working in extreme environments, as well as recommendations of how
to minimize the deleterious effects on crews working under such condi-
tions. In reviewing what we know to date, we will point to the implications
for planning and staffing a lunar base. The paper will also report recent
research in the relationship between group dynamics on psychological
distress and discuss why this recent research is relevant for lunar base
planning. Finally the paper concludes with recommendations drawn from
current research.
241
Review of the Literature on Extreme Environments

The majority of psychological research involving the effects of working in
Extreme and Unusual Environments (EUEs) has been done in polar stations,
space vehicles, and undersea habitats. The people living and working under
these conditions have been studied through a variety of methods, includ-
ing psychometric and projective tests, interviews, participant observations,
field studies, and simulations. In drawing conclusions about the results of
psychological studies on EUEs it is important to remember that how people
experience an environment is more important than the objective character-
istics of the environment [1]. So, most of the following descriptions of EUE
effects on people will be seen in terms of the perceptions of the environment
rather than the objective characteristics. The effects on people who work for
extended periods in extreme and isolated environments can be grouped in
four categories. The categories are feelings of social isolation, confinement,
restriction of sensory functions, and disruption of circadian rhythms.
While some of the research on working in EUEs suggests that there are
significant challenges in creating and maintaining the psychological health
of the workforce, the research is not unequivocal that all people working
in EUEs experience psychological strain. For example, autobiographical
accounts of astronauts [2] claim on balance very positive reactions to space
travel (albeit of a duration of only a few days). There are studies of people
working at Antarctic stations that report many more positive than negative
experiences. The same is true of individuals working for periods of time in
undersea laboratories. Twenty-six of 28 participants in an undersea habitat
study were willing to do it again. The long-term after effects of such expe-
riences are also strikingly positive according to some reports. Both self-re-
ports and other data show that people who have come through a demanding
capsule mission are mentally and physically healthier, more successful, and
more insightful than they had been or when compared to matched control
groups [3]. Therefore, in a wide variety of EUEs, some people working for
short or even extended periods report no psychological problems arising out
of isolation or confinement.
The perception of confinement and the monotony of seeing the same small
set of people day after day have been identified as key sources of psychologi-
cal distress connected with EUEs. Thus social factors have been seen as a key
source of mental health. Smith [5] concluded that after 2 weeks or more of
confinement, the foremost psychological irritants were inadequate leadership
and the behavior of others. Interpersonal problems have been identified in a
wide variety of EUEs including Antarctic station [5], in submarines [6], and
space [7]. In fact, interpersonal relations were soon identified as the biggest
issue when analyzing diaries of Antarctic personnel [8].
Conflict between inhabitants of EUEs due to interpersonal issues has been
identified in many studies. These conflicts have sometimes arisen from
Mental Health Implications of Working in a Lunar Settlement 243
seemingly trivial matters, such as a murder over a chess game reported by

Palinkas [9], as well as assaults with a hammer [10]. Schwetje [11] even specu-
lated that crimes committed during space missions could be defended on
grounds of irritability due to working conditions. There have been widely
documented reports that Russian and American astronauts sometimes have
problems, especially if there is only one Russian among several Americans,
or vice versa.
Some of the problems connected to conflict among people in EUEs may be
due to the fact that individuals are removed from their typical work routines
and roles (before living in the EUE) and so their role expectations may be
unclear (what do they need to do or how should they behave as a member
of the group).
In addition to social problems, environmental characteristics play a role in
mental health issues for at least some inhabitants of EUEs. Again, much of this
evidence comes from studies conducted at polar stations. Social conditions
are made challenging because individuals may feel isolation yet paradoxi-
cally they may feel crowded because of restricted living space [12]. Living at
the pole has been connected to seasonal changes in mood and behavior due
to long nights. This effect in connection to the polar environments has often
been referred to as the ‘‘winter-over syndrome.’’ Winter-over syndrome has
been associated with depression, irritability, insomnia and reduced cogni-
tive abilities [13]. ‘‘Big eye’’ (insomnia) and ‘‘long eye’’ (losing touch with
reality) are other terms popular among polar crews to refer to different win-
ter over effects.
Group Dynamics and Mental Health

While psychological research done using people in EUEs is central to under-
standing the mental health implications of living and working on the Moon,
other research is also relevant. The research literature on people working
in groups in “regular” jobs tells us that there is a connection between how
fair people think they are being treated in their job and mental health. Also,
recently research has found that shared perceptions of fairness of work
assignments, responsibility, and other job-related factors, a construct called
fairness climate, may be relevant for the psychological well-being of indi-
viduals in the group.
Spell and Arnold [14], in a study of 483 employees in 56 work groups, found
the work group’s “fairness climate” can affect individual levels of anxiety
and depression. They examined mental health (anxiety and depression) as
related to both procedural justice (the perceived fairness of work procedures,
e.g., how work assignments and schedules were made) and distributive jus-
tice (the fairness of the actual rewards and other compensation distributed
to each individual in the group). These effects were explained using a social
contagion framework, which describes the creation of group effects that
would occur in addition to influences on individuals. Spell and Arnold
found that the interactive effects of distributive and procedural justice cli-
mates significantly influence individual feelings of both anxiety and depres-
sion. An implication of this study is that in cohesive groups (especially those
groups with limited interaction outside of group) establishing and maintain-
ing fair procedures is especially significant since perceptions of fairness will
be solely formed by the individual and their group members.
Another recent study with implications for potential lunar base workers
examined faultlines, which are subgroups or divisions within work groups
[15]. For example, a group with three men and three women would have
a gender faultline; one with three people in their 20s and two in their 50s
would be said to have a faultline with respect to age. In addition to demo-
graphics, faultlines can exist with respect to experience levels and other
worker characteristics. The Bezrukova and Spell study found that groups
with strong faultlines and unsupportive supervisors were less anxious
and depressed than groups with weak faultlines. Also, groups with strong
faultlines and perceived unfairness were less anxious and depressed than
groups with weak faultlines. Thus, subdivisions within groups seemed to
have a moderating effect on psychological distress and were in that sense
beneficial.
While counterintuitive at first glance, the groups with strong rifts or fac-
tions may provide individuals with emotional and other support in the face
of unsupportive supervisors, poor working conditions, or other stressors.
More generally, this research points to the role that group composition plays
in individual mental health and complements studies on EUEs that also sug-
gest that beyond selecting people for individual attributes, the ability to get
along with co-workers is important. One speculation from these results is
that the effects of group composition may be exacerbated in the extreme and
isolated work environment of a lunar base.
Recommendations
While many recommendations may be made from the research existing on
EUEs, one theme from this review is that social interactions and the com-
position of the work group staffing a potential lunar base is a significant
consideration in individual mental health of base workers. Therefore, there
should be some considerations given to selecting people to work on a lunar
base on the basis of group compatibility rather than selecting based on just
individual factors (technical expertise, psychological fitness, etc.). Selecting
Mental Health Implications of Working in a Lunar Settlement 245
teams of people to work in EUEs is nothing new; the Russian space program
used a test requiring a group of candidates to drive a small car for long dis-
tances to see how the team interacts. The importance of psychological tests
for future space missions to Mars has also been recognized by NASA [16].
While the need to consider group composition and its effect on mental
health is clear, we still need to know more about the personality traits that
are important in working on a lunar base. Although the personality factors
relevant to particular habitats are not fully identified, we may tentatively
group them along two dimensions.
One way that personality traits can impact mental health is due to the ten-
dency of many volunteers for work in EUEs to have a personality associ-
ated with risk-taking and adventure, and openness to new experiences. Yet,
many of these volunteers discover the reality of working in EUEs is made up
of monotonous, routine, boring tasks in an environment where they work
daily with the same small group. Also, workers in EUEs that value auton-
omy may instead find that such environments are very controlling due to
the conditions and organizational demands to follow rigid procedure [17].
While simulators have been used to try to get individuals accustomed to the
controlled environment, at every opportunity the individuals living at the
station should be given a say in schedules and other decisions rather than
only to managers or others not living at the base.
In addition to social factors, other studies have suggested that psychologi-
cal well being is enhanced by attention to the physical environment. In gen-
eral, this means, again, extending to the crew of a lunar base the autonomy
to personalize and customize their working and living space. Kwalleck &
Lewis [18] suggest that worker performance may be affected by the type of
wall color chosen. Providing different colors throughout the base living area
may alleviate boredom [17]. These results suggest that the physical environ-
ment is an important factor in shaping psychological well-being and that
more research is needed on the connection between environmental charac-
teristics and perception, performance, and psychological well-being.
Overall, prior research suggests that environmental characteristics, group
composition and social factors are key factors that need to be considered in
selecting and managing individuals to staff a lunar base [19]. Yet, most of this
research is either based on data from space missions of just a few days, space
station missions of 6–12 months, or polar station missions of a few months.
There is more research done on group composition and mental health but it is
done on settings that are not in EUEs. None of these environments are exactly
like a lunar base and it is unlikely therefore that we can extrapolate the find-
ings here directly to what working and living at a lunar base would be like.
Yet, the research does tell us those social and environmental factors that are
critical concerns in affecting the psychological state of people working on a
base. Therefore, such factors should be considered in both selecting people
for the staff of the base, training the staff, and designing the base itself.
References
1. Suedfeld P. 1991. Groups in isolation and confinement: environments and expe-
riences. In Harrison AA, Summit J. How ‘‘Third Force’’ psychology might view
humans in space. Space Power, 10, 135–46.
2. Collins M. 1974. Carrying the Fire: An Astronaut’s Journeys. New York: Farrar,
Straus, Giroux.
3. Burr R., Palinkas L. 1987. Health risks among submarine personnel in the U.S.
Navy, 1974–1979. Undersea Biomed. Research, 14,535–44.
4. Palinkas L. 2003. The psychology of isolated and confined environments.
American Psychologist. 58, 353–363.
5. Smith S. 1969. Studies of small groups in confinement. In Sensory Deprivation: Fifteen
Years of Research, (ed. JP Zubek) pp. 374– 403. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
6. Sandal G., Endresen I., Vaernes R., Ursin, H. 1999. Personality and coping strate-
gies during submarine missions. Mil. Psychology.
7. Bluth B., Helppie M. 1986. Russian Space Stations as Analogs, NASA Grant
NAGW-659.Washington, DC: NASA. 2nd ed.
8. Stuster J, Bachelard C, Suedfeld P. 1999. In the Wake of the Astrolabe: Review
and Analysis of Diaries Maintained by the Leaders and Physicians of French
Remote Duty Stations. Santa Barbara, CA: ANACAPA Sci.
9. Palinkas L. 1990. Psychosocial effects of adjustment in Antarctica: Lessons for
long duration spaceflight. J. Spacecr. 27, 471–77.
10. New Zealand Herald. 1996. FBI sent in to Antarctic base. Herald, Oct. 14, p. 83.
11. Schwetje F. 1991. Justice in the Antarctic, space, and the military. In Harrison A.,
Summit J. How ‘‘Third Force’’ Psychology Might View humans in Space. Space Power,
10, 383–94.
12. Weiss, K., Gaud, R. 2004. Formation and Transformation of Relational Networks
During an Antarctic Winter-Over. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34,
1563–1586.
13. Palinkas LA, Browner D. 1995. Effects of prolonged isolation in extreme envi-
ronments on stress, coping, and depression. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
25, 557–76.
14. Spell, C., Arnold, T. 2007. A multi-level analysis of organizational justice climate,
structure and employee mental health. Journal of Management, 33, 724–751.
15. Bezrukova, K., Spell, C. 2006, August. Faultlines in Diverse Workgroups:
Reconsidering the Justice-Psychological Distress Relationship. Academy of
Management Meeting, Atlanta, GA.
16. Behavioral Health and Performance Team. 1999. Behavioral health and per-
formance program plan: Definition and implementation guide. Houston, TX:
Medical Operations Branch, NASA Johnson Space Center.
17. Stuster J. 1996. Bold Endeavors: Lessons from Space and Polar Exploration.
Annapolis, MD: Nav. Inst.
18. Kwallek N, Lewis CM. 1993. The impact of interior colors on the crew in the
habitation space module. In Proc. IDEEA Two Conf., p. 213. Montreal: Cent.
North. Stud. Res., McGill Univ.
19. Suedfeld, P., Steel, D. 2000. The environmental psychology of capsule habitats.
Annual Review of Psychology. 51, 227–253.
20
Humans: The Strongest and the
Weakest Joint in the Chain
Jesper Jorgensen
SpaceArch
Copenhagen, Denmark
Jesper Jorgensen, MSc is a space psychologist employed in the private space

industry and a researcher on the coming Mars500 experiment in Moscow.
His special research interests are in the effects of confined environments
on the sensory system and in development of technological advanced coun-
termeasures to psychological stressors in coming long-term manned mis-
sions. He has extensive experience in development of models and theories in
cooperation between psychologists, artists, architects and engineers in space
design studies. Member of AIAA space architecture technical committee
and IAA study group on Space Architecture.
Abstract Human factors will be one of the most important factors for
a coming Moon base mission. Human factors understood as the way the
individual and the group of crewmembers cope and interact with each other,
with the technology and the environment on the Moon and inside the habitat.
A permanent presence on the Moon will challenge the present concepts of
human spacefaring, and add many new dimensions to our knowledge on
problems and methods in what will be the long term agenda: permanent
space colonization.
New components concerning design and architecture of habitats, composi-
tion of crews in size, gender, qualifications and the understanding of socio-
logical problems in the crew, in the leadership and in the management of
the mission from Earth, will probably be more prioritized in the coming
decade as the space agencies get a growing understanding of the need to
do more research in human factors and in the relation between humans,
technology and the environment. The human factor could be the single most
important factor, which can change a mission from a success to a catastrophic
failure, because humans unlike many mechanical systems are very dynamic
and usually experience a great deal of change in attitude, behaviour, perfor-
mance, and health over the course of a mission (Eckard, 1999). This despite
the tight selection procedures prior to a mission.
247
Human Factors: A Brief Definition

Human factors must be defined as the relation between: humans, technology
and the environment, understood in the sociological and socio-economical
context in which the project is performed. In the past, human factors were
mostly understood as the adaptation of astronauts to the technology onboard
and to the extreme environment in space, but as missions extend in time and
distance, and technology develops to more advanced stages, this simplistic
approach has shown to be obsolete.
Until ISS was built, space projects were mostly national prestige projects,
but turned international and larger, with a demand for both the agencies
and the space crews to collaborate across cultures and political systems.
Projects turned into patchwork projects with many different contributors
and players, and often with a more complicated organisational and politi-
cal structure. A coming Moon Base will probably, in relation to the high
costs and needed technological development, be another international
project. Political control, media interest and involvement of the public will
therefore presumably get a high priority in coming projects with a direct
focus on the single crewmember in the coming mission. As the Moon Base
will be built in a future and much more technologically advanced time,
with a direct and continuous surveillance of the projects in the media or
over Internet (in a much more advanced version than today) more direct
public and political influence must be foreseen. The public and the politi-
cians must be allowed direct observation and influence on priorities and
decisions, and probably turning the design, building and execution pro-
cesses of the project into a much more fluctuating system than current
large scale space projects. This situation where there is much involvement
from all fronts must be integrated into the planning. There is therefore an
argument for including the contextual situation around the project in the
human factors.
Natural Extreme Environments

Mankind has a long history of living in extreme environments, from the mil-
lenniums wide experiences of people surviving and developing civilizations
in polar regions, in high mountain areas, deserts, and on isolated islands,
to our newer history of early polar expeditions and more than 45 years of
presence in space. In the natural settlements in extreme environments on
Earth, we do have a normal diversity in age, gender, skills, personalities
and patterns of diseases and pathological behavior in the population, but
in the expedition crews, the members are selected under tight conditions to
Humans 249
exclude any foreseen psychological and health problems. Seen in the long
term perspective, the Moon missions will probably in the beginning follow
a traditional and strict selection strategy, but as the pace of space coloniza-
tion grows, diversity in generations, gender and qualifications will change
to a more settlement or family orientated approach, which at present is quite
provocative to most of the space society.
There is no doubt that, despite the fact that the members in families are
non-selected, valuable information can be gathered from the human experi-
ence in living in extreme environments. Given that eventually family mem-
bers will need to survive in a confined habitat, it is important and interesting
to develop methods to train such groups together.
Seen from an anthropological point of view, the long history of surviv-
ing in a polar region in a remote habitat must contain information about
traditional methods in conflict resolution, lowering social stress, handling
long period of isolation and darkness, for example. Very little of the large
anthropological knowledge from studies in these areas has been connected
to future spaceflight, but could it be one of the future research directions
in space psychology and architecture, especially with long term missions
to planets in outer solar system, and with the perspective on space colo-
nization in mind. Some designers have used these principles in obtain-
ing basic information on core elements in “the meal situation” in different
locations and cultures worldwide. What defines a cozy meal and how is
social coherence created in the common meal however it is eaten, outside
or inside the house or on the ground or by a table? Can this knowledge be
transferred into design of the place for meals in a space habitat? (Nyström,
Reuterswärd 2003) In the coming years more focus will be put on design
processes with a shift from the concept of “surviving” to “living” and “feel
at home” will be facilitated by new research and be a key component in
simulations and design development for future Moon missions. The grow-
ing number of female space architects and designers will probably support
this development.
Artificial Extreme Environments

In modern extreme environments, such as nuclear submarines, polar
research stations and space stations, effects of these confined and extreme
environments are quite well documented. These three different extreme
environments are often used as reference for each other, because there is
some difference in crew composition, culture and the general background
of crewmembers. Research from these areas provides some of the back-
ground needed for the design of simulation studies done as preparation
for long-term interplanetary space missions. Analogue environments on
Earth might supply larger sample sizes than possible amongst space crews,
due to the very limited number of persons with longer stays onboard the
space stations (Sandal, 2001). The limited number of people who actually
have been in space, creates a methodological problem, because informa-
tion from the spacefarers is not uniform, with different viewpoints and
reactions, which in combination with the few number of people included,
make it difficult to generalize knowledge by scientific methods. The infor-
mation must therefore in many cases be categorized as anecdotal (Kanas,
Manzey, 2003). Information from analogue environments and simula-
tions are therefore important sources of knowledge on problems in future
spaceflight.
Simulations of Space Flight

A number of simulations have been done of space missions, from early
spaceflight where isolation and sensory deprivation was the main concern
for single astronauts and cosmonauts to simulations of longer missions and
larger crews, with focus on psychological factors, group relations and psy-
chological effects on the health of isolation. Simulations can focus on some
of the components of the travel (“partial” or “single event” simulators), or be
a full scale simulation of a longer interplanetary mission. In general simula-
tions are limited concerning the effects of microgravity and the restrictions
laid out in the ethics of scientific experiments. As a result of these limits any
test participant can at any time leave the experiment, and the management
of the simulation does have the responsibility not to bring any danger to the
participants. This suggests restrictions on how the most dangerous situa-
tions can be simulated, for example, whether a seriously ill test person will
be taken out of the experiment, and not treated inside, as could be the situa-
tion in an interplanetary mission. Similarly, a simulation will not be able to
simulate the “point of no return” situation a coming Mars mission will be in,
most of the time after launch, or a situation where a Moon base crew cannot
leave the base for evacuation.
Experiences from one of the long term international isolation experiments
(>300 days) showed that interpersonal conflict can result in test persons leav-
ing the experiment. The experiment therefore failed in one of the key ele-
ments which will be of great importance in coming long-term missions with
gender and cultural mixed crews: how to handle conflicts.
Simulations can yield a large amount of knowledge on human factors,
how technology, interior design, and human psychology and social systems
cooperate with each other in a safe and controlled environment with room
for mistakes, correction and repetition of components or actions. But it does
have the limitation as a first aid course: In real life situations conditions and
Humans 251
actions can be different or the human mind can mobilize conditions not seen
in simulations, where an unconscious element of play often will be present.
Actual Simulation Studies

One of the actual “single event” simulations is the NEEMO project run
onboard the Aquarius underwater habitat outside the coast of the Florida
Keys. The teams, often crew members from the astronaut corps, train and
simulate missions to ISS. Anther single event simulation is done by the
Mars Society in 2 simulators in the Utah desert and in the Alaska tundra.
Normal lengths of the crews’ stays are 14 days, but some longer experiment
periods are planned. The public relation effects of these missions are prob-
ably higher than the scientific output, but they can maybe pave the way
for larger and more relevant simulation facilities run by non-governmental
partners.
Alternative single factor simulations are done or planned to be done, to
simulate physiological effects of microgravity due to prolonged permanent
bedrest (approximately 3 months) in a position where the head of the test
person’s bed is tilted to –6º. This gives some of the effects of microgravity on
the cardio-vascular system and the immobilisation in such a lying position
has effects on the muscle–skeletal system. Psychological researches, focus-
ing on the single test person are done in parallel.
Concerning the coming Moon–Mars missions, full scale missions are more
relevant. One of the only international space mission simulations done until
now was the 1999 SFINCSS (Simulation of Flight of International Crew on
Space Station) isolation study at the Institute for Biomedical Problems (IMBP)
in Moscow. This simulation raised a number of problems in cooperation
across cultures and in conflict management in international crews, besides
a large amount of knowledge on the effects of isolation on the human mind
and body.
Another of the very few full scale simulations relevant for Moon–Mars
settlements was the BIOSPHERE 2 project in Arizona, which showed both
technological and sociological problems related to a closed environment, and
the lack of full knowledge on both management of ecosystems and human
relations in a confined environment.
The next planned experiment is the “Mars500” project, scheduled to start
in spring 2009 with an initial experiment where a crew of six members is
isolated for 105 days, followed by a full simulation over 500 days by another
test crew with six persons simulating a mission to Mars. The experiment is
based on a simulated journey to the planet, a landing on Mars with a part
of the crew, the rest in orbit, before the whole crew returns to Earth. The
Mars500 project is planned to include both a small greenhouse and a Mars
surface mock up.
Human Factor Problems in Space Flight

or Analogue Environments
Research from both analogue situations and space flight has shown a number
of general psychological problems, which will be relevant for a coming Moon
settlement too, as they are related to the circumstances of isolation more than
the location. Problems arise from living in a confined space, the limited indi-
vidual manoeuvring room and from living in a tight and closed social system
over extended time. Amongst significant general problems observed are:
Chronic Fatigue
Fatigue is a well known and documented event, which occur in all analogue
and space settings, and chronic fatigue or “asthenia” (term used by Russian
researchers) is well documented as a result of high workload, isolation, ten-
sions and the lack of real recreational facilities in a situation where a pro-
longed time span worsens these conditions. Often a pattern is seen, where
exhaustion starts from the middle of the mission, independent of the actual
length and grows towards the end of the mission. There are of course very
individual responses to this situation and a tendency to worsen if co-stres-
sors are added. There is a lowering of symptoms if an individual is active or
collective countermeasures are put into action.
The effect of chronic fatigue results in sleeping disorders, impaired per-
formance, internal conflicts and depressive mood conditions. The effect of
mission related exhaustion is observed in space, with a tendency to worsen-
ing after more than 4 months onboard (Kanas et al. 2001). An investigation
into cultural factors has showed that the level of fatigue is related to the level
of depression amongst Russian crew members, but not the Americans. And
in an opposite way, anxiety is related to depression in Americans but not in
Russians (Boyd et al. 2007). It is evident that depression and asthenia reactions
can be resolved with increased audio-visual contact with family and friends
on Earth before full-scale psychiatric problems develop (Gushin, 2003).
For the design of coming permanent human missions to the Moon, it will
be important to develop a model for recreation onboard, both in the architec-
ture and in the psychological countermeasures. Further research into chronic
fatigue, its individual, social and cultural applications is needed, and models
for psychological countermeasures must be developed.
Disturbed Circadian Rhythm

Lunar days vary in duration, and can be as long as a few minutes to over
24 hours. Light intensity and darkness are stronger than on Earth and the
day/night cycle more varied than here, depending on the location on the
Humans 253
lunar surface. We know that humans can survive even crude disturbance
in day night shifts, from the permanent winter dark or 24 hours midnight
sun in Polar Regions, to 90-minutes day/night shift onboard space stations
in orbit around Earth. Subjective reports from space state that the most
important factors contributing to impaired well-being and performance
during flight are sleep disturbance and fatigue. Objective studies show a
disturbance of sleep length and quality in space on shorter missions and
at the beginning of longer missions, with a tendency to adapt over time
(Kanas, Manzey, 2003).
Seen in a habitat perspective, it has been observed in crews on Antarctic
research stations and in populations living north of the polar circle, that
alertness is higher, the sleep cycle is much shorter and people more socially
active in the summertime. In the darker periods people tend to be more intro-
verted, less interested in social contacts and more at risk of mild depression
like symptoms. Intensity of light and its variation over time have a direct
hormonal response to the brain, signalling to be awake or go to sleep. Future
research is needed to get knowledge of the physiological effects of the light/
darkness characteristics on the Moon and the influence on the affected crew-
members’ behaviour and mental state. Effective countermeasures must be
developed, both on the physiological and psychological side, and the design
of the habitat must include this knowledge to compensate for or to protect
against the sunlight to give maximal comfort to daily activity and to protect,
structure and secure the quality of sleep and avoid a “free run” of the circa-
dian system in the crewmembers (Kanas, Manzey, 2003).
Leadership Roles
As space missions onboard MIR and ISS have extended the time in space
up to more than a year, a shift is observed from short missions done in high
efficient mode in a military-like command structure (for example, shuttle
missions in 14 days) to less intensive operations with a more flat or soft lead-
ership modus, with a higher independence of the crew. Roles soften up over
time, and accordingly open up for rivalry of leadership roles. Dominant
members of the crew challenge the leader and his ability to manage the
often strong personalities in the crew who are highly educated specialists
in their respective fields. A situation quite comparable to the conductor of
a symphony orchestra, with both a partiture, lots of soloists and a common
sound as the task. On the longer missions the leader must manage to create
fruitful alliances with the dominant members, avoid scapegoating or other
problems with members at risk of being expelled from the group, create a
reliable and well functioning working and living environment and must be
prepared to handle being the responsible manager of unforeseen or danger-
ous situations. The crew leader is often in a vulnerable situation: being part
of the crew, but must be able to be alone outside the crew when an unpopular
decision must be taken. Some have suggested the crew medical doctor to be
outside the command system, so he could act as an independent advisor or

discussion partner for the leader.
For a coming Moon mission more knowledge on management and devel-
opment of management roles in small groups is needed. Experiences from
analogue environments must be tested in a space habitat concept and new
models of leadership of groups with specialists with both high individualism
and self-esteem must be developed. As preparation for further interplanetary
missions, with full crew autonomy, the Moon Base is a relevant test bed.
Intercultural Conflicts
Coming Moon crews will consist of a group of mixed races, gender and
cultures, even if the mission will be pure national. Experiences from recent
spaceflight have shown the importance of cultural factors, which may be hid-
den under short missions but will surface over time. Behaviour, the invisible
personal “distance” between individuals, mood and conflict are related to cul-
tural factors, besides all the visible symbols of culture: food, art, music (Boyd
et al., 2007). Daily situations which on a short mission don’t raise conflicts, can
over time be important factors of irritation and have major impact on cooper-
ation and social life. An example could be the cultural differences on the view
of the importance of the evening dinner as a social meeting point, demanding
conversation, time and cosiness in opposition to an effective individual eating
“on the run” in solving the daily tasks. National red-letter days have differ-
ent rituals and meanings, which can be overseen by other crewmembers. In
a more globalized world years ahead, cultural differences will still exist, but
may be more complicated and related to new subtle stratification in societies,
and not ethnicity or nationality known today. As astronomer Carl Sagan fore-
casted, mankind will over time see cultural diversity as strength and create
a new difference between “earth kind” and “space kind” as humans adapt
more to life in space and in permanent space bases (Harris, 1996).
Before a Moon base for an international crew is designed, cultural differ-
ences must be considered, so the base will have symbols and places for what
is important to the members’ culture, and room for the crew to make their
own hybrid culture as a Moon base crew.
Ground Control/Space Communication Disturbances

Conflicts between ground crews and space crews are well documented, and
the role of conflicts as a system to create coherence inside the space crew
in stressed situations, is well described. If control or crew loses confidence
in the other, it raises a number of important problems from: “are messages
reliable,” “are we fully orientated about the situation onboard” to open and
hostile conflicts and mutiny. One of the present research strategies investi-
gates methods to make voice and semantic analysis of communication with
Humans 255
crewmembers to detect stress, depression or anger in the verbal commu-

nication. A more reliable method could be to train crews to be more inde-
pendent in coming simulations, acting as a ship’s crew, by leaving behind
the concept of strict ground control. As the mission leaves the low orbit
around Earth, nature will limit the ability of ground control to directly con-
trol missions.
Environmental Problems Related to the Moon

On the Moon reduced gravitation and direct radiation from the Cosmos
and the Sun will be the two major environmental factors having impact on
human factors. Microgravity does have a major influence on the human body,
and needed are a number of physiological countermeasures to minimize the
constant destruction of muscle and bone tissue due to the lack of action from
gravitational forces on the muscle-skeletal system. Tissue in both muscles
and bones in the mobile system is reduced by approximately 1% each month
in microgravity. A heavy daily training programme over several hours in
space does not exclude this, but can only lower the effects of the atrophy.
Other known problems in microgravity are disturbances in the balance sys-
tem, body fluid shift and metabolic problems.
On the lunar surface, base members will live in 1/6 of normal gravity on
Earth. We have until now only few days of experience with this condition
from the former Apollo missions and further research in the special gravi-
tational conditions is needed. The gravitational situation on the Moon may
influence human factors, both in the planning of daily activities in the habi-
tat and the design of the base system.
A future Moon base should handle the heavy radiation on the surface of
the planet, due to the lack of both a protective atmosphere and a magnetic
field. Radiation consists of both particles from the Cosmos and the Sun. The
shielding design will have influence on the interior of the Moon Habitat
regarding the volume of the interior, choice of materials and how the interior
living quarters are arranged. One design model has, for example, humans
inside the habitat core, with equipment and protective materials outside the
core (Eckart, 1999). Other ideas are an underground base on the Moon, with
the overlying rock as shielding. Radiation gives rise to similar considerations
in relation to the opportunities for the crew to do EVAs, and the related risk
of quickly obtaining the maximum allowable radiation dose and therefore
being “grounded” inside the base or returned prematurely to Earth.
Another environmentally related human factor problem, which will affect
the base crew, will be the reaction to solar particle events, coming from
plasma ejections from the Sun, with faster less damaging particles arriving
first on the Moon followed by slower more damaging particles, all happen-
ing in few minutes. A satellite based warning system close to the Sun can
give some minutes of warning time. From a human factors perspective, both
the constant alertness and short reaction time needed when sun particles are
underway must be foreseen to have a negative influence on mood and per-
formance of the affected crewmembers. For crews on EVAs, constant alert-
ness must be higher and more stressful. This crew may, if being more than
minutes from the shelter in the base, bring Moon rovers with the necessary
shielding along.
A Permanent Moon Mission: New Human Factor Problems?

The previously described general psychological problems related to being
in an extreme environment may be extended by specific problems related to
the characteristics of the Moon habitat. It has been discussed if the problems
foreseen for a human mission to Mars will be comparable to problems on the
Moon. A short distance to Earth, the possibility for normal duplex radio and
TV communication and the subjective emotional experience of being close
to Earth, will probably not be similar to the isolation from Earth on Mars.
Here the situation will be a severe disturbance in communication to ground
control and the absence of a return opportunity to Earth in case of an emer-
gency. Until now we do not know the psychological and emotional effects of
seeing Earth as a pale blue dot in the sky, as will be the situation on Mars.
A Moon base will therefore still be part of the concept of near Earth space
exploration as former Apollo Moon landings, station MIR and ISS, but will
be able to simulate further problems related to the next step: Mars.
Moon Missions as Part of the International

Society: Human Factors
How the political and societal environment affects both the individual and
the teams in space flight projects is not fully researched. There seem to be
a theoretical and scientific vacuum around the important questions on how
the societal response to missions, both planned and activated projects, influ-
ence the psychology of the individual astronaut and the team, both on Earth
and in space. Until now manned space missions have been a solely govern-
mental responsibility, performed in a national framework or as an interna-
tional cooperation between national agencies. The private initiative has not
reached that stage at present, where it can compete with public space flight,
and will still be far away from realizing a Moon mission or a base habitat.
In the history of manned space flight, the direct influence from political
power has been supportive or destructive dependent of the present political
Humans 257
agendas. There is no doubt that working as an astronaut or space scientist

in a political environment where space science is a high priority in societal
life is much more motivating than being in a constant spotlight as a user
of taxpayer money and haunted by nervous management or press depart-
ments demanding for constant legitimating of the financial spending of the
programme.
Future Studies
Research today in human factors of coming interplanetary missions have the
obvious problems that the research is based on present knowledge and tech-
nology, but the missions will presumably be at least 10 years ahead, where
knowledge from research and the technological development will be very
much ahead of the present status (Krishen, 2008). We must therefore both lay
out tracks for future development and research, and be open for knowledge
we at present do not know the importance of or knowledge we at present “do
not know we don’t know.”
Seen on a crosscut of the presentations on astronautical conferences in
recent years, there is a wish for inclusion of modern technology as a diag-
nostical tool for social and psychological problems in the crew, and as an
effective tool for individual psychological countermeasures. PDA based
monitoring systems, “digital friends” (Hoermann et al., 2008) and psycho-
educative programmes are some of the ideas, but at present the lack of suf-
ficient virtual technologies is the main problem in realizing the models in an
operative mode. Future technological development will probably solve these
problems, and maybe introduce advanced technologies which can only be
dreamed of today. On the non-technical frontier, both extended simulation
programmes, more qualitative and anthropologically founded and neuro-
psychological research will give further knowledge on human coping, inter-
personal cooperation and new models for conflict resolution.
And because we are working with the future, we have to reconsider whole
our concept of mission structure, composition and the single crewmembers
personality and qualifications. Space mission designs, both on the techno-
logical and the human factors side are bound in a very conservative tradi-
tion, based on high skill engineering and a personnel structure taken from
the air force due to historical reasons as astronauts and cosmonauts were
recruited from the corps of military test pilots.
Principles for a good design, giving respect to the comfort of the crew,
without compromising on mission agenda or safety have been done before.
Human spaceflight until now has been a general success with focus on
safety and technical compliance. Now the next step will be to develop both
the human capability to handle the new missions and to create habitats for
living more than surviving. And we do not need to reinvent these principles.
It has been done before in our history at the time of early polar exploration.
Leadership by men such as Shackleton has shown that the democratic leader
can function even in dangerous situations and can combine his own leader-
ship with the knowledge of the crew in a mutual responsibility.
Another example is the principles in designing the schooner Fram in late
1800s by Fridjof Nansen and Roald Amundsen. With a strong focus on both
the capability to perform the polar trips in heavy ice and weather, and to
manage the 2-year-long overwintering in the ice, they gave maximal comfort
to the crew aboard. Fram had room for social and cultural life, work, and
voluntary solitude aboard the ship. The crew consisted of persons with mul-
tiple, both formal and informal, skills and personalities. And in opposition
to space crews, an artist was seen as important for the expedition for docu-
mentation of all the non-technical and emotional matters.
Let this be an argument for including a diversity of professionals in design-
ing the Moon base and investigating human factors in a broad frame. We
need historians, sociologists, psychologists, artists, doctors, engineers, infor-
mation technology specialists and all the others who can give their learned
views to the mission design procedure.
Seen from a space psychological and sociological perspective, future long
term missions to the Moon will be very important as an understanding of the
human factor problems related to longer interplanetary missions out in the
solar system. If a permanent base can be run on the Moon with a low ratio
of psychological and physiological problems, the understanding of interaction
between human, environment and technology in space will extend the borders
of human expansion in an unlimited way. This will be an experience that will
allow the human race to expand in outer space and build new space colonies.
Literature
Ball J.R. et al. 2001. Safe Passage. Astronaut Care for Exploration Missions. National
Academy Press, Washington D.C.
Boyd J.E., Kanas N., Gushin V., Saylor S., 2007, Cultural differences in patterns of mood
states on board the International Space Station. Acta Astronautica (61) 668–671.
Eckard P., 1999, The Lunar Base Handbook. An Introduction to Lunar Base Design,
Development and Operations. Space Technologies Series, The McGraw-Hill, New
York.
Gushin V.I., 2003, Problems of distant communication of isolated small groups. Human
Physiology, 29, 5, 39–46.
Harris P.R., 1996, Living and Working in Space. Human Behaviour, Culture and Organisation.
John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Harrison A.A., Clearwater Y.A., McKay C.P., 1991 From Antarctica to Outer Space. Life
in Isolation and Confinement. Springer Verlag, New York.
Humans 259
Hoermann H-J., Johannes B., Salnitski V.P., 2008 The “Digital Friend” A knowledge-
based decision support system for space crews. Acta Astronautica (63) 848–854.
Human Health and Performance for Long-Duration Spaceflight Position paper by
Space Medicine Association & NASA. Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine
24 (6) June 2008.
Imhof B. et al. 2004. Musings towards a new genre in [Space] architecture. Liquifier,
Vienna.
Kanas N., Salnitsky V., Gushin V. et al., 2001, Asthenia—Does it exist in Space?
Psychosomatic Medicine, 63, 874–880.
Kanas N., Manzey D., 2003, Space Psychology and Psychiatry. Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Dordrecht, Holland.
Krishen K., 2008, New technology innovations with potential for space applications.
Acta Astronautica (63) 324–333.
Linenger J.M., 2000. Off the Planet. McGraw Hill, New York.
Nyström M., Reuterswärd L., 2003. Meeting Mars, Recycling Earth. Svensk Byggtjänst,
Lund, Sweden.
Palinkas L.A., 2003, The psychology of isolated and confined environments. Under-
standing human behaviour in Antarctica. American Psychologist 58 (5) 353–363.
Sandal G.M., 1996. Coping in extreme environments: The role of personality. Doctoral
thesis, University of Bergen, Norway.
Sandal G.M., 2001. Psychosocial issues in Space: Future Challenges. Gravitational and
Space Biology Bulletin 14 (2) June 2001.
21
Here to Stay: Designing for
Psychological Well-Being for Long
Duration Stays on Moon and Mars
Sheryl L. Bishop
University of Texas Medical Branch
Galveston, Texas
Sheryl Bishop, PhD is a social psychologist and associate professor at the

University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas. She currently holds
the post of senior biostatistician for the School of Nursing. Dr. Bishop was
the founding curriculum director for the new Space Life Sciences PhD cur-
riculum in UTMB’s Department of Preventive Medicine and Community
Health from 2004−2008. Dr. Bishop has served as lecturer, faculty, and SSP
co-chair for the Space Life Science and Space and Society Departments at
the International Space University, Strasbourg, France, since 1996. For the last
20 years, Dr. Bishop has investigated human performance and group dynamics
in teams in extreme environments, including deep cavers, mountain climbers,
desert survival groups, polar expeditioners, Antarctic winter-over groups, and
various simulations of isolated, confined environments for space. She routinely
presents her research at numerous scientific conferences, has over 60 publi-
cations and 50 scholarly presentations in both the medical and psychological
fields on topics as diverse as psychometric assessment, research methodology,
outcomes research, stress and coping in extreme environments, psychosocial
group dynamics and human performance in extreme environments. She is fre-
quently sought out as a content expert by various media and has participated
in several television documentaries on space and extreme environments by the
Discovery Channel, BBC, and 60 Minutes. Dr. Bishop is a founding member,
board of trustee member, and senior editor for the Journal of the Society of
Human Performance in Extreme Environments, contributing editor for Life Sciences
for Habitation (formerly the Journal of Life Support and Biospheric Sciences), and
review editor for the Journal of Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine.
Abstract Current psychological and sociocultural considerations for

Moon and Mars bases are embedded within a complex matrix of long duration
issues that have been demonstrated to significantly impact on human behavior
and performance in challenging environments characterized by isolation and
261
confinement. Planning for psychological health for long duration inhabitation

missions rather than short duration task accomplishment profiles is further
complicated by the need to address both flight issues as well as station issues.
The fundamental problem today in developing effective countermeasures for
long duration missions is the fact that space missions are not truly psycho-
logically comparable to any other undertaking humans have ever attempted
(e.g., long-duration stays on orbital space stations, historical expeditions to
unknown parts of the Earth, wintering-over in Antarctica, long-term sub-
mergence in submarines) differing most notably in the enormous distance to
travel, the unique separation from the rest of humanity and the extraordinary
demands of an environment characterized by the lack of any fundamental
environmental factor (e.g., air, water, gravity) heretofore required for survival.
Mission scenarios call for crewmembers to endure extraordinary long periods
of extreme confinement and isolation compounded with the absence of normal
sensory input that would regulate psychological and physiological function-
ing. Increased known psychological risks related to individual performance,
behavioral health and crew interactions will be magnified by completely new
unpredictable psychological challenges under these extraordinary conditions
of isolation and confinement from the rest of humanity.
A broad spectrum of social psychological and behavioral research has con-
tributed to the emerging realization that many of the negative psychological
factors of long duration Moon/Mars missions (e.g., prolonged isolation, con-
finement, exposure to unpredictable and unknown extreme environment,
reliance on closed loop environmental system) could be mitigated by design-
ing habitats that thoughtfully countered some of these impacts. The intersec-
tion of psychology and psychosocial factors with habitat design allows us
to implement psychological support in non-intrusive, holistic environmental
modalities that are preventive in orientation rather than palliative.
The present paper discusses those psychological factors with mission struc-
ture or design implications that can be addressed by a thoughtful and proac-
tive implementation of psychological and psychosocial support systems and
countermeasure environmental elements, including enabling technologies
on the horizon that would significantly contribute to the successful psycho-
logical adaptation of long duration space inhabitants.
Introduction
Speculation, investigation and discussion about human missions to the
Moon and Earth’s planets has been ongoing as far back in human literature
as Lucian of Samosata (c. A.D. 125–after A.D. 180), one of the first to write
of voyages to the Moon and Venus, extraterrestrial life and wars between
Here to Stay 263
planets centuries before Jules Verne and H. G. Wells. Scientific challenges to

Percival Lowell’s 1895 explanation of the “canals” on Mars were issued by
A.R. Wallace in 1907 [1, 2]. While the predominant foci of these early discus-
sions were largely technological, there has always been a sub-rosa theme
centered on the human element of space exploration.
In the last 20 years, the need for a systematic evidence-based science of
human performance in space has necessitated the utilization of isolated, con-
fined environments as analogs for space to investigate individual and team
functioning and performance. Various characteristics, both environmental
and situational, of the space environment can be found among a variety of
terrestrial extreme environments and simulation facilities scattered around
the world. Although specific conditions of the settings vary, extreme environ-
ments share common characteristics in their reliance on technology, physical
and social isolation and confinement, the inherent high risk and associ-
ated cost of failure, presence of high physical, psychological, and cognitive
demands, the need for human-human, human-technology, and human-envi-
ronment interfaces, and the demand for team coordination, cooperation, and
communication [3]. Those factors that will significantly affect the physiologi-
cal and psychosocial well-being of long duration space crews have slowly
moved to the forefront of importance as the focus has moved from mere
survivability to thriving in space and extra-terrestrial environments.
Over this period, a number of periodic serial white paper publications have
drawn together experts from a wide spectrum of domains to assess the state of
knowledge about the myriad factors that are proposed to contribute to a suc-
cessful mission to Moon, Mars and beyond. The recitation of the known and
unknown across the years has repeatedly underscored one notable conclusion:
The human element is both the greatest strength of a mission and the greatest
weakness. As early as the late 1960s, lunar design projects were grudgingly
acknowledging that group interaction would be the primary limiting factor in
long duration missions [4]. Improvements and advances in technology, engi-
neering and technological based human factors have not been mirrored by
similar advances in human factor issues dealing with human health and well-
being. While medical issues have become more specifically defined and iden-
tified, psychological and psychosocial considerations are still grappling with
questions that were raised from the earliest days of space exploration: What is
the best fit individual for a mission? How do we compose the best group? How
do we select, train and support the best group for a mission?
Background
The impact of challenging environments on individual functioning and
performance must be examined from the multiple and interacting perspec-
tives of physiological, medical, and psychosocial domains. Psychological
and sociocultural issues are critical components to mission success and

have clearly been shown to significantly impact human behavior and per-
formance in most challenging environments, especially those characterized
by isolation and confinement [5-8]. A broad spectrum of social psychological
and behavioral research contributed to the emerging realization that many
of the negative psychological factors of long duration missions to the Moon
or Mars (e.g., prolonged isolation, confinement, exposure to an unpredict-
able and unknown extreme environment, reliance on a closed loop environ-
mental system) could be mitigated by habitability designs that thoughtfully
countered these impacts. The intersection of psychology and psychosocial
factors with habitat design is proving to be a very productive approach to
improving understanding of individual and group factors by allowing us to
implement psychological support in a non-intrusive, holistic environmental
modality that is preventive in orientation rather than palliative. It has facili-
tated progress in separating the pure interpersonal factors from those that
are embedded in responses to the situation/environment in which individu-
als and groups find themselves. This has enabled investigators to address
the “best fit” issue from the perspective of matching individual capabilities
(e.g., adaptation, tolerance for ambiguity, stress hardiness, interpersonal ori-
entation, needs for autonomy) with mission characteristics (e.g., duration,
crew size, mission goals, authority hierarchy, habitat).
Within psychology, the areas of specific focus have also been varied (see
Table 21.1). With only a small number of researchers, little funding, few
opportunities for accessing teams in analog environments and fewer still
in accessing actual space crews, progress has been understandably slow.
The greatest attention to date has been a focus on individual factors since
selection has dominated the concern of all space programs. However, group
functioning and performance are rapidly becoming recognized as equally
Table 21.1
Areas of Space Psychosocial Research
Individual Characteristics
Personality
Hardiness
Stress/Coping
Leadership Style
Interpersonal Orientation
Performance
Group Characteristics
Group Dynamics (relationships, conflict, cooperation, compatibility)
Group Composition (Gender, Skills, Nationality)
Group Performance
Group Identity
Group Fission and Fusion Factors
Here to Stay 265
critical to mission success, especially when addressing factors that impact

long duration mission profiles.
Space is, arguably, the most extreme environment humans have faced to
date. Not only are we exposed to the presence of unique environmental and
physiological extremes (e.g., temperature, radiation, absence of gravity) but
we are challenged to adapt and perform in the ultimate isolated confined
environment in which known parameters are few and are characterized by
catastrophic outcomes for mistakes. Regardless of whether we are focusing
on life support concerns, medical concerns, or psychosocial concerns, the
key questions are the same:
1. What are the effects?

2. Do they impair functioning?
3. Are they self-limiting or progressive?
4. Are they reversible and when?
5. What are the countermeasures? [3]
The impact of isolation and confinement is repeatedly underestimated by

teams and mission control groups. Isolated confined environments (ICE) are
characterized by serious stressors from both the immediate environment and
from external factors that span communication, resources, inescapable envi-
ronmental conditions, unpredictable, unfamiliar and potentially dangerous
contingencies, and reductions in the gratification of basic human needs for
affection, security and personal significance.
A summary of the most commonly reported psychological problems in
these environments exemplifies how pervasive physiological disturbances
are as well as psychological reports of boredom, loss of motivation, home-
sickness, irritability and difficulties in concentration (Table 21.2) [8]. In
addition, anecdotal evidence has repeatedly indicated problematic areas
in which even short-term group functioning has been compromised by the
presence of communication breakdowns, interpersonal conflict, individual-
ized responses to environmental stressors and conflicts over authority and
control [9].
A quick summary of findings from my own studies underscores the grow-
ing evidence for high impact factors across different environments includ-
ing space (Table 21.3) [8, 11–15]. For instance, there is repeated evidence that
certain personality profiles show a greater or lesser hardiness or robust-
ness to deal with confinement, isolation, and the physiological as well as
psychological stresses inherent in such extreme environments. Preliminary
evidence seems to suggest that different personality profiles are optimal for
different environments, e.g., the trekking expedition compared to the station
mission. Similarly, there are parallel issues regarding gender, professional,
cultural and age configurations that impact on selection and group function-
ing issues as well.
Table 21.2
Reported Problems in Confined Environments
US
Reported Problems MIR Space SUBS POLAR SIMS
Interpersonal conflict X X X X X
Somatic complaints X X X X X
Sleep disturbances X X X X X
Homesickness X X X X X
Boredom, restlessness X X X X X
Decrements in performance X X X X X
Decline in Grp compatibility X X X X X
Substance abuse - - ? X -
Communication breakdowns X X X X X
Conflicts with mission control X X ? X X
The persistent reoccurrence of mismatches between subjective and objec-

tive measures of stress across these teams provides for a potential multi-
modal methodology to monitor stress and coping as well as a monitoring
capability to assess perceptual accuracy which may be severely challenged
in extreme environments. Inaccurate self-monitoring represents potentially
serious challenges to safety, health, well-being, performance and mission
success. Not only are individuals at risk for not recognizing dysfunctional
responses, but inability to identify dysfunctions would prevent or delay
timely intervention and successful long-term adaptation. What threatens the
individual ultimately threatens the team and the mission.
Designing for Psychological Well-Being

Since the early 1980s, 14 behavioral issues with mission and habitability
design implications have been repeatedly identified as critical issues related
to space and have been reaffirmed by subsequent reviews, research, panels
and anecdotal team reports (Table 21.4) [16]. Understanding the psychologi-
cal drivers for these elements promotes greater insight into design improve-
ments for future Lunar and Mars missions. I will briefly cover those that lend
themselves to psychosocial preventive measures which can be incorporated
into habitat design. A more thorough discussion of these features can be
found in any number of papers including my own [8, 17].
Here to Stay
Table 21.3
Summary of Teams Researched
Polar Simulation Simulation Long
Cave Divers Antarctica Australia Expeditions Short Dur. Dur.
Duration 6+ w 11 m 10 d 2–4 w 2w 4m
Group Mixed Gender, Males Only, Mixed Gender, Males Only, Mixed Gender, Mixed Gender,
Composition International Monoculture International Monoculture International International
Distinct X X X X X X
Personality
Profiles
Mismatches ? X X X X ?
b/w Stress
Differential X X X X X X
Group Morale
Performance X X X X X X
Decrements
267
Table 21.4
Behavioral Health Issues Affecting Design
Physiological Psychological
Food ✔ ✔
Sleep ✔ ✔
Clothing ✔ ✔
Exercise ✔ ✔
Medical support ✔
Personal hygiene ✔ ✔
Waste disposal and ✔
management
Onboard training, simulation ✔ ✔
and task preparation
Leisure activities ✔
Group interaction ✔
Habitat aesthetics ✔
Outside communication ✔ ✔
Privacy and personal space ✔
Behavioral issues related to ✔ ✔
microgravity environments
Structural layout and habitat design can address a number of these behav-
ioral issues by:
• Maximizing habitable volume with configurations that are perceived

as more spacious (e.g., narrow spaces perceived to be unpleasant
and cramped).
• Utilizing multiple compartments to provide for variety and segre-
gated use.
• Using color and lighting to enhance desirable moods, reduce feel-
ings of crowding and promote physiological synchronization
• Using windows, digital displays, or art to counter feelings of con-
finement and monotony and provide visual depth.
• And designing for multiple uses of greenhouses for food production,
leisure activities, stress reduction, crafts, gardening, small group
interaction, exposure to full spectrum lighting and natural fractals.
Many features can promote positive group interaction and reduce nega-
tive interaction. Desirable factors will promote group fusion, i.e., social
bonding, group identification, social support. Negative factors to avoid are
those that produce group fission, i.e., tension, conflict, discord, social isola-
tion, scapegoating (blaming a convenient person), and miscommunication.
Here to Stay 269
Many factors can potentially contribute to either fission or fusion goals in

multiple ways.
For instance, separation of private functions from public is critical. Such
separate spaces meet needs for solitude and privacy, allow individuals to reg-
ulate social interaction and provide for individual control over the amount of
contact with others. It provides for individual personalization and individual
differences in activities while moderating feelings of crowding and confine-
ment. Yet there also needs to be spaces that require and facilitate group inter-
action. One of the inherent dangers in isolated groups is the general drift
of certain individuals into complete isolation from his crewmates. Spaces
that enforce human contact and interaction serve to preserve bonds between
crewmembers as well as close contact needed for accurate group monitoring
and intervention when needed. To achieve these dual needs within the very
limited space available in confined habitats, we need flexible, definable and
re-definable interior environments that provide for group as well as indi-
vidual activity.
Sleep disruption is another persistent and high impact issue. Closed loop
environments are inherently noisy due to life support machinery and restric-
tions on structure design. Some one HAS to have the cabin next to the toilet.
The ambient noise of the environment itself has shown significant impacts to
sleep for crews on Mir, Shuttle, and ISS. When you add the noise of human
activity in a closed environment that lacks sensory day/night cues, there are
serious impediments to normal sleep. Countermeasures for circadian dis-
ruptions can involve use of phase shifting to reset synchronicity or preven-
tion through entrainment of sleep with artificial light/ dark cues, scheduled
meals and other activities.
In ICEs, it is often the mundane that plays the largest role in interpersonal
difficulties. Santy et al. (Table 21.5) conducted a survey of American astro-
nauts in 1993 and found the highest rates of miscommunication, misunder-
standings and interpersonal conflicts were in the moderate to high mission
impact category and occurred during the inflight operations over matters
of payload/experiment resources, housekeeping tasks and personal hygiene
issues [18]. Little things become big things in isolated, confined environ-
ments. Adherence to hygiene standards have been shown to be important
for health and self-esteem as well as enhanced morale and standards of per-
sonal decorum and respect for others. Almost all previous habitats and space
facilities have been characterized by hygiene facilities that were laborious
to use, lacked privacy, and were cumbersome, and cramped, all of which
produce barriers to maintenance of personal hygiene and group standards,
setting the stage for conflict and dissent.
In addition, there are significant differences between individuals, cultures
and the genders concerning matters of housekeeping and hygiene. Early
attempts at designing ISS were stymied by national differences in bathing.
Americans wanted showers and the Russians wanted a sauna…they ended
up with wetwipes. The very fact that these disagreements have occurred in
Table 21.5
Miscommunication, Misunderstandings, and Interpersonal Conflicts
Number of
Incidents
Mission Phase (% of total) IMPACT (% of row category)
Low Moderate High
Preflight training 9 (21) 6 (67) 3 (33) 0 (0)
Inflight 26 (62) 9 (35) 12 (46) 5 (19)
operations
• Payload/ 4 (15*) 1 (25) 3 (75) 0 (0)
experiments
• Housekeeping 5 (19*) 1 (20) 3 (60) 1 (20)
• Personal 5 (19*) 1 (20) 3 (60) 1 (20)
hygiene
Postflight 7(17) 3 (43) 4 (57) 0
activities
Total 42 18 (43) 19 (45) 5 (12)
* percent of Inflight Operations Mission Phase
almost all ICE groups, regardless of specific environment, and to varying

extent to most individuals involved, strongly suggests that future groups
will be at risk for these experiences also.
Confined environments suffer from a limited range of visual variety and
stimulation. Lack of visual variety has been clearly associated with decre-
ments in concentration, performance, mood, increases in boredom, restless-
ness and risky behaviors designed to fill the gap. “Personal décor,” in the
form of clothing, is an efficient way to provide variety, stimulation and per-
sonal expression. There should be a variety of colors for clothing and the
garments should be adjustable so that they can be easily configured from
pants to shorts, long sleeves to short sleeves or from warmer to cooler to
allow individual adjustment to the ambient interior temperature. Although
a critical factor in the plans for use of power and water, laundry facilities not
only improve opportunities for clothing variability but will reinforce atten-
tion to hygiene.
Currently, exercise is the primary countermeasure for bone decalcifica-
tion and muscle atrophy. Crews will not only exercise routinely as part of
medical countermeasures but will likely seek out some form of exercise as
recreation as well. The amount of exercise required to counter physiological
deconditioning in lunar gravity is unknown. However, the expected need
for substantive exercise, requires exercise systems and equipment that are
intrinsically motivating and inherently fun to keep crewmembers attentive
to physiological and psychological health. Equipment should be located close
to hygiene facilities and related work but far enough away from sleep facili-
ties and labs concerned with biological or vibration contamination.
Here to Stay 271
The importance of food to individual and group psychological well-be-

ing for long duration space crews cannot be overstated. Meals are central
events and food and eating are major sources of stimulation and variety for
all ICE groups, including space. Meals promote orientation to group wel-
fare, provide opportunities for face to face social exchange and associate
satiation of physiological needs with positive group interaction. Provisions
should be in place as much as possible for individual selection, snacking,
and protocols for the sharing of food preparation tasks, i.e., kitchen duties.
Provisions for contributing to food resources through individual gardening
activities provide sources of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards and group rec-
ognition. Combining station keeping greenhouse duties with small personal
allowances for individual gardens has been found to be an effective motiva-
tional approach of combining work with pleasurable recreation.
Interpersonal competitiveness has repeatedly been demonstrated to con-
tribute to intergroup strife and discord [19–22]. Therefore, the emphasis
should be on beating personal bests rather than besting others, and activi-
ties that offer opportunities for growth or testing and improving mission
related skills are highly preferable. Use of immersive virtual reality systems
could provide myriad venues for such challenges as well as address dyspho-
ria (negative or aversive moods) by enriching expeditionary environments
with games or pleasurable activities. Similarly, preparing media and profes-
sional presentations will be strong work-leisure activities. Opportunities to
deliver these presentations via video conferencing will be a significant posi-
tive countermeasure to isolation.
Events and holidays should be scheduled as well as spontaneous. Experience
in Antarctica and other long duration polar environments guarantees that
Lunar and Mars crews will develop their own variety of “sports,” games
and holidays as well. Creative outlets will take many forms but provisions
for crafting and gardening can serve dual purposes by resulting in products
that will enhance the circumstances of the group, e.g., additional furniture or
musical instruments, as well as provide relaxing and pleasurable hobbies.
Ideally, communication capabilities will include private send and receive,
full fidelity audio/video/3D immersion via virtual reality and/or telepres-
ence technology. Minimally, there should be personal encryption codes to
ensure confidentiality of communication, open channels to Earthside for
personal, professional and mission communication. Communication issues
are not only hardware and technology related. Careful consideration needs
to be given to protocols addressing private consults with medical or psycho-
logical personnel, families and, perhaps, scientific or proprietary investiga-
tors. These protocols need to be in place and understood by all. Sensitive
issues that have potential consequences for crew well-being need to be
explicitly agreed upon and followed by crews and mission control, e.g., how
negative news involving family or friends should be handled. Similarly, one
persistent challenge that has routinely emerged across all remote missions is
the maintenance of remote command and control relationships. Perspective
sharing and careful attention to clear communication is critical and requires

sustained priority and training on both sides.
EVAs will be major sources of stimulation, anticipation, planning, and acti-
vation. All members should participate in EVAs as they provide opportuni-
ties for habitat egress and relief from confinement. All members should be
involved in projects that afford them opportunities to engage in scientific dis-
covery and the creation of new knowledge. There should be no one that does
not have a meaningful exploratory project whether it be improved power
generation or the search for life. Technological capability will be required to
support personal growth opportunities that will be critical for learning new
skills relevant to the mission and personal interests. Facilities on-site should
provide computer accessibility from labs, workspaces and private quarters.
Schedules should be largely crew controlled. Persistent evidence suggests
that micromanagement by Mission Control not only produces feelings of
intrusion, work demand, stress and resentment among remote crews but
interferes with performance and production by increasing incidences of
conflict and inefficient use of time. A clear commitment to protection and
separation of non-work and leisure time must be in place and enforced. Use
of production/science space and performance of maintenance tasks must be
shared equitably among crew. Imposition of external reprioritization of proj-
ects, tasks, or production schedules must be in consultation with the crew
and not simply imposed.
Distance plays a key role in the amount of on-board monitoring and interven-
tion capability that is required. Mars will require a greater degree of self-support
and monitoring capabilities than Moon. However, the Moon will still require a
larger degree of self-support and crew capability than previous stations.
Monitoring of cognitive, psychological, stress, group assessments should
be both passive and active. We will need real-time feedback assessment capa-
bility for crew self-monitoring to enable first line crew control and response
for adaptation and implementation of countermeasures.
Project Boreas: An Applied Example

Like the purpose of this conference, there have been ongoing efforts to bring
all these elements together within design projects for both Moon and Mars.
As an example I would like to quickly feature one such project on which
I participated. Project Boreas was a 2-year international endeavor for the
British Interplanetary Society to design a Mars polar base [23]. The polar
location presented several unique features in extremes of Martian weather
and prolonged day/night cycles similar to Earth’s polar regions. The result-
ing Boreas Polar Base consisted of five modules arranged around a sixth cen-
tral growth module (Figure 21.1) [24]. This configuration provides maximum
Here to Stay 273
Figure 21.1
Boreas layout.
accessibility and multiple choices for traffic flow, reducing potential conflicts
over intrusions and accessibility restrictions.
Presence of plant and greenery in the Growth Module provides ecologi-
cal fractal properties, terrestrially familiar and restful surroundings, colors
associated with stress reduction, exposure to full spectrum Earth normal
lighting, water features, a workbench for creative construction and crafting
activities, and spaces between plantings for semi-private gatherings.
Each module core was to be decorated in a different environmental theme.
These themes would generate perceptions of changing environments as one
traveled from one module to another. Use of immersive and virtual reality
systems was incorporated by a proposed Biotrope system comprised of digi-
tal reality themed media that could be linked to real environments on Earth
and updated periodically or in continuous real-time transmission to provide
greater variety and stimulus.
Windows were positioned in both side walls and ceilings in most chambers
at different heights to provide visual variety (Figure 21.2) [24]. Exterior light-
ing outside the habitat would provide visual detail and wayfinding elements
as well as illuminate features during the polar night. There were many more
features that cannot be adequately covered in the time here. The link to the
publication table of contents is provided for those interested (http://www.
bis-spaceflight.com/sitesia.aspx/page/170/id/980/l/en).
Figure 21.2
Views from multiple windows.
Summary
These are some of the major issues we have to consider for long duration
teams in order to select, train and support the teams under the extraordi-
nary circumstances inherent in a long duration space mission. A number of
countermeasures are being designed into proposed habitats to address fac-
tors of isolation and confinement. Still, we have many more questions than
answers. Earthside analogs will continue to help us grapple with defining
our levels of “adequate preparation” in the face of ideally pre-defined levels
of “acceptable risk” or even “acceptable losses” as we apply lessons learned
to future space expeditions and missions. The next steps will be to bring
together all these domains to inform and contribute to countermeasures that
are inherent in the individuals we select, the training, mission and sched-
uling protocols we develop, and the habitat that will shelter and nurture
humans as they advance the boundaries of new “extreme environments” in
which humans are here to stay.
References
1. Wallace, A.R. “Is Mars Habitable? A critical examination of Professor Percival
Lowell’s book ‘Mars and Its Canals’ with an alternative explanation,” Macmillan,
London, 1907.
2. Lowell, P. “Mars,” Houghton, Mifflin and Company, Boston, 1895.
Here to Stay 275
3. La Patra, J.W. “Moon lab: Preliminary design of a manned lunar laboratory.” A

Stanford/Ames summer faculty workshop study, NASA, 1968.
4. Herring, L. Astronaut draws attention to psychology, communication. Journal of
Human Performance in Extreme Environments, 1997; 2(1), 42–47. (Reprinted from
APS Observer, 1995, September.)
5. Manzey, D., Lorenz, B. Human performance during prolonged space flight.
Journal of Human Performance in Extreme Environments, 1997;1 (2), 68.
6. Manzey, D., Albrecht, S., Fassbender, C. Psychological countermeasures for
extended manned space flights. Journal of Human Performance in Extreme
Environments, 1995; 1 (2), 66–84. (Reprinted from Acta Astronautica, 35, (4/5)).
7. Morphew, M.E., Maclaren, S. Blaha suggests need for future research on the
effects of isolation and confinement. Journal of Human Performance in Extreme
Environments, 1997; 2 (1), 52–53.
8. Bishop, S. Evaluating teams in extreme environments: From issues to answers,
International Space Life Sciences Working Group (ISLSWG) Group Interactions
Workshop, Journal of Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine, July, Vol. 75, no.
supplement 1, pp. C14–C21(1), 2004.
9. Morphew, M.E. and Maclaren, S. Blaha suggests need for future research on the
effects of isolation and confinement, Journal of Human Performance in Extreme
Environments, 2 (1), pp. 52–53, 1997.
10. Bishop, S. Evaluating teams in extreme Environments: Deep caving, polar
and desert expeditions, Society of Automotive Engineers, 32nd International
Conference on Environmental Systems (ICES), San Antonio, Texas, July 2002.
11. Bishop, S.L., Dawson, S., Rawat, N., Reynolds, K., Eggins, R., and Bunzelek, K.
Assessing teams in Mars simulation habitats: Lessons learned from 2002–2004,
Jonathan D. Clarke (Ed), American Astronautical Society’s Science and Technology
series, Invited Papers, Vol. 111, pp. 177–196, 2006.
12. Bishop, S. L. and Primeau, L. Assessment of group dynamics, psychological
and physiological parameters during polar winter-over, Proceedings from the
Human Systems Conference, Nassau Bay, Texas, June 20–22, 2001.
13. Bishop, S. L. A comparison of male and female teams in surviving the Australian
outback, Proceedings from the Human Systems Conference, Nassau Bay, Texas,
June 20–22, 2001.
14. Bishop, S. L., Dawson, S., Reynolds, K., Eggins, R., Rawat, N. Bunzelek, K.
Integrating psychosocial results from small group analogue studies: Three stud-
ies from the Mars desert research station simulation habitat, Proceedings from
the 15th Humans in Space, Gratz, Austria, May 15–22, 2005.
15. Bishop, S. L., Sundaresan, A., Pacros, A. Patricio, R. Annes, R. A comparison of
homogeneous male and female teams in a Mars simulation, Proceedings from the
56th International Astronautical Congress, Fukuoka, Japan, October 17–21, 2005.
16. Stuster, J. Strategies for exploration habitability during long-duration space
missions: Key issues associated with a mission to Mars, in C. R. Stoker (ed), The
Case for Mars III, Science and Technology Series, 74, pp. 181–191, 1989.
17. Bishop, S. L. Psychological and psychosocial health and well-being at Pole
Station, British Interplanetary Society, Project Boreas: A Station for the Martian
Geographic North Pole, 2006, pp 160–171.
18. Santy, P.A., Holland, A.W., Looper, L., Marcondes-North, R. Multicultural fac-
tors in the space environment: Results of an international shuttle crew debrief.
Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine. 1993; 64:3, 196–200.
19. Palinkas, L.A., Gunderson, E.K. and Holland, A.W. Predictors of behavior and
performance in extreme environments: The Antarctic space analogue program,
Aviation Space and Environmental Medicine, 71, pp. 619–625, 2000.
20. Rose, R. M., Helmreich, R.L., Fogg, L.F. McFadden, T. Psychological predictors of
astronaut effectiveness, Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, 64, pp. 910–5,
1994.
21. Kozerenko, O.P., Gushin, V.I., Sled, A.D., Efimov V.A. and Pystinnikova,
J.M. Some problems of group interaction in prolonged space flights, Human
Performance in Extreme Environments, 4, pp.123–127, 1999.
22. Chidester, T.R., Helmreich, R.L., Gregorich, S. Geis, C.E. Pilot personality and
crew coordination: Implications for training and selection, International Journal
of Aviation Psychology, 1, pp.25–44, 1991.
23. British Interplanetary Society, Project Boreas: A Station for the Martian Geographic
North Pole, 2006.
24. Green, M. Project Boreas, ANY Limited Design Studios, University of the Arts,
London, England.
22
Indoor-Air Quality Implications
of 222RN from Lunar Regolith
François Lévy
synthesis international, USA
Houston, Texas
John Patrick Fardal
François Lévy, M. Arch, MSE born in Paris, France and raised in the United
States, Lévy received his bachelor of arts in liberal arts (philosophy, math-
ematics, and classics) from St. John’s College in Santa Fe, New Mexico and
received his Master of Architecture degree from the School of Architecture at
The University of Texas at Austin. He has subsequently been an adjunct lec-
turer at the School of Architecture. He was also a board member of American
Youthworks (a service learning organization serving at-risk youth) for five
years, where he was involved in affordable housing programs. In architec-
tural practice, he has worked on a variety of projects, including single-family
residences, a new subway line for the Paris Métro, and an industrial plant
in the U.K. In 2006 he enrolled at UT’s College of Engineering, where he is
pursuing an MS in architectural engineering, with an emphasis on sustain-
ability and (informally) design for extreme environments. He has a lifelong
passion for space exploration, and is honored to be able to contribute to the
field, however modestly.
John Patrick Fardal, MSE in environmental and water resources engi-
neering from the University of Texas, and earned two BS degrees in civil
engineering and computer science from UT Austin and UT San Antonio,
respectively. His professional experience includes computer programming,
civil engineering permitting, and pipeline design. He will enter the Texas
College of Osteopathic Medicine for his MD in July of 2009.
Abstract Recently interest has grown in resuming lunar exploration

with the possible establishment of long-term bases. Due to payload costs and
the scale of permanent bases, there is a compelling need to employ in situ
resources, leading to extensive use of lunar soil, or regolith, in such bases.
Regolith is prone to 222Rn exhalation. We modeled two scenarios for radon
exhalation in regolith–based lunar construction. We examined the potential
277
for human health risks due to 222Rn decay-product exposure in such closed,
hermetically sealed environments where lunar inhabitants would poten-
tially have direct, long-term contact with regolith. We found the potential for
significant health concerns, but more detailed data on the physical properties
of regolith-aggregate concrete and its 222Rn exhalation rates is required to
accurately determine radon emanation and diffusion coefficients.
Introduction
After the late 1960s and early 70s when there was an abundance of research,
interest in lunar missions and exploration declined. More recently, however,
scientific and engineering research on lunar characteristics and interest
in the establishment of lunar bases has increased. Such bases would have
numerous benefits, including astronomical platforms, staging areas for
crewed expeditions to Mars, and facilitating exploitation of lunar resources
themselves (Schmitt 2003, Duke 1998). However, transportation of construc-
tion materials to lunar sites is extremely expensive. For example, delivery
costs for Apollo 17 were approximately $70,000 kg −1 (Schmitt 2003). Even
assuming drastic reductions in launch costs, there is a clear advantage to
maximizing ISRU (in-situ resource utilization) (i.e., Lin et al. 1997, Benaroya
et al. 2002, Schmitt 2003). Several engineering approaches have thus been
suggested which make use of lunar soil, or regolith, as a significant build-
ing material (Benaroya et al. 2002). It is reasonable to assume the possibility
of lunar bases with very long-term inhabitants, given transportation costs
and the unlikelihood of frequent returns to Earth (Schmitt 2003). While early
habitats will certainly include living modules transported from Earth, one
can therefore foresee long-term and large-scale habitats whose construction
employ ISRU. Researchers have proposed construction methods that poten-
tially place lunar inhabitants in close proximity to regolith. Benaroya et al.
(2002) provide a review and summary of a range of proposed lunar habitat
designs and construction techniques. Several of these proposed lunar habi-
tats employ regolith berms, lunar concrete, or fused regolith.
The density of lunar regolith is approximately 2,000 kg m−3 according to
Boles et al. (1997) and simulated versions have been measured at 1,910 kg m−3
per Klosky et al. (2000). Keihm and Langseth (1975) estimate its depth as
being from 10 to 30 m. The surface layer is a very fine, electrically charged,
adhesive, abrasive dust arising from the pulverization of the lunar regolith
by meteorite and micrometeorite impacts (Benaroya et al. 2002), and under
certain circumstances it remains resuspended (Kolesnikov and Yakovlev 2002).
It is inorganic and contains no water with the possible exception of ice at
polar cold traps (Duke 1998).
Indoor-Air Quality Implications of 222RN from Lunar Regolith 279
Other researchers have established the lunar presence of 222Rn, a natural

by-product of 238U decay (i.e., Gorenstein and Bjorkholm 1977, Wieler and Heber
2003). More recently, higher 222Rn concentrations have been supposed to cor-
relate to greater tidal stresses in equatorial regions and other areas of crustal
weakness where gases can more easily escape (Lawson et al. 2005). Yaniv
and Heymann (1972), Friesen and Heymann (1972), Lambert et al. (1975),
and Friesen and Adams (1976) further establish 222Rn levels and exhalation
rates in lunar regolith. The human health risks of 222Rn are well documented
(Nazaroff and Nero 1988, Krewski et. al 2005). With a 3.7 day half-life, inhaled
222Rn may readily decay to 214Po and 218Po in the lung tissue, and these ele-
ments are known carcinogens. There are several plausible lunar base con-
figurations which would avoid direct human contact with lunar regolith.
However, ISRU implies use of lunar regolith as a construction material. Any
ISRU deployment of regolith must provide the following: radiation protec-
tion; shielding from meteorites, micrometeorites, and ejecta; and thermal
protection. In many scenarios, such deployment of regolith might be exter-
nal to a pressurized, habitable environment. Would applications bringing
inhabitants of lunar bases in near or direct contact with lunar regolith over
long durations pose health risks to inhabitants?
Many factors must be considered in determining the risk to lunar inhabit-
ants due to 222Rn exposure. In a habitat in direct contact with regolith-based
concrete, the actual concentration of radon in the habitat depends only on
the exhalation rate from the regolith and the decay rate of radon, as habitat
atmosphere is continuously being recirculated. The radon exhalation rate
for regolith-aggregate concrete depends on the radon exhalation rate of the
regolith used in the concrete and the radon exhalation rate of the cement. We
found no sources that measured exhalation rates, but information is avail-
able about radon emissions from both regolith (Yaniv and Heymann 1972)
and typical cementitious materials, like Portland cement (Kovler et al. 2005a).
Useful models for radon diffusion rates are suggested in Nazaroff and Nero
(1988); Rogers et al. (1994); Anderson (2001); Kovler et al. (2005); Krewski et al.
(2005); de Jong and Dijk (1996).
We investigate two scenarios in which regolith would be introduced within a
pressurized lunar habitat. We then calculate the amount of 222Rn which would
be diffused into the habitable space in both cases, using both assumed exhala-
tion rates and numerical modeling. We compare our results to accepted 222Rn
exposure levels, and draw preliminary conclusions of health risks.
Model Parameters
In order to begin to ascertain potential risks of 222Rn exhalation for hypo-
thetical lunar bases, a series of logical assumptions based on existing
research were made. The primary supposition was that regolith will feature
prominently as a construction material in long-term lunar bases. Two plausi-

ble scenarios were investigated in which regolith and/or regolith-aggregate
lunar concrete would be deployed within a habitable space. In order to
determine plausible quantities for regolith concrete in such structures,
three motivating factors justifying regolith or regolith concrete use were
considered.
Lunar radiation is experienced as GCR, galactic cosmic radiation, general
background radiation from which Earth’s atmosphere protects terrestrial
life. In addition, SPEs, solar proton events are brief, uncommon but intense
solar flares which bombard the Moon with protons ejected during solar
flares. Silberberg et al. (1985) suggest that at minimum a 2 m regolith cover
would provide adequate radiation shielding assuming human occupation of
a base 80% of the time. Benaroya et al. (2002) suggested having at least 2.5 m
of regolith cover in order to keep radiation to 0.5 REM. A thicker cover might
provide opportunities for secondary radiation due to radiation hitting atoms
in the regolith cover and scattering electrons and other radiation (Benaroya
et al. 2002), but this is unquantified.
Meteorite and micrometeorite impacts and secondary ejecta due to near-
misses are a significant long-term hazard to lunar structures. In order to
reduce impact risk to generally acceptable ranges, Jolly et al. (1994) recom-
mend regolith shielding to depths of 3 to 4 m.
Diurnal swing on the Moon is considerable, and indeed the whole envi-
ronment is one of temperature extremes, with daytime means around 380°K
ranging to around 400°K, and nighttime temperatures approximately 90°K
to 120°K, dropping to 40°K in the perpetual darkness of shaded polar cra-
ters (so-called cold traps). At a depth of 1 m, however, temperatures stabilize
to approximately 238°K (Heiken et al. 1991) or 253°K (De Angelis et al. 2002).
Furthermore, high-mass lunar structures can be used for thermal storage
(Marra 2006), suggesting a 2–3 meter regolith shielding to maintain a habitat
at ambient temperatures.
These considerations suggested construction techniques producing buried
or covered installations, rather than lighter structures arrayed on the lunar
surface. Some of the former solutions might involve direct human contact
with regolith. In two plausible such scenarios lunar regolith would be inte-
grated into habitable spaces such that inhabitants might come into direct
contact with it. Compacted fill under a concrete slab could be installed in
an inflated structure, as proposed by Chow and Lin (1988) and reported
by Benaroya et al. (2002). Alternately, cast lunar concrete could be deployed
in exposed surfaces, constructed using a dry-mix/steam-injection method
(DMSI) (Lin et al. 1997).
In the first ISRU scenario, an inflated structure’s floor is ballasted with
compacted regolith, and a topping slab is poured in order to produce a
smooth, level floor. At 1/6-g soils are less resistant to displacement because
surrounding soils exert a smaller confining stress (Benaroya et al. 2002). It is
not therefore a foregone conclusion that a lunar foundation would be 1/6 the
Figure 22.1
Artist’s rendering of a vehicle-based lunar installation. Given radiation and meteorite hazards
for long-term habitat, such a base would be most appropriate for short-duration exploration.
Image credit: NASA/JSC image #S93-45585.
thickness of its terrestrial counterpart. While Chow and Lin propose that
the compacted fill lie on top of the bottom of the inflated membrane, which
would likely seal off 222Rn outgassing from lunar fissures below the habitat,
radon might still be outgassed by the fill or slab itself. For computational
purposes, a slab thickness of 0.1 m over a 2 m pad of compacted regolith was
assumed, and the structure’s dimensions were assumed to be 10 m by 10 m
by an average height of 3 m, for an overall regolith-aggregate concrete sur-
face area of 100 m2 and volume of 300 m3.
In the second ISRU scenario, lunar concrete with a regolith aggregate is
deployed either as a surface assembly or as a retaining structure, or both. A
dry-mix/steam injection (DMSI) method of concrete casting has been pro-
posed for the waterless, near-total lunar vacuum. Lin et al. (1997) reported
experimental test samples of such a concrete with regolith aggregate having
a compressive strength exceeding 70 MPa. Given the above discussion of the
shielding requirements of regolith, for all but floor conditions a preliminary
assumption of 0.5 m for a concrete wall thickness was made, as a substitution
for the required 4 m of protective regolith. This second habitat is a concrete
structure with regolith-aggregate concrete walls, ceiling, and floors, all 0.5 m
thick. The dimensions of the second habitat are identical to the dimensions
of the first habitat for computational and comparison purposes, although it
is likely that the inflatable structure would ultimately be significantly larger
than the concrete structure. Terrestrial concrete is highly variable in its per-
meability due to a variety of factors such as aggregate type and size, cement
paste to aggregate ratios, and water content of the mix (Dinku and Reinhardt
1996). While it is difficult to assess the permeability of lunar concrete with-
out further research, an oxygen permeability, kO, of 10−16 m2 (Romer 2005)
was assumed, based on a water to cement ratio for DMSI concrete of 0.50
(Lin et al. 1997). This might suggest that regolith concrete thicknesses neces-
sary for radiation, impact and thermal shielding might yield a fairly airtight
structure without recourse to an internal membrane. Such a benefit could,
however, potentially expose inhabitants to 222Rn.
The most significant parameter in determining the radon concentration
in a lunar habitat is the exhalation rate of radon from the regolith concrete
section that contacts the habitable space. In order to ascertain the exhala-
tion rate, two scenarios were examined. In the first, the exhalation rate was
determined from the work of Lambert et al. (1972) with lunar fines, or finely
crushed lunar soil. In the second scenario, an exhalation rate using the ema-
nation rate of radon from lunar regolith fines (Yaniv and Heymann 1972), dif-
fusion coefficients for radon through terrestrial concrete (Rogers et al. 1994),
and numerical modeling of the regolith-aggregate concrete sections using
Fick’s First Law, were determined, details of which are found in the follow-
ing sections.
Scenario One: Assumed Radon exhalation rate

A radon exhalation rate of three atoms cm−2 min−1 of regolith-aggregate con-
crete surface area was used (Lambert et al. 1975), although this value was
based on emissions from lunar fines, not regolith-concrete. It is unknown
whether radon is contained only in the fines, or permeates lunar regolith.
Bermed regolith
Inflated structure with

toroidal support
Habitable space
Concrete slab (0.1 m)
Compacted regolith
subslab fill (2 m)
Figure 22.2
Partial section through an inflatable structure, based on a design proposed by Chow and Lin
(1988).
Habitable space
Concrete structure (0.5 m)
Lunar regolith
Figure 22.3
Diagrammatic partial section through a dry-mix/steam-injection method (DMSI) concrete
structure.
Since 222Rn is a decay product of uranium, however, our supposition is that

radon is found throughout potential aggregates, not just the finest fractions.
This supposition is supported by research (Lawson et al. 2005). This exhala-
tion rate, along with the surface areas for both habitats, 320 m2 and 100 m2,
respectively, were used to calculate the total emission rate of radon into the
airspace of each habitat. With no external ventilation in this structure, the
model for determining steady state concentration was taken from the work
of Yaniv and Heymann (1972) as:
C∞ = ES/Vλ [Eq 22.1]
where E is the radon exhalation rate (Bq m−2 s−1), S is the surface area of the
source, in this case the regolith-aggregate concrete (m2), V is the volume
occupied by habitat atmosphere (m3), and λ is the decay constant of radon
(2.06 x 10−6 s−1) (Kovler et al. 2005, Part 1).
Adsorption to surfaces and aerosols was not considered in this model,
although the expectation is that radon would not strongly adsorb to such
surfaces and that the steady state concentration in the habitat airspace would
not be significantly altered due to such adsorption. We also did not model
thermal and pressure-driven transport through the regolith-concrete layers.
Scenario Two: Calculated Radon exhalation rate

Determining the radon exhalation rate for regolith-aggregate concrete
involved several steps. First, the emanation rate of radon was determined
from the work of Yaniv and Heymann (1972). The maximum emanation rate
of 0.9 atoms of 222Rn g −1 hr −1 was used to simulate a worst-case scenario.
The emanation rate was used to determine the number of atoms of radon
that escaped the solid matrix of regolith-aggregate concrete and entered
the pore habitat atmosphere space, which made those atoms available for
diffusion through the regolith-aggregate concrete. Next, the density for
regolith-aggregate concrete was determined to be 2 g cm−3, based on the
density of regolith. A diffusion coefficient for radon through terrestrial con-
crete of 10−8 m2 s−1 was determined from the work of Rogers et al. (1994).
Fick’s First Law:
J = −D(∂C/∂x) [Eq 22.2]
was then used to numerically model the flux of radon through small slices
of the regolith-aggregate concrete, where J is the flux, D is the diffusion coef-
ficient of radon, and ∂C/∂x is the change in pore space radon concentration
with respect to a distance.
Numerical Modeling
Each section of regolith-aggregate concrete was divided into 50 slices. Time
intervals of 60 seconds were used for calculation of radon emission, diffusion,
and decay in each slice for each time interval. Time intervals were allowed to
progress until a steady state condition existed in the surface layer. The flux
from the surface layer to the habitable space was then used to determine the
emission rate of radon into that space.
From this point, the equations used to determine the steady state concen-
tration in the habitable space were identical to those used in scenario one.
The concentration of radon on the regolith-aggregate concrete surfaces was
assumed to be zero to provide a worst-case scenario for exhalation rate (i.e.,
to create the largest possible driving force for diffusion from that slice to
the habitat airspace). The model was run twice: first for the wall and ceiling
sections, then for the regolith-aggregate concrete slab top. Fick’s first law
was used to develop a finite difference solution for diffusion through the
different materials. The concentration of radon in all i layers of regolith-
aggregate concrete and regolith, other than the top and bottom layers, was
predicted as:
D∆t n+1
Cin +
∆x 2
[Ci−1 + Cin+1 ]
Cin+1 = + Cemitted − Cdecayed [Eq 22.3]
2 D∆t
1+
∆x 2
Table 22.1
Summary of parameters for assumed and modeled 222Rn exhalation
calculations for both lunar habitat scenarios
Inflated Regolith- Regolith-Concrete
Parameter Ballasted Structure Structure
S, regolith concrete surface area 100 m2 320 m2
V, volume of habitable space 300 m3 300 m3
λ, decay constant of 222Rn 2.06 x 10−6 s−1 2.06 x 10−6 s−1
E, exhalation rate (assumed) 500 Bq m−2 s−1 500 Bq m−2 s−1
D, diffusion coefficient through concrete 10−8 m2 s−1 10−8 m2 s−1
∆t 60 s 60 s
∆x 4.2 cm 1 cm
where Ci is the concentration at the midpoint of the slice of material (atoms

m−3material), Cemitted is the concentration increase due to emission of radon
(atoms m−3material), Cdecayed is the concentration change due to decay of radon
(atoms m−3material), D is the diffusion coefficient of radon through the mate-
rial in question (m2 s−1), Δt is the time interval of the time steps used in the
numerical solution (s), Δx is the thickness of each slice of material (m), n is the
time step number, and i is the number of the slice, with values increasing
through the material.
The concentration of radon in the outer layers of the concrete structure
required a slightly different formula due to an assumed concentration of zero
at the surface next to the habitable airspace and a slightly different thickness,
since the outermost layer is measured from its center to the surface of the
concrete, rather than to the center of the adjacent layer.
The compacted fill was assumed to create a flux of 3 atoms cm−2 min−1 into
the lowest layer of the concrete slab, which was assumed to have flux only
into the adjacent concrete slice. This was a conservative assumption, leading
to the largest possible flux into the lowest concrete layer. Once this flux was
calculated, it was used as the radon exhalation rate in the equation from sce-
nario one to determine the steady state concentration in the habitat airspace,
which assumed no external ventilation. Table 22.1 summarizes our param-
eters for each habitat scenario.
Results and Discussion

The calculated assumed and modeled 222 Rn concentrations for both struc-
tures are shown in Table 22.2.
Table 22.2
Lunar Habitat 222Rn Concentrations for Assumed and Modeled 222Rn Exhalation
Rates
Radon Concentration Radon Concentration
Concrete Structure (Bq m−3) Inflatable Habitat (Bq m−3)
Assumed Exhalation Rate 530 170
Modeled Exhalation Rate 110 84
The higher porosity of regolith allows radon to diffuse through it faster

than through regolith-aggregate concrete. Since the only factor that lowers
radon concentration is radon decay, the longer it takes for a radon atom to
diffuse through a material, the greater the chance that it will decay before
entering the habitat airspace. A dense material with low porosity and perme-
ability will have a lower radon diffusion coefficient, and thus a lower radon
exhalation rate, than a more porous and permeable material. The results
clearly show such a trend, with the regolith-based exhalation rate leading
to a significantly greater radon concentration than the modeled terrestrial
concrete-based exhalation rate. This trend supports the idea that regolith-
aggregate based concrete would be a safer material to have within the habitat
airspace than compacted regolith.
Our results are also based on a variety of assumptions and estimates, begin-
ning with lunar concrete characteristics for 222Rn content, density, porosity,
and thickness. As on Earth, lunar 222Rn content is site-dependent. Its pres-
ence has been detected at a variable number of sites over time from lunar
missions (Yaniv and Heymann, 1972; Gorenstein and Bjorkholm, 1977; Lawson et
al., 2005). For example, the Apollo 16 CSM detected the presence of 222Rn at
Grimaldi crater in 1972; the Lunar Prospector mission in 1998 detected none
at Grimaldi (Lawson et al. 2005). Proposed lunar base locations should there-
fore be locally investigated for local 222Rn, preferably from the ground.
Different concretes have a great variety of diffusion-related character-
istics, such as density, porosity and permeability, depending on a variety
of factors, including water content and fabrication techniques. Lin et al.
(1997) were only able to produce 1 cm3 of dry mix steam regolith concrete
due to the very limited availability of lunar aggregate. More research is
therefore needed to confirm the actual properties of regolith-aggregate
concrete in particular. The exhalation rate of regolith-aggregate concrete
is unknown without such research, although it should prove to be lower
than the exhalation rate of pure regolith, but without reliable data on lunar
concrete this cannot be confirmed. Future lunar missions should endeavor
to produce lunar regolith-aggregate concrete samples in situ so that lunar
concrete characteristics, including porosity and diffusion, could be experi-
mentally determined, in addition to the structural characteristics of such
lunar concrete which would be of interest to lunar base designers and civil
engineers.
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) guidelines recommend tak-

ing remedial action if the radon concentration in a habitat exceeds 148
Bq m−3, and that action be considered if levels exceed 74 Bq m−3. OSHA
(Occupational Safety & Health Administration) and the NRC (Nuclear
Regulatory Commission) have established a standard maximum of 3700 Bq
m−3 averaged over a 40-hour work week for workplaces (Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, 2005). Given that regolith-aggregate concrete lunar base
inhabitants would be exposed to 222Rn nearly continuously, the EPA
standard is more appropriate. Both habitats exceeded the EPA value for
the assumed radon exhalation rate. The above modeled exhalation rates
achieve levels well within 50% of EPA “remediate” standards, and exceed
the “consider remediation” standard. While lung cancer risks to lunar
inhabitants are perhaps less immediate or dramatic than GCR and SPEs,
meteorite impacts, or temperature extremes, our calculations neverthe-
less suggest that ISRU application of regolith in an indoor environment
is a credible risk.
In cases where 222Rn exists at a dangerous level, Gao et al. (2002) suggest a
way to reduce risk through the use of a polymerized plaster coat over con-
crete, leading to significantly lower radon exhalation rates. Transportation
of such additives could prove to be costly for the protection derived from
their use, however, even if ultimately less costly than a non-ISRU habi-
tat. Alternately, the work of Daoud and Renken (2001) shows a promising
method for reducing the diffusion coefficient of radon by using flexible
thin-film membranes. In their tests, Daoud and Renken (2001) demon-
strated a decrease in radon concentration of up to 95% when flexible thin-
film membranes were placed adjacent to concrete samples. Such a decrease
would bring the radon concentrations for all scenarios to acceptable levels.
Another possibility for reducing radon concentration in the habitats would
be to use habitat atmosphere filters containing activated carbon beds, as
studied by Bocanegra and Hopke (1989). This method could pose difficul-
ties in a lunar environment with regeneration of the activated carbon. All of
these remedial measures entail additional transportation and deployment
costs, and therefore should only be undertaken once further research con-
firms our findings.
Conclusions
Radon concentrations in hypothetical lunar habitats are a potentially sig-
nificant health concern if lunar regolith is used as a component of an inter-
nalized construction material. Given the current data, it appears that radon
concentrations might reach dangerous levels in certain construction types.
With a complete lack of habitat atmosphere replacement in a lunar habitat,
it will be of the utmost importance that all cost-effective means of reducing

radon concentrations are employed. The use of thin film membranes may be
an especially effective way to reduce radon concentrations for a relatively low
cost. However, without detailed data on the physical properties of regolith-
aggregate concrete, it isn’t possible to accurately determine radon emanation
and diffusion coefficients from regolith-aggregate concrete, and thus exhala-
tion rates. More research is required to provide such data.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Dr. Jeffrey Siegel of The University of Texas at
Austin, Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering
for providing the initial impetus for this paper and for his guidance. We
also thank Dr. Mike Duke of the Center for Commercial Applications of
Combustion in Space at the Colorado School of Mines for his very generous
and thoughtful critiques and comments.
References
Anderson, C.E., Numerical Modeling of Radon 222 Entry into Houses - An Outline of
Techniques and Results, The Science of the Total Environment Vol. 272, May 14,
2001, pp. 33–42.
Benaroya, H., Bernold, L., and Chua, K.M., Engineering, Design and Construction of Lunar
Bases, Journal of Aerospace Engineering, Vol. 15, No. 2, April 1, 2002, pp. 33–45.
Bocanegra, R., Hopke, P.K., Theoretical Evaluation of Indoor Radon Control Using a
Carbon Adsorption System, JAPCA-The Journal of the Air & Waste Management
Association, Vol. 39, No. 3, March 1989, pp. 305–309.
Boles, W.W., Scott, W.D., and Connolly, J.F., Excavation Forces in Reduced Gravity
Environment, Journal of Aerospace Engineering, Vol 10. No. 2, April 1997,
pp. 99–103.
Daoud, W.Z., and Renken, K.J., Laboratory Assessment of Flexible Thin-Film
Membranes as a Passive Barrier to Radon Gas Diffusion, The Science of the Total
Environment, 272, 2001, pp. 127–135.
De Angelis, G., Wilson, J.W., Clowdsley, M.S., Nealy, J.E., Humes, D.H., and Clem,
J.M., Lunar Lava Tube Radiation Safety Analysis, Journal of Radiation Research,
43: Suppl. December 2002, pp. S41–S45.
De Jong, P.E., van Dijk, W., van Hulst, J.G.A., van Heijningen, R.J.J., The Effect of
the Composition and Production Process of Concrete on the 222RN Exhalation Rate,
Environmental International 22 Supplement 1 (1996), pp. S287–S293.
Duke M., Lunar Polar Ice: Implications for Lunar Development, Journal of Aerospace
Engineering, Vol. 11, No. 4, October 1998, pp. 124–128.
Friesen, L.J., and Adams, J.A.S., Low Pressure Radon diffusion - a laboratory study and its
implications for lunar venting, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, Vol. 40, 1976,
pp. 375–380.
Friesen, L.J., and Heymann, D., Model for Radon Diffusion Through the Lunar Regolith,
Earth, Moon and Planets, Vol. 3, No. 4, 1972, pp. 461–471.
Gao X.M., Tam, C.F., and Gao, W.Z., Polymer cement plaster to prevent Radon gas
contamination within concrete building structures, Building and Environment,
Vol. 37, 2002, pp. 357–361.
Gorenstein, P., and Bjorkholm, P.J., Radon Emanation as an Indicator of Current
Activity of the Moon, Physics of the Earth and Planetary Interiors, Vol. 14, 1977,
pp. 289–292.
Heiken, G.H., Vaniman, D.T., and French, B.M., editors, Lunar Sourcebook: A User’s
Guide to the Moon. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press, 1991.
Hodges, R.R., Ice in the Lunar Polar Regions Revisited, Journal of Geophysical
Research, Vol. 107, No. E2, 5011, 2002, pp. 6–1 – 6–7.
Hodges, R.R., Reanalysis of Lunar Prospector Neutron Spectrometer Observations
over the Lunar Poles, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 107, No. E12, 5125,
2002, pp. 8–1 – 8–5.
Howell, J., Lecture delivered by former director of Johnson Spaceflight Center to UT
Space Society, Austin, Feb. 15, 2006 and private conversations.
Jolly, S.D., Happel, J., and Sture, S., Design and Construction of Shielded Lunar
Outpost, Journal of Aerospace Engineering, Vol. 7, No. 4, October 1994,
pp. 417–434.
Keihm, S.J., and Langseth, M.G., Microwave Emission Spectrum of the Moon: Mean
Global Heat Flow and Average Depth of Regolith, Science, New Series, Vol. 187,
No. 4171, Jan. 10, 1975, pp. 64–66.
Klosky, J.L., Sture, S., Ko, H., and Barnes, F., Geotechnical Behavior of JSC-1 Lunar
Soil Simulant, Journal of Aerospace Engineering, Vol. 13, Issue 4, October 2000,
pp. 133–138.
Kolesnikov, E.K., and Yakovlev, A.B., Vertical Dynamics and Horizontal Transfer of
Submicron-Sized Lunar-Regolith Microparticles Levitating in the Electrostatic
Field of the Near-Surface Photoelectron Layer, Planetary and Space Science,
Vol. 51, Issue 13, 2003, pp. 879–885.
Kovler, K., Perevalov, A., Levit., A., Steiner, V., and Metzger, L.A., Radon exhalation of
cementitious materials made with coal fly ash Parts 1 and 2, Journal of Environmental
Radioactivity, Vol. 82, Nº 3, 2005, pp. 321–334 and pp. 335–350.
Krewski, D., Lubin, J.H., Zielinski, J.M., Alavanja, M., Catalan, V., Field, R.W., Klotz,
J.B., Letourneau, E.G., Lynch, C.F., Lyon, J.I., Sandler, D.P., Schoenberg, J.B.,
Steck, D.J., Stolwijk, J.A., Weinberg, C., and Wilcox, H.B., Residential Radon and
Risk of Lung Cancer: A Combined Analysis of 7 North American Case-Controlled
Studies, Epidemiology, Vol. 16, 2005, pp. 137–145.
Lambert, G., le Roulley J.C., and Bristeau, P., Accumulation and Circulation of Gaseous
Radon Between Lunar Fines, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of
London Series A-Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences 285 (1327),
1975, pp. 331–336.
Lawson, S.L., Feldman, W.C., Lawrence, D.J., Moore, K.R., Elphic, R.C., and Belian,
R.D., Recent Outgassing from the Lunar Surface: The Lunar Prospector Alpha Particle
Spectrometer, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 110, E09009, 2005.
Lin, T.D., Skaar, S.B., and O’Gallagher, J.J., Proposed Remote-Control, Solar-Powered
Concrete Production Experiment on the Moon, Journal of Aerospace Engineering,
Vol. 10, Issue 2, April 1997, pp. 104–109.
Marra, W.A., Heat Flow through Soils and Effects on Thermal Storage Cycle in High-
Mass Structures, Journal Of Aerospace Engineering, Vol. 19, No. 1, January
2006, pp. 55–58.
Nazaroff, W.W., and Nero, A.V., editors, Radon and its Decay Products in Indoor Air, 1988.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC Regulations (10 CFR), Radionuclides (Radon-
222), http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part020/appb/
Radon-222.html, updated May 27, 2005.
Rogers, V.C., Nielson, K.K., Holt, R.B., and Snoddy, R., Radon Diffusion Coefficients for
Residential Concretes, Health Physics, Vol. 67, No. 3, September 1994, pp. 261–265.
Schmitt, H., Private Enterprise Approach To Lunar Base Activation, Advances in Space
Research, Vol. 31, Issue 11, 2003, pp. 2441–2447.
Silberberg, R., Tsao, C.H., Adams, J.H., and Letaw, J.R., Radiation transport of cosmic ray
nuclei in lunar material and radiation doses, Lunar Bases and Space Activities of the
21st Century (W.W. Mendell, Ed.), Lunar and Planetary Institute, Houston TX
(1985), pp. 663–669.
Wieler, R., and Heber, V.S., Noble Gas Isotopes on the Moon, Space Science Reviews 106,
2002, pp. 197–210.
Yaniv, A., and Heymann, D., Measurement of Radon Emission from Apollo 11, 12, and 14
Fines, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Vol. 15, 1972, pp. 95–100.
23
PAC: Protected Antipode Circle at
the Center of the Farside of the Moon
for the Benefit of All Humankind
Claudio Maccone
Member of the International Academy of Astronautics (IAA)
Torino, Italy
Claudio Maccone, PhD was born in Torino (Turin), Italy. In 1972 he obtained his
first degree (Laurea) in physics at the University of Turin with the top mark of
110 points out of 110 and “praise” (“lode”). In 1974 he obtained a second degree
(Laurea) in mathematics at the University of Turin, again with the top mark of
110 points out of 110 and “praise” (“lode”). In 1974 he was awarded a Council of
Europe Higher Education Scholarship by the British Council, enabling him to read
for a PhD at the Department of Mathematics of the University of London King’s
College. There he obtained his PhD in 1980. His thesis embodied the Karhunen-
Loève eigenfunctions of the power-like time-rescaled Brownian motion, later
published in several papers. In 1977 he was awarded a Fulbright scholarship
enabling him to study and reside in New York City. There he researched the
theory of stochastic processes at the Department of Electrical Engineering of
the Polytechnic Institute (now Polytechnic University) of New York. He joined
the Space Systems Group of Aeritalia (now Alenia Spazio) in Turin in 1985 as a
technical expert for the design of artificial satellites. At Alenia, he is involved in
the design of space missions such as the Quasat satellite for radio astronomy,
the tethered satellite flown by the U.S. Space Shuttle in 1992 and 1996, and the
design of a solar sail to reach Mars while being pushed by sunlight. In 1993,
he submitted a formal M3 Proposal to ESA for the design, construction, and
launch of the “FOCAL” space mission. This spacecraft/antenna is intended
to be launched outside the solar system to the distance of 550 Astronomical
Units (3.17 light days) to exploit the huge radio magnification provided by the
gravitational lens of the Sun, as predicted by general relativity. In 1994 his first
book was Telecommunications, KLT and Relativity. In 1997 he was elected corre-
sponding member of the International Academy of Astronautics (IAA) in the
Class of the Engineering Sciences. In 1998 he published his second book, The
Sun as a Gravitational Lens: Proposed Space Missions. This book was awarded the
1999 Book Award for the Engineering Sciences by the International Academy
of Astronautics. In 2000 he was elected co-vice chair of the SETI Committee of
291
the International Academy of Astronautics and was appointed coordinator of

the IAA Cosmic Study on the Lunar Farside Radio Lab. In 2001, Asteroid 11264
was named “Claudiomaccone” in his honor by the International Astronomical
Union (IAU): “Claudio Maccone (b. 1948), an Italian scientific researcher and
technical expert at the Alenia Spazio in Turin.” In 2001 he was elected full mem-
ber of the International Academy of Astronautics. In 2002 he was awarded the
Giordano Bruno Award by the SETI League “for technical excellence in the ser-
vice of SETI,” as described at the web site http://www.setileague.org/awards/
brunowin.htm. In 2004 he took early retirement from Alenia Spazio, which gave
him full time and freedom for research. He has published over 70 scientific and
technical papers, most of them in Acta Astronautica.
Abstract The international scientific community, and especially the

IAA (International Academy of Astronautics), have long been discussing
the need to keep the Farside of the Moon free from man-made RFI (Radio
Frequency Interference). Consider the center of the farside and specifically
crater Daedalus, located very close to the Antipode of the Earth, i.e., on the
equator and at 180 deg in longitude. Daedalus is ideal to set up a future
radio telescope (or phased array) to detect radio waves of all kinds that it is
impossible to detect on Earth because of the ever-growing RFI. In this paper
we propose the creation of PAC (Protected Antipode Circle), a circular piece
of land on the Farside centered at the Antipode and spanning an angle of
30 deg in longitude, latitude and all radial directions from the Antipode.
Defining PAC, the “Protected Antipode Circle”

The need to keep the Farside of the Moon free from man-made RFI (Radio
Frequency Interference) has long been discussed by the international sci-
entific community. In particular, in 2005 this author reported to the IAA
(International Academy of Astronautics) the results of an IAA “Cosmic
Study” that had been started back in 1994 by the late French radio astrono-
mer Jean Heidmann (1920–2000) and had been completed by this author after
Heidmann’s death (see, for instance, [1] and [2]).
The center of the Farside, specifically crater Daedalus, is ideal to set up a
future radio telescope (or phased array) to detect radio waves of all kinds
that are impossible to detect on Earth because of the ever-growing RFI.
Nobody, however, seems to have established a precise border for the cir-
cular region around the Antipode of the Earth (i.e., zero latitude and 180 deg
longitude both East and West) that should be PROTECTED from wild human
exploitation when several nations will have reached the capability of easy
travel to the Moon.
In this paper we propose the creation of PAC, the Protected Antipode Circle.
This is a large circular piece of land of about 1820 km in diameter, centered
PAC 293
Figure 23.1
PAC, the Protected Antipode Circle, is the circular piece of land (1820 km in diameter along the
Moon surface) that we propose to be reserved for scientific purposes only on the Farside of the
Moon. At the center of PAC is the Antipode of the Earth (on the equator and at 180 deg in longi-
tude) and, near to the Antipode, is crater Daedalus, an 80 km crater proposed by the author in
2005 as the best location for the future Lunar Farside Radio Lab. Inside Daedalus, the expected
attenuation of the man-made RFI (Radio Frequency Interference) coming from the Earth is of
the order of 100 dB or higher.
around the Antipode on the Farside and spanning an angle of 30 deg in lon-
gitude, in latitude and in all radial directions from the Antipode, i.e., a total
angle of 60 deg at the cone vertex right at the center of the Moon.
There are three sound scientific reasons for defining PAC this way:
1. PAC is the only area of the Farside that will never be reached by
the radiation emitted by future human space bases located at the L4
and L5 Lagrangian points of the Earth-Moon system (the geometric
proof of this fact is trivial);
2. PAC is the most shielded area of the Farside, with an expected atten-
uation of man-made RFI ranging from 15 to 100 dB or higher;
3. PAC does not overlap with other areas of interest to human activity
except for a minor common area with the Aitken Basin, the southern
depression supposed to have been created 3.8 billion years ago dur-
ing the “big wham” between the Earth and the Moon.
Figure 23.1 shows a photo of the Farside of the Moon, the two parallels at plus
and minus 30 deg drawn by solid lines, and PAC, the Protected Antipode
Circle, a solid circle centered at the Antipode and tangent to the above two
parallels at plus and minus 30 deg.
In view of these unique features, we propose PAC to be officially recog-
nized by the United Nations as an INTERNATIONAL PROTECTED AREA,
where no radio contamination by humans will possibly take place now and
in the future. This will be for the benefit of all Humankind.
Urgent Need for RFI-Free Radio Astronomy

In order to detect radio signals of all kinds, as radio astronomers do, it is
mandatory to firstly reject all RFI (Radio Frequency Interference). But RFI
is produced in ever increasing amounts by the technological growth of civi-
lization on Earth, and has now reached the point where large bands of the
spectrum are blinded by legal or illegal transmitters of all kinds.
Since 1994, the late French radio astronomer Jean Heidmann pointed out
that Radio astronomy from the surface of the Earth is doomed to die in a few
decades if uncontrolled growth of RFI continues. Heidmann also made it
clear, however, that advances in modern space technology could bring Radio
astronomy to a new life, if Radio astronomy is done from the Farside of the
Moon, obviously shielded by the Moon’s spherical body from all RFI pro-
duced on Earth.
In view of the following developments in this paper, we present now a
short review about the five Lagrangian points of the Earth-Moon system,
shown in Figure 23.2.
Terminal Longitude λ on the Moon Farside for

Radio Waves Emitted by Telecommunication
Satellites in Orbit around the Earth
In this section we prove an important mathematical formula, vital to select
any RFI-free Moon Farside Base. We want to compute the small angle l
beyond the limb (the limb is the meridian having longitude 90° E on the
Moon) where the radio waves coming from telecommunications satellites
in circular orbit around the Earth still reach, i.e., they become tangent to the
Moon’s spherical body. The new angle λ = α + 90° we shall call “terminal
longitude” of these radio waves. In practice, no radio wave from telecom
satellites can hit the Moon surface at longitudes higher than this terminal
longitude λ.
PAC 295
L4
R R
L3 Earth R L1 Moon L2
1.007114 R 0.1596003 R 0.1595926 R
R R
L5
Figure 23.2
The five Earth-Moon Lagrangian Points (i.e., the points where the Earth and Moon gravitational
pulls on a spacecraft cancel out!): Let R denote the Earth-Moon distance that is 384,400 km.
Then, the distance between the Moon and the Lagrangian point L1 equals 0.1596003*R, that
is 61350 km. Consequently the Earth-to-L1 distance equals 0.8403997*R, that is 323050 km;
The distance between the Moon and the Lagrangian point L2 equals 0.1595926*R, that is
61347 km; The distance between the Earth and the Lagrangian point L3 equals 1.007114*R, that
is 387135 km; The two “triangular” Lagrangian Points L4 and L5 are just at same distance R
from Earth and Moon.
To find α (see Figure 23.3) we draw the straight line tangent to the Moon’s
sphere from G, the point tangent to the circular orbit having radius R. This
straight line forms a right-angled triangle with the Earth-Moon axis, EM,
with right angle at G. Next, consider the straight line parallel to the one
above but from the Moon center M, intersecting the EG segment at a point P.
Once again, the triangle EPM is right-angled in P, and it is similar to the
previous triangle. So, the angle α is now equal to the EMP angle. The latter
can be found, since:
1. The Earth-Moon distance EM = DEarth− Moon is known and we assume its

worst case (Moon at perigee): Earth-Moon distance equal to 356410 km.
2. The EP segment equals the EG = R segment minus the Moon radius,

R Moon.
Telecom Satellite Orbit

Moon
Earth M Apex
α Quiet Cone
E α A
α P L
G
Figure 23.3
The simple geometry defining the “Terminal Longitude, λ” on the Farside of the Moon, where
radio waves emitted by telecom satellites circling the Earth at a radius R are grazing the Moon
surface.
3. Using Pythagoras’ theorem one finds PM = (EM)2 − (EP)2 .

4. The tangent of the requested angle α is then given by tanα =
= PM
EP
= EP
2 2 .
( EM ) −( EP )
Inverting the last equation and making the substitutions described in

points 1, 2, and 4, one gets the terminal longitude λ of radio waves on the
Moon Farside (between 90° E and 180° E) emitted by a telecom satellite cir-
cling around the Earth at a distance R:
 R − RMoon  π
λ = atan   + .
 DEarth
2
− Moon − (R − R Moon )
2
 2
Here the independent variable R can range only between 0 and the maxi-
mum value that does not make the above radical become negative, that is,
0 ≤ R ≤ DEarth-Moon + R Moon.
The equation above for λ shows that the λ(R) curve becomes vertical for
( )
R → DEarth− Moon + RMoon and λ = 180°.
Selecting Crater Daedalus Near the Farside Center

This author claims that the time will come when commercial wars among the
big industrial trusts running the telecommunications business by satellites will
lead them to grab more and more space around the Earth, pushing their satellites
into orbits with apogee much higher than the geostationary one. A “safe” crater
must be selected East along the Moon equator. How much further East? The answer is
given by the diagram in Figure 23.4, based on the above equation for λ.
PAC 297
Terminal Longitude on Moon in Degrees 180
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
Telecom Sat Orbital Radius in GEO Units
Figure 23.4
Terminal longitude λ (vertical axis) on the Moon Farside versus the telecom satellites orbital
radius R around the Earth (horizontal axis) expressed in units of the Earth’s geostationary
radius (42241.096 km).
The vertical trait predicted by our equation for λ shows up in Figure 23.4

as the “upgoing right branch.” This shows that, if we only keep the equation
for λ into account, the maximum distance from the Earth’s center for these
telecom satellites is about 8.479 times the geostationary radius, correspond-
ing to a circular orbital radius of 358148 km. Was a telecom satellite put in
such a circular orbit around the Earth, its radio waves would flood Moon
longitudes as high as about ~175° or more. However we did not consider the
Lagrangian points yet!
So, it will never be possible to put a satellite into a circular orbit around the
Earth at a distance of 358148 km, simply because this distance already lies
beyond the distance of the Lagrangian point L1 nearest to the Earth, that is
located at 323050 km (Lagrangian points are, by definition, the points of zero
orbital velocity in the two-body problem!).
So we are now led to wonder, what is the Moon Farside terminal longi-
tude corresponding to the distance of the nearest Lagrangian point, L1? The
answer is given by the above equation for λ upon replacing R = 323050 km,
and the result is λ = 154.359°. In words, this means the following: the Moon
Farside Sector in between 154.359 E and 154.359 W will never be blinded by RFI
coming from satellites orbiting the Earth alone.
In other words, the limit of the blinded longitude as a function of the satel-
lite’s orbital radius around the Earth is 180° (E and W longitudes just coincide
at this meridian, corresponding to the “change-of-date line” on Earth). But this
is the Antipode to Earth on the Moon surface that is the point exactly opposite
to the Earth direction on the other side of the Moon. And our theorem simply
Figure 23.5
AS11-44-6609 (July 1969)—An oblique view of the Crater Daedalus on the Lunar Farside as seen
from the Apollo 11 spacecraft in lunar orbit. The view looks southwest. Daedalus (formerly
referred to as I.A.U. Crater No. 308) is located at 179 degrees east longitude and 5.5 degrees
south latitude. Daedalus has a diameter of about 50 statute miles (~ 80 km). This is a typical
scene showing the rugged terrain on the Farside of the Moon, downloaded from the web site:
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/apollo/apollo11/html/as11_44_6609.html
proves that the antipode is the most shielded point on the Moon surface from
radio waves coming from the Earth. An intuitive and obvious result, really.
So, where are we going to locate our SETI Farside Moon base? Just take a
map of the Moon Farside and look. One notices that the antipode’s region
(at the crossing of the central meridian and of the top parallel in the figure)
is too rugged a region to establish a Moon base. Just about 5° South along the
180° meridian, however, one finds a large crater about 80 km in diameter, just
like Saha. This crater is called Daedalus. So, this author proposes to establish the
first RFI-free base on the Moon just inside crater Daedalus, the most shielded crater
of all on the Moon from Earth-made radio pollution!
Our Vision of the Moon Farside for RFI-Free Science

Let us replace the value of λ = 154.359° with the simpler value of λ = 150°. This
matches perfectly with the need for having the borders of the Pristine Sector
making angles orthogonal to the directions of L4 and L5. The result is this
author’s vision of the Farside of the Moon, shown in Figure 23.6.
Figure 23.6 shows a diagram of the Moon as seen from above its North Pole
with the different “colonization regimes” proposed by this author. One sees that:
PAC 299
To L4
90° W
Western
Sector: 150° W
ITU
Central
To Sector: To
Earth Pristine L2
Eastern
Sector: 150° E
ITU
Daedalus Crater
90° E RFI-free Base
To L5
Figure 23.6
Our vision of the Moon Farside with the Daedalus Crater Base for RFI-free Radio astronomy,
Bioastronomy and SETI science. Future International Space Stations (ISS) might be located at
both the L4 and L5 Earth-Moon Points in the decades to come. Only Point L2 will have to be
kept free at all times.
1. The near side of the Moon is left totally free to activities of all kinds:
scientific, commercial and industrial.
2. The Farside of the Moon is divided into three thirds, namely three
sectors covering 60° in longitude each, out of which:
a. The Eastern Sector, in between 90° E and 150° E, can be used for
installation of radio devices, but only under the control of the
International Telecommunications Union (ITU-regime).
b. The Central Sector, in between 150° E and 150° W, must be kept
totally free from human exploitation, namely it is kept in its
“pristine” radio environment totally free from man-made RFI.
This Sector is where crater Daedalus is, a ~ 100 km crater located
in between 177° E and 179° W and around 5° of latitude South. At
the moment, this author is not aware of how high is the circular
rim surrounding Daedalus.
c. The Western Sector, in between 90° W and 150° W, can be used
for installation of radio devices, but only under the control of the
International Telecommunications Union (ITU-regime).
Also:
1. The Eastern Sector is exactly opposite to the direction of the Lagrangian

point L4, and so the body of the Moon completely shields the Eastern
Sector from RFI produced at L4. Thus, L4 is fully “colonizable.”
2. The Western Sector is exactly opposite to the direction of the
Lagrangian point L5, and so the body of the Moon completely shields
the Western Sector from RFI produced at L5. Thus, L5 is fully “colo-
nizable” in this author’s vision. In other words, this author’s vision
achieves the full bilateral symmetry around the plane passing through
the Earth-Moon axis and orthogonal to the Moon’s orbital plane.
3. Of course, L2 may not be utilized at all, since it faces crater Daedalus
just at the latter’s zenith. Any RFI-producing device located at L2
would flood the whole of the Farside, and must be ruled out. L2,
however, is the only Lagrangian point to be kept free, out of the five
located in the Earth-Moon system. Finally, L2 is not directly visible
from the Earth since it is shielded by the Moon’s body, and just fur-
ther supporting the case for “leaving L2 alone”!
The Further Two Lagrangian Points L1 and L2 of the Sun-Earth

System: Their “Polluting” Action on the Farside of the Moon
There still is an unavoidable drawback, though. This is coming from the
further two Lagrangian points L1 and L2 of the Sun-Earth system, located along
the Sun-Earth axis and outside the sphere of influence of the Earth, with a
radius of about 924646 km around the Earth. Precisely, the Sun-Earth L1 point
is located at a distance of 1496557.035 km from the Earth towards the Sun,
and the L2 point at the (virtually identical) distance of 1496557.034 km from
the Earth in the direction away from the Sun, that is toward the outer solar
system. These two points have the “nice” property of moving around the
Sun just with the same angular velocity as the Earth does, while keeping also
at the same distance from the Earth at all times. Thus, they are ideal places for
scientific satellites.
Actually, the Sun-Earth L1 Point has already been in use for a scientific sat-
ellite location since the NASA ISEE III spacecraft was launched on 12 August
1978 and reached the Sun-Earth L1 region in about a month.
On December 2, 1995, the ESA-NASA “Soho” spacecraft for the exploration of
the Solar Corona was launched. On February 14, 1996, Soho was inserted into a
halo orbit around the Sun-Earth L1 point, where it is still librating now (2007).
As for the Sun-Earth L2 point, there are plans to let the NASA’s SIM (Space
Interferometry Mission) satellite be placed there, as will be ESA’s GAIA
astrometric satellite as well.
So, all these satellites do “POLLUTE” the otherwise RFI-free Farside of the Moon
when the Farside is facing them. Unfortunately, the Moon Farside is facing the
Sun-Earth L1 point for half of the Moon’s synodic period, about 14.75 days, and
it is facing the Sun-Earth L2 point for the next 14.75 days. Really all the time!
This radio pollution of the Moon Farside by scientific satellites located at
the Lagrangian Points L1 and L2 of the Sun-Earth system is, unfortunately,
PAC 301
Five Lagrangian Points

of the Earth-Moon System
L4
L2
Sun-Earth L1 Sun-Earth
Moon
L1 Earth L2
To Sun L5
L3
Moon’s Orbit
1.5 Million km 1.5 Million km
Figure 23.7
(Courtesy of Dr. Robert “Bob” Farquhar, Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory,
Laurel, MD, USA) In addition to the five Lagrangian Points of the Earth-Moon system (already
described in Figure 1) the next two closest Lagrangian Points to the Earth are the Lagrangian
Points L1 and L2 of the Sun-Earth system. These are located along the Sun-Earth axis at distances of
about 1.5 million kilometers from the Earth toward the Sun (L1) and outward (L2). Unfortunately,
spacecraft located in the neighborhood of these L1 and L2 Sun-Earth Points do send electromag-
netic waves to the Farside of the Moon. Examples are the ISEE-III and Soho spacecraft, already
orbiting around L1, and more spacecraft will do so in the future around both L1 and L2.
UNAVOIDABLE. We can only hope that telecom satellites will never be put
there. As for the scientific satellites already there or on the way, the radio
frequencies they use are well known and usually narrow-band. This should
help the Fourier transform of the future spectrum analyzers to be located on
the Moon Farside to get rid of these transmissions completely.
Attenuation of Man-Made RFI on the Moon Farside

In a recent paper presented by this author at the International Astronautical
Congress held in Valencia in October 2006, his co-worker Salvo Pluchino suc-
ceeded in computing the RFI attenuation on the Farside of the Moon [3]. A
basic result proven there are the RFI attenuation values shown in Table 23.1.
Perhaps even more important than the “generic” frequency values listed
in Table 23.1 are the following precise line frequencies of high scientific
importance again taken from the paper [3]. In practice, these are the attenu-
ations of man-made RFI to be expected at crater Daedalus and within the
PAC. It should also be stated that these are the attenuation values assuming
that the Moon is not surrounded by a very thin ionosphere. Since a very tiny
Lunar Ionosphere might possibly exist, however, the values below might be
slightly incorrect.
Table 23.1
Radio Wave Attenuation in the Lunar Equatorial Plane and at Lunar Longitude
λ = 180° (i.e., Near the Daedalus Crater) for Radio Sources Emitting at 100 kHz,
100 MHz and 100 GHz, respectively. All attenuation values are in dB.
Frequency or radio f = 100 kHz f = 100 MHz f = 100 GHz
waves
Source in GEO −42.62 dB −72.62 dB −102.62 dB
Source in an orbit −30.32 dB −60.32 dB −90.32 dB
passing through
the L1 point
Source still at
L4 or L5 −29.15 dB −59.15 dB −89.15 dB
Lagrangian points
Conclusions
The goal of this paper was to make the readers sensitive to the importance
of protecting the Central Farside of the Moon from any future wild, anti-
scientific exploitation. In particular, we gave sound scientific reasons why
the PAC, Protected Antipode Circle, should be declared an international
land under the Protection of the United Nations, or, in absence of that insti-
tution, by direct agreement among the space-faring nations. The Farside of
the Moon is a unique place for us in the whole universe: it is close to the
Earth, but protected from the radio garbage that we ourselves are creating
in ever increasing amounts that is making our radio telescopes blinder and
blinder. The Farside cannot be left in the realtors’ hands! And this is an
urgent matter! Some international agreement must be taken for the benefit
of all Humankind.
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank the International Academy of Astronautics
(IAA) for allowing him to serve as Coordinator of the “Lunar Farside Radio
Lab” IAA Cosmic Study in the years 2000–2005. Interest in the international
role that the United Nations might play in the creation of the PAC also came
from several members of the International Institute of Space Law (IISL), in
particular Prof. Vladimir Kopal, Chair of the IAA “Scientific-Legal Liaison
Committee.” Hopefully, these and other far-sighted minds will unite their
efforts to save the Farside of the Moon from new man-made RFI pollution
PAC 303
Table 23.2
Attenuation in the Lunar Equatorial Plane and at Lunar Lat λ = 180° (Near the
Daedalus Crater) for Radio Waves Having Some of the Most Important
Frequencies used by Radio Astronomers to Explore the Universe.
Origin of Radio Radio Source in Source in Orbit Source Still at
Waves Frequency f GEO at L1 Distance L4 or L5
ELF 0.003 MHz −27.39 dB −15.57 dB −14.61 dB
VLF 0.030 MHz −37.39 dB −25.10 dB −23.94 dB
Jupiter’s storm 20 MHz −65.63 dB −53.33 dB −52.16 dB
Deuterium 327.384 MHz −77.77 dB −65.48 dB −64.30 dB
Hydrogen 1420.406 MHz −84.14 dB −71.85 dB −70.68 dB
Hydroxyl radical 1612.231 MHz −84.69 dB −72.40 dB −71.23 dB
Formaldehyde 4829.660 MHz −89.46 dB −77.17 dB −75.99 dB
Methanol 6668.518 MHz −90.86 dB −78.56 dB −77.39 dB
Water vapor 22.235 GHz −96.09 dB −83.79 dB −82.62 dB
Silicon monoxide 42.519 GHz −98.90 dB −86.61 dB −85.44 dB
Carbon monoxide 109.782 GHz −103.02 dB −90.73 dB −89.56 dB
Water vapor 183.310 GHz −105.25 dB −92.95 dB −91.78 dB
right over there! Finally, the support of the author’s co-workers Salvo Pluchino
and Nicolò Antonietti is gratefully acknowledged in the study of the math-
ematical problems to quantify the RFI on the Moon Farside.
References
1. C. Maccone, “The Quiet Cone Above the Farside of the Moon,” Acta
Astronautica, Vol. 53, 2003, pp. 65–70.
2. C. Maccone, “Moon Farside Radio Lab,” Acta Astronautica, Vol. 56, 2005,
pp. 629–639.
3. S. Pluchino, N. Antonietti and C. Maccone, “Protecting the Moon Farside
Radiotelescopes from RFI produced at future Lagrangian-Points Space Stations,”
paper IAC-06-D4.1.01 presented at the International Astronautical Congress
held in Valencia (Spain), October 2–6, 2006.
24
Developing the Moon with
Ethics and Reality
David M. Livingston
The Space Show ®
David M. Livingston, DBA is the founder and host of The Space Show®,
the nation’s only talk radio show focusing on increasing space commerce,
developing space tourism, and facilitating our move to a space-faring
economy and culture. In addition, Dr. Livingston is an adjunct professor
at the University of North Dakota Graduate School of Space Studies. He
earned his BA from the University of Arizona, his MBA in International
Business Management from Golden Gate University in San Francisco,
and his doctorate in Business Administration (DBA) also at Golden Gate
University. His doctoral dissertation was titled “Outer Space Commerce:
Its History and Prospects.” Livingston is a business consultant, financial
advisor, and strategic planner.
Abstract On January 14, 2004, President Bush announced the Vision for
Space Exploration (VSE), a new public space program for the United States,
which calls for the United States to not only return to the Moon, but also
to explore and visit Mars and other destinations in the solar system. While
the Moon is considerably closer to Earth than Mars, we have already been
there, and the costs and technology needed to get to the Moon are much
more available and affordable than those needed to get to Mars. It is not sur-
prising that the announcement of the VSE has prompted many in the entre-
preneurial NewSpace community to make bold plans for commercial lunar
visits and establishing businesses and operations on the Moon. While there
is no doubt about the seriousness of companies making such plans, one must
question the potential effect of these announcements on the emerging com-
mercial space industry, an industry which already has a difficult time being
taken seriously by investors, the financial community, the media, and many
other important segments of our population. This paper examines some of
the issues facing future commercial lunar enterprises and business plans.
Much of the information used in this paper comes from the author’s more
than 8 years of hosting The Space Show (www.thespaceshow.com), a radio
talk show devoted to expanding space development and commercialization.
305
Over 1100 interviews are currently available on archives, many of which are
on this and related topics.
Introduction
Some of the most common issues discussed on The Space Show are the
issues of plausibility and credibility regarding commercial space ven-
tures, particularly those that have been announced, planned, or promoted
as eventually taking place on the Moon. As The Space Show is broadcast
to all seven continents, listeners from around the world contact the show
regarding lunar business plausibility and credibility, questioning what is
being said by the guests, telling us what they hear in news reports, and
generally wondering how any of these businesses could be taken seriously
by investors when, more often than not, the businesses that are making
such grandiose announcements have no real business plans to speak of.
This listener feedback comes from a friendly community that would like
to see these ideas become reality and would like to help, not harm, the
industry. However, not everyone is going to be so friendly towards the
claims made by NewSpace communities. What happens if, and when,
critically-thinking members of the general business community, general
media, or policymakers hear the claims? Can it discredit or damage the
industry as a whole? Are there inherent ethical concerns and, if so, what
are they and how do they affect the industry? Or are these claims just fool-
ish and laughable?
The prevailing thought seems to be that such business promotional talk
is really nothing more than unrealistic rhetoric which is unlikely to dam-
age the commercial space industry’s reputation in the financial and other
important communities, but people hardly ever explain why this is so.
Based on the feedback from The Space Show listeners and conversations
at space-related conferences, it is necessary to explain why many of the
claims are, or could be, damaging and also why there is an ethical element
to this discussion.
Getting Back to Business Basics

There are some business facts that, although basic, always apply whether
the business is terrestrial, on the Moon, or going to and from the Moon.
For example, the business must have capital and continued access to work-
ing capital, especially in its early days as a young business since start-ups
consume capital for growth and unexpected developments. A business must
Developing the Moon with Ethics and Reality 307
have a market for its products or services and the market must be easily
economically exploited. The business also needs to make a profit servicing
its market. Traditional business valuation and measurement tools are just
as applicable for future lunar businesses as they are for businesses here on
Earth. These tools include those such as risk and reward analysis, return-on-
investment (ROI) studies and determinations, due diligence, and assump-
tion building. Lunar-related businesses would not get a free pass on any of
these business tools or measuring devices if they would like to attract inves-
tor money and become successful.
In addition, there are some unique factors that would apply to the lunar
business. For example, public support can be highly critical due to issues
surrounding and impacting the environment of cislunar space.1 These issues
include, but are not limited to, environmental issues, the U.N. treaties regard-
ing the use of space, developed- versus undeveloped-nation competition,
how best to invest/spend public funds, and more.
Business plans are as important for a lunar business as they are for any
business on Earth. As to the contents of the business plan, there are no spe-
cial considerations for lunar businesses despite that it is more complex to
write given that neither lunar businesses, nor most of the elements which
would make them up, do not yet exist and may not exist for a few more
years. When the elements do not exist, it can be very difficult if not virtu-
ally impossible to “cost out” the business. For example, if there is no way to
get to the Moon to carry out the intended business, how can the real busi-
ness costs be determined if we cannot arrive at the job site? While it may be
possible to extrapolate from earlier missions to the Moon or something else
that is deemed similar, the resulting conclusions would be likely inaccurate
and important disclosures regarding the assumptions and projections used
in the plan would need to be made. If such disclosures are not made, the
business would be discredited, and it would also reflect a serious breach
of business ethics or, at best, incompetence if the party did not know such
information was essential.
Even given these considerations which need to be made, there are a
number of lunar business propositions and development plans in the
commercial space world. Without being specific to any one cislunar busi-
ness plan, examining some of the issues common to such business plan-
ning is important.
Lunar Business Reality Check

The emerging space industry is fragile in terms of financial investment, mar-
ket development, and public support. Even the government program, the
Vision for Space Exploration (VSE) that NASA is working to implement, is
having more than its share of problems relating to public support and the
need for public financing spanning multiple presidential and congressional
elections. One major reason for the lack of public support relates to cred-
ibility in the mind of the public. For example, does the public believe that
NASA can put together a program to take us back to the Moon and on to
Mars? Will Congress support the mission from start to finish over the com-
ing years or will they change it or even cancel it, especially in light of our
present day economic problems? Regarding the private sector, could busi-
nesses demonstrate competence at all levels in order to bring in significant
investment to do this type of business? This means management must have
realistic business and marketing plans that show reasonable and achievable
goals. Make no mistake about it, the public and private sectors influence each
other regarding interest in space development.
With this in mind, we look at what would be involved in promoting a pri-
vate company’s lunar business venture. Management knows that the busi-
ness will not immediately unfold. On the other hand, promoters often treat
the proposed lunar business as being not just realistic and plausible, but ripe
for exploitation. In order to create a business of any type, even on Earth, one
must be able to get to the job site. Imagine any business, except perhaps an
online business, where one could not physically get to the business or the
center of operations. This is true for the Moon. There is no way to get to the
Moon at this time. How credible can one be in promoting a business when
nobody can get to the job site?
If we look at how NASA is planning to take us back to the Moon, we see
it taking years, perhaps a decade or more and the cost is in the billions. The
hardware and architecture needed, as controversial as it is, is much beyond
the scope of private sector companies, especially those promoting or discuss-
ing a lunar business or commercial lunar opportunity. While it is probably
true that some private company could get to the Moon in a less costly way
than NASA, maybe even a year or two earlier, at present and into the foresee-
able future there simply is no transportation to the Moon. Even getting there
with a robotic mission, a feat that is easily doable today, requires costly rock-
ets and carefully sized small payloads since most of the mass of the rocket
will be the fuel necessary to take the payload to the Moon. To talk about a
lunar business today as if it is just around the corner, viable, or even real, is
a disservice to the space community because it flies in the face of reality and
sophisticated investment capital knows reality from fantasy.
Due diligence is the name of the game when studying most investment
opportunities, particularly high-risk ventures. Certainly, a lunar business is
considered to be high risk. Those entrusted to protect investment dollars
and performing due diligence will not invest much in the project once they
discover there is no current path to the Moon. This will also cast a shadow
of doubt over the management team which may not have disclosed this
prior to accepting investment money. As there is always a competing use
for investment dollars, known as the opportunity cost, funds will flow to
projects that are credible, can produce a current or future acceptable return,
and to a management team that instills confidence and has proven expertise.
Unfortunately, promoting the lunar business does just the opposite for the
management team. With no way to get to the Moon, a major cost factor in
working the spreadsheet to see if the business can be profitable, and under
what circumstances, cannot be accurately determined or even estimated.
Markets are another key issue in this discussion. A business must have a
product or service to sell and there must be buyers for these products or ser-
vices. The business needs to be able to successfully exploit the market it has
chosen to engage in, and produce a profit. What are the markets for products
coming from a lunar business?
One commonly mentioned product is Helium-3 (He-3), to be mined on the
Moon and transported back to be used for energy on Earth. A simple investi-
gation of this possibility results in finding out that He-3 can produce energy
as a fuel for a fusion process/plant. However, we do not have fusion capabil-
ity. Fusion is theoretically possible, but has not been successfully developed
despite billions of dollars invested by governments and private businesses.
Even with these billions of investment dollars, we are not even close to an
engineering breakeven point and that status is still years from anything
commercial. So to talk about mining He-3 at this time is to talk about some-
thing that might be possible in the intermediate or even more distant future;
it is not something that can be realistically approached.
In addition to the major problem of the need for fusion development prior
to need for He-3, there is the issue of actually mining something on the
Moon. Even if a company intended to do it robotically, at this time no mining
equipment exists that can work on the Moon. Even if we assume that we can
readily make such equipment, we have no transportation for it to be taken to
the Moon. Even if we assume we can design it to go to the Moon using one of
our heavy lift vehicles, Atlas V, Delta IV, and the under construction Falcon 9,
or a foreign heavy launch vehicle, how many launches would it take, given
the relatively small payloads, to get the equipment to the Moon with our
existing rockets? Larger vehicles are currently dependent on the NASA pro-
gram for a successful VSE and that is at its earliest, around 2017-2020, if noth-
ing happens to the program. Further, if the robotic mining equipment were
on the surface of the Moon, how would it be maintained, repaired, or even
replaced given today’s limitations on transportation to the Moon, technol-
ogy, engineering, and manufacturing?
Mining on the Moon must also be looked at to see if it is reasonable in
terms of technology, engineering, and mining capability. Reasonable, that is,
in terms of promoting the business today as if it is doable, not something that
might be doable in a decade or more. According to Dr. John Lewis, “recov-
ering a single tonne of Helium-3 requires perfect extraction and recovery
of all the gas from 100 million tonnes of regolith, a seemingly implausible
amount.”2 Again, the issue here is really one of timing and present-day capa-
bilities if one is to be taken seriously in the lunar business promotion. Mining
He-3 may, in fact, prove economically attractive and fusion may become a
reality, so this potential process cannot and should not be discarded. But it is
not ready for prime time just yet.
Human Factors
For there to be a successful lunar business involving humans, the situation
becomes far more complex than robotic missions. Not only is the transpor-
tation problem a major obstacle to returning to the Moon anytime soon,
humans are faced with a host of human factors issues that must be mitigated
if we are to settle on the Moon for longer than a short visit and to do any-
thing useful while there. The human factors issues briefly mentioned in this
section include microgravity, radiation, medical issues, and the toxicity of
lunar dust.
Microgravity
According to human factors medical experts and astronaut flight surgeons,
no one knows the minimum amount of gravity needed for healthy human
life.3 The Moon has one-sixth the gravity of Earth and we simply do not
know how this low level of gravity will affect humans over the long run.
Researchers know that there are serious medical consequences from low
gravity including bone loss. Physical exercise and weight-bearing activities
in space help to mitigate the problem, but astronauts suffer from not living in
the Earth gravitational force. In the future, we may find out that lunar grav-
ity is insufficient for humans to live and work on the Moon while remaining
healthy. In any event, this is an issue which needs further research. While
we will likely find ways to effectively counter the negative effects of low or
zero gravity, we do not know the costs of countermeasures, the timing for
their development, or the possible ways such measures may influence other
human factor space issues.
Radiation
Simply stated, there is no safe level of ionized radiation and, without an
atmosphere to shield the lunar settler/worker, the radiation exposure on the
Moon is going to be significant and dangerous. While lunar settlers might live
underground or in some sort of shielded structure, working on the surface
of the Moon will expose the astronaut to significant radiation. At this time,
there is no effective shielding that is cost effective and not mass heavy.
Medical Issues
While the Moon is only a few days from Earth, there is no 911 to call for a
medical emergency. Lunar workers will need to be self-sufficient for their
medical care, but our ability to use medicine as we know it on Earth is quite
limited in space and certainly untested on the Moon. Many pharmaceuticals
do not work as well in space and have a shorter shelf life. Surgery is untested
and would certainly be a challenge. How reasonable is it to think that we
can put humans on the Moon to work in a business, to be miners, or to do
something else without appropriate emergency medical care?
Lunar Dust
From what we know from the Apollo missions, lunar dust is quite toxic in
addition to being a serious problem for spacesuit and equipment mainte-
nance. NASA is looking at ways of containing lunar dust outside a lunar
habitat, but even if that can be done effectively, we still have the issue of how
the dust impacts the equipment and its reliability. There is no doubt that this
issue will have a resolution over time, but if we are talking about a lunar
business today, one can only raise this issue as an additional red flag to the
many that have already been discussed.
Ethical Issues
Applying ethics to a space-based business takes us into a new and untested
area because space-based businesses do not yet exist. For purposes of this
paper, the definition of a space-based business is one that is operated inde-
pendently of the Earth, although it will clearly be in communication with
Earth command and control centers. One can apply terrestrial ethics to a
space-based business, but it is unclear how appropriate the ethics can or will
be. One area that is open to ethical consideration is the conduct of the busi-
nessmen and women working and promoting the space businesses. Using
our lunar business example, consider the ethics of promoting the lunar busi-
ness as reality or even doable now or in a few years. This ethical discussion
has to be considered as there are consequences for such promotions.
As mentioned earlier, promoting the lunar business as if it can be con-
ducted in a short time raises all sorts of red flags with investors, regulators,
and other space-aware people. Such actions can and do trash credibility, poi-
soning the well or polluting the pond so to speak, making it harder if not
impossible for legitimate space businesses to be funded or even taken seri-
ously. Not only is this a business issue, but it goes right to the heart of the
ethics of those involved in these activities. As the issues of credibility and
polluting the pond are well known within the space community, one has to
question the ethical behavior of those insisting on such promotions.
Ethical Journalism
One can easily argue that news reporting and journalism are not always
ethical regarding terrestrial stories, so why expect it to be different with
space stories and news? The big difference is the vulnerability of the devel-
oping space industry and the formidable challenges regarding funding,
a regulatory environment, safety, and public support. A space journal-
ist writing for a space publication or an online service will often report
on a company or individuals as if their work and their plans are serious,
just a step away from completion, and on track to be highly successful.
Sometimes these stories are even used by the businessmen and women to
help raise capital from space-interested investors. The problem is that the
journalist knows better and perhaps even knows that the company or the
people that he or she is writing about are not credible. There are many jour-
nalists who frequently do this sort of reporting because if they do a truth
or hit piece, they won’t get invited back for another interview. Further, the
word will spread with other companies to avoid this or that journalist. So
they usually write a positive story or give a company a positive spin even if
the facts don’t warrant such a story. Is this ethical? Probably not, and it is a
problem for the industry because such articles do attract capital to various
ventures. When the ventures eventually tank, not only have investors lost
their investment, but also the developing industry gets another black eye
and the professional capital markets are even more convinced that space
is too hard for private companies and is only going to unfold under the
control of NASA.
Ethical journalism is an issue in the space community. Writing about lunar
businesses as if they are real today, just around the corner, and operating off
a first-rate business plan has unfortunate consequences as they contribute to
poisoning the well for financing. Is there a solution? There is, but since jour-
nalists do not want to damage their future opportunities to get stories and
pursue their careers, expecting a change toward maintaining strict integrity
and adopting ethics in the process seems slim. I believe it would be as unreal-
istic to expect significant journalistic improvements as it would be to expect
major improvements in self-policing this developing futuristic industry.
To be fair to journalists, they often say that it is not easy to know if a busi-
ness or plan is flawed and will have the impact suggested. Often, they state
that they are not businessmen and women, they are simply journalists and
it is not really their job to critique the business and its promotional aspects.
Their job is to get the story out to the public. Having talked to so many people
as a result of The Space Show and learning the degree to which people look
to media and journalism of all kinds for accuracy, the side effect of this type
of reporting can be damaging to more than just the business. Journalists
should engage in at least a minimum of due diligence before undertaking
the interview or the story. While it might be too much to hope for that the
journalist would write a realistic article that was factual even if negative,
were ethics on the reporter’s mind, we would see a huge improvement in
reportage. This improvement would minimize many of the detrimental con-
sequences and unfulfilled expectations of many people who buy into what
is written without their own due diligence or questioning.
It is also important to note that ethics for lunar and space development
champion reality over perception, deflects opposition, enables those taking
an ethical approach to their business and conduct to take and remain on the
high road, and drives critical thinking and planning. In addition, it fosters a
high level of due diligence with redundancy. While many may think an ethi-
cal approach to the business may prove more costly, the opposite is true in
that it greatly facilitates and shortens the time in the decision-making process,
lowers costs over time, and it enables a larger percentage of company funds
to go to needed operations rather than fighting battles or putting out fires.
Ethics in business, and this is true with the lunar and space business, helps to
attract and retain quality employees. This is an extremely important issue for
any business, especially one operating in the cislunar environment.
Additional Ethical Issues

Not only are there business ethics that need to be considered in promoting a
lunar enterprise, there are some important, large-scale ethical issues that also
must be considered for lunar and space business development. The fact that
these issues remain in somewhat of a state of limbo does not help the promoter
or business considering lunar and space commerce now or in the near future.
Space and lunar property rights are huge issues for space development and
are also significant ethical issues. Do we have property rights like we have
in the United States or in other western countries? What about those nations
that do not have a space program and cannot go to the Moon or anywhere
else in space? Do they get omitted from the equation?
This brings us to the very controversial issue of benefit sharing. U.N. trea-
ties call for benefit sharing, but businesses that can and are planning to
operate in space do not consider sharing their revenues with other nations,
especially since they incur all the risks and the costs. This is a significant
ethical issue which is often under discussion within the space community
and with space policy leaders in the United States, the United Nations, and in
other countries. It is doubtful that this issue will be resolved until a company
actually gets to the Moon or a celestial body and starts doing something
commercial, even making a profit. Such an act is likely to be a catalyst to legal
or regulatory activity leading to a resolution of this issue. How ethical the
resolution will be is an unknown item. Since this is a risk factor for a lunar
business, it is recommended that benefit sharing become a cost disclosure
item since it has the potential to be a cost burden for any lunar business.
There are also ethical concerns about strip mining on the surface of the
Moon by many people. Even the launching of rockets has ethical overtones
because rockets damage the ozone layer on a short-term basis and they dis-
charge pollutants in the atmosphere that might adversely impact climate
management. At the present time, there are so few rocket launches on a
global basis that this is not very significant. However, if the thousands of
launches a year envisioned by the space community are ever realized, this
might very well become an important issue with potential to alter or damage
Earth’s atmosphere. Finally, since space development is international, involv-
ing numerous countries with a variety of cultures and ethical considerations,
whose ethics will be applied to space development? Will space ethics rep-
resent our ethical standards in the United States? What about ESA, Russia,
China, India, Israel, Iran, or countries in South America? As we continue our
drive towards becoming spacefaring, we have the potential to complicate our
ethical concerns ranging from lunar and space businesses, to space activities
conducted from Earth and across many countries and cultures.
Promoting A Lunar Business

Lunar businesses will continue to be promoted as if they are realistic, ready
to go, and totally plausible. Understanding this suggests that there should
be some guidelines for how such a lunar business should be discussed and
promoted to avoid the problems that have been discussed. The suggestions
offered below reflect the ethical high road for the businessmen and women
involved in these futuristic businesses. The suggested disclosures, if fol-
lowed, will minimize the issues detracting from credibility reflecting on the
industry and other business promoters engaged in more realistic ventures
with interested financial partners.
First, entrepreneurs must use full, reality-based disclosure for key ele-
ments of the lunar business. Businessmen must disclose the transporta-
tion problem: there is no way to get to the Moon at this time, there is an
absence of operating hardware to make the lunar trip, and that there is no
reasonable projection of lunar transportation costs. Thus, all projections
reflecting business costs and possible returns on investments are to be con-
sidered as highly speculative and likely inaccurate even though they reflect
management’s best ability to estimate such costs. This disclosure must be
comprehensive and written in a way that is easy and clear to understand,

not in legalese or in manner that might obscure the actual facts being
disclosed.
Another disclosure regarding markets for the goods and services for the
lunar business would be necessary. The disclosure should state that there is no
factual way to assess the market for the goods and services produced on or ini-
tiated on the Moon. Thus any projected ROI must be considered highly specu-
lative despite management’s best ability to gauge the potential market. The
same type of disclosure needs to be made for most of the entries that will be
found on pro forma representing possible financial outcomes for the business.
Given that the regulatory environment for lunar businesses is currently
in flux, a disclosure needs to be inserted in the plan and in the promotional
efforts stating that uncertainties exist in the regulatory environment and that
the business could be adversely impacted by regulations from the United
States, the United Nations, or even other nations.
Another disclosure needs to be made regarding maintenance and repair of
equipment once the equipment is gotten to the Moon. As mentioned earlier,
lunar dust is a problem. How does one cost out lunar dust repair and main-
tenance issues? Do they omit the disclosure? Or do they deny it is a problem
or possibly shift the problem forward to be the responsibility of a business or
management team off into the future? Lunar business plans do not usually
address this issue.
If one is planning to conduct a business where the needed support technol-
ogy is not in existence, such as fusion needed for He-3 usage, this requires
full disclosure of the facts, such as Helium-3 fusion is not yet available and
there is no estimate of when fusion will be commercially available, if ever.
The lack of property rights must be disclosed as well as the fact that U.N.
treaties call for benefit sharing. While the United States is not a signatory to
the U.N. Moon Treaty calling for benefit sharing, it is a signatory to a major
U.N. treaty, the Outer Space Treaty, which also calls for benefit sharing. The
potential exists for benefit sharing to adversely impact the revenue stream of
a lunar or any space business and investors and interested parties need to be
informed of this fact.
In addition to the disclosures mentioned above, the lunar business must be
projected as a potential future business with some sort of reasonable timeline
supported by actual data on how long it might take to reach needed busi-
ness development milestones. For example, what is the milestone for when
lunar transportation might be available and will it be government-supported
transportation or affordable private lunar transportation? One could produce
reasonable estimated timelines given what NASA is experiencing in work-
ing toward accomplishing the VSE, then extrapolating to a private sector
timeline based on past experience with private-sector development versus
public-sector development. This would be a speculative estimate, so obvi-
ously the assumptions underlying the results would need to be included and
would also require disclosures.
When presenting these lunar business ventures at conferences or public

proceedings, they must be presented as futuristic followed by an explana-
tion of why they are being promoted today, why funding is currently being
sought, and why an investor should consider such a futuristic investment.
If this approach to discussing and promoting the lunar business today were
carried out, there would be far fewer issues to be critical of. So far, we have
not seen this happen, and thus space advocates must continue to address this
issue at conferences or when a guest on The Space Show presents a business
plan that is neither viable nor plausible now or in the near term, but might be
doable on a longer-term basis.
La La Land vs. Reality

One of the most persistent problems in discussing the subject of lunar devel-
opment and lunar commerce centers on what is reality today, what is plau-
sible for the future, and what people perceive, believe in, or wish to be real,
thus it must be real. While one may find it hard to understand the wish list or
a “true believer” approach to space as being real, in many ways and arenas,
it is the predominant approach.
One example common in this approach is the claim that present day
businesses can mine He-3 on the Moon and return it to Earth. The real-
ity is that, at the present, there is no commercial way to get to the Moon
let alone a reliable and routine way of getting to the Moon, forgetting for
the moment if it is economical to do so. There is no way to mine He-3 on
the Moon. There is no equipment to do it; there is no way to maintain the
equipment which would be operating in a very harsh environment, and
there is no way to return the product to Earth. Even if all of the above were
resolved, He-3 requires fusion energy and despite billions of dollars hav-
ing been spent on fusion energy research, we do not have fusion and we are
not even close to achieving engineering break even let alone commercial
break even. That said, the He-3 venture is consistently discussed and put
forth as reality today. This is not reality, and is unlikely to even be plausible
and for anyone to promote it as reality suggests that they live in la la land
rather than the present.
Another example of this, though not related to the Moon, is the Space Solar
Power (SSP) cause. Did you know we already have $100/lb to LEO launch
costs and around $200/lb to GEO, so that launching massive space solar
power satellites can be done so economically? When space solar power sup-
porters are asked to identify the rockets that can do so at this cost, there is
often a gap of dead silence or the declaration that the rockets are being built,
but don’t worry, they are just around the corner. In addition, SSP true believ-
ers ignore the sad status of our electrical grid which cannot sustain new
power inputs, the fact that we have no heavy lift rockets, and that we have
no potential to lift the mass needed to GEO for SSP satellites. Other issues
prevail, such as beaming technology and the efficiency of the beam, political
resistance to beaming energy through the atmosphere, the fact that the satel-
lites for use in beaming power to Earth do not yet exist, and more. The point
is, SSP is not reality based today but like lunar activities, it is seen as reality
by large numbers of promoters and advocates for the cause.
Countless other examples of this exist, but as suggested earlier in this
paper, one might wonder: what does it matter? Such advocates and pro-
moters are not really hurting anything, are they? However, they are hurt-
ing legitimate efforts to develop lunar commercial efforts and more. Such
unrealistic ideas, ventures, and efforts are seen exactly as that by those who
know the industry, financial people doing due diligence into an investment
or business opportunity, and policy makers who understand what is reality
today, plausible tomorrow, and fantasy. The purveyors of fantasy as reality
cause serious players to be taken less than seriously and this has the poten-
tial to interfere with the legitimate emerging entrepreneurial and commer-
cial space industry.
Many have asked why people subscribe to fantasy as if it’s real. Many
guests and listeners have suggested answers, mostly thinking that space
enthusiasts have a sense of entitlement about them regarding space and
space expectations because of the role science fiction film and literature has
played in our culture. Furthermore, many who grew up in the Apollo years
expected we would be on Mars by now, we would be routinely visiting lunar
settlements, and that we would be truly space faring. People thought this to
be a sacred promise of the space program, NASA, the government, or even
Robert Heinlein, Sir Arthur Clarke, and others. Over the years, confusing
what should have been for what is, wishing for what should have been, and
having all this reaffirmed culturally through the space enthusiasts commu-
nity, space advocate organizations, and like minded advocates promoting a
cause, we instead get a blurring between fantasy and reality.
Many say that the fantasy is the dream and everything stems from a dream.
But a fantasy is not a dream. A dream has a chance to become real depend-
ing on the success of those pursuing the dream. A fantasy can never be real
and, in fact, endlessly loops over and over again as a fantasy. In 2006, I wrote
a piece for the Space Cynics blog comparing a fantasy and a dream. This
article can be read at: http://spacecynic.wordpress.com/2006/05/23/dreams-
fantasy-and-kool-aid-exploring-the-meani/. There must be no mistaking a
fantasy for a dream. Yes, dreamers can turn their dreams into a rocket, a
space venture, someday even a lunar or Martian settlement or mining opera-
tion. A fantasy will always loop around as a fantasy. It is tragic when a per-
son is trapped by their fantasy and does not see that, but this happens all too
often. All too often, a person steps up to the plate only to claim the status of
a true believer, a wish list thinker, or a person who confuses reality with la
la land.
In terms of building infrastructure and a successful commercial environ-

ment for engaging in lunar commerce for the future, we must be grounded
in reality and we must claim reality as our place of residence. It behooves us
all to be grounded in reality, to know and understand sufficient engineer-
ing, physics, business, financing, marketing, and human factors to be able to
discern reality from Dusty Springfield’s 1964 hit, “Wishin’ and Hopin’.”
Conclusion
Space business venture discussions, business plans, and promotions will
become more common as interest grows in space development from both the
public and the private sectors. If the assumption is made that the VSE will be
successful and will actually look like what we think it will look like today,
assuming no congressional or future administration changes to the plan, there
will be an increasing interest in lunar commerce. To avoid discrediting the
developing industry, damaging its potential in financial markets and investor
communities, and increasing the chances of less than favorable regulation, we
need to make sure that, when these businesses are discussed, promoted, and
business plans circulated, not only are they ethical in their disclosures, but they
are based on reality in order to demonstrate management competence. The
industry is now in its infant stage of development and it is highly vulnerable to
being considered to be lacking credibility. This would turn investors and Wall
Street away, and would cause alarm or fear resulting in an overly aggressive
regulatory regime. This downside can be avoided by following the suggestions
outlined in this paper and by being grounded in reality, not fantasy.
References
1. Cislunar space refers to the volume of space within the moon’s orbit or a sphere
formed by rotating that orbit. Cislunar is Latin for “on this side of the moon.”
2. John S. Lewis, “A Proposed International Legal Regime for the Era of Private
Commercial Utilization of Space,” The George Washington University Law Review
37 (2005): 748.
3. Jim Logan, The Space Show, http://archived.thespaceshow.com/shows/783-
BWB-2007-07-03.mp3; 7-7-07.
Section V
Planning and Analogues

25
Lunar Base Living: Beyond
the Pioneering Stage
James D. Burke
The Planetary Society
Sierra Madre California
James D. Burke is an alumnus of Webb Institute and Caltech and a former

U.S. naval aviator, employed at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory from 1949 to
his retirement in 2001. In retirement he is active in The Planetary Society
and the International Space University, where he has been a faculty member
in each ISU summer session since 1989. Burke’s main professional interest is
in the exploration and settlement of the Moon. He is a Fellow of the British
Interplanetary Society and a member of the American Geophysical Union
and the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Married since
1950 to his wife, Caroline, with five children and three grandchildren, he is
a current pilot, lifelong yachtsman, and determined advocate of educating
young people toward enjoying learning and achievement.
Introduction
This chapter addresses some lunar subjects mostly unexamined outside
the realm of science fiction. If the large investments now proposed, lead-
ing to permanent human residence on the Moon, do actually occur, it
will be logical to consider how best to exploit the results. At present a
stated goal is to prepare for human missions to Mars. But once the Moon
has served as a stepping stone, what then? Will established lunar base
facilities and operations simply waste away like the detritus of an ended
war, or will other uses be found for them in a longer-term scenario? If so,
how will those other uses be paid for and with what ultimate intentions?
Here we approach these questions from the standpoint of the discipline
of Futures Studies, a method that considers alternate possibilities without
prediction, but with intent to highlight preferred futures that could be
advocated and realized.
321
Initial Assumptions
To enable a specific discussion we make the following assumptions at the
outset:
(a) An international lunar program with sustained human presence at

a south pole base will become reality.
(b) Over time, increasing dependence on local natural resources will
greatly reduce the essential logistics flow from Earth.
(c) Technical and managerial advances will lead to vastly improved
performance of all systems, including Earth-Moon-Earth transport,
in terms of cost, safety and ability to evolve into more advanced
versions.
(d) Information systems will evolve to provide essentially unlimited
data flow, at a cost trivial in comparison to that of transporting
physical objects, between Earth and Moon as well as from point to
point on the Moon. Navigation, selenodesy and timing on the lunar
surface and in cislunar space will be as accurate and convenient as
the analogous functions are now on Earth with GPS.
Terrestrial Settings
With these assumptions we are now ready to consider what might be going on
here on Earth that would provide an environment for the long-term success of
lunar settlements. Clearly none of the above happy outcomes is possible without
some improvement relative to present-day economic and political conditions
here. NASA’s lunar program, with its Constellation transport system and asso-
ciated proposed facilities on Earth and Moon, will continue to be starved for
funding and public support unless there is some policy breakthrough result-
ing in a justified and broadly agreed shift of national priorities. No other nation
or group of nations has committed to a real program for sustained human
presence on the Moon. So long as lunar settlement remains merely a distant
hypothetical goal, lunar programs will limp along at their present pace.
This does not mean that there can be no progress. Over time, in many
parts of the world, capabilities are being built, both technical and mana-
gerial, that could be exploited in a real lunar settlement program if the
political environment were to become supportive. What might cause this
change to occur? The central need is for a peaceful and abundant soci-
ety, the kind that has existed from time to time in at least some parts of
human civilization.
Lunar Base Living: Beyond the Pioneering Stage 323
Today, doom appears inevitable as the world economy encounters resource

exhaustion, wars, hunger, fear and despair. But long-term solutions exist, and
already some movement toward applying them can be observed.
Of course there is always the possibility of a collapse due to any of several
quick or slow catastrophes–an asteroid impact, a rapid global climate shift,
or simply a failure of people and their governments to act before a descent
becomes irreversible (Ref. 1). In such an instance there would be no point
in imagining a large, near-term lunar settlement program. In any event we
should by then have implanted an archive in the Moon (Ref. 2) to aid imme-
diate recovery and to assist in civilization’s long climb back.
Let us then examine only those scenarios that include success in present
lunar programs, followed by the appearance of practical questions about
what to do next on the Moon.
Program Options
With an established infrastructure near the lunar south pole, and with the
main exploratory goal having moved on to Mars, what are the realistic pos-
sibilities beyond that period? One choice would be simply to abandon the
Moon base, perhaps leaving behind some automated scientific equipment
as was done with Apollo’s ALSEP instruments. A more ambitious program
could include continued occupation of the base, primarily for further devel-
opment of techniques for the extraction and use of lunar resources such as
helium-3. In this option the lunar effort would be directly competing with
the Mars program, so probably the only way to sustain it would be to have it
in the hands of national or non-governmental agencies not mainly commit-
ted to Mars. Some people think tourism could contribute to this solution, but
at the moment the only serious lunar tourism initiative is for circumlunar
flights (Ref. 3).
Beyond just continuing occupation of an existing base lies the territory we
wish to examine here; namely, an endlessly expanding human lunar pres-
ence leading onward toward a two-planet civilization.
A Preferred Future
With the assumptions listed earlier, plus terrestrial progress toward an equi-
table and sustainable world society, it can readily be imagined that human
life on the Moon, while severely constrained by the lunar radiation environ-
ment and lack of atmosphere, may still evolve into forms containing all of
the good features of life on Earth, plus new features enabled, for example,
by the low gravity of the Moon. In serious science fiction lunar versions of all
of the fine and lively arts are to be found; human-powered flight is easy; new
kinds of sports and diversions exist; the possibilities are limitless. All this is
interesting, but the more important prospect is truly unpredictable; namely,
a development of new human ideas, means of government, biological tech-
nologies, perhaps even philosophy and religion, among a population in con-
tinuous information contact with, but physically removed from, Earth.
Underground cities have existed in Anatolia (Refs. 4 and 5), but they are
an imperfect analog because their inhabitants’ habits and arts apparently did
not diverge from the existing above-ground culture. In the Moon, particularly
as settlements become large and diversified as to cultural norms, terrestrial
history suggests that we may expect truly new social developments–perhaps
the most important long-term consequence of human settlement of the Moon.
References
1. Diamond, Jared M. (2005), Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed.
Viking Press.
2. Students of ISU (2007 summer session, Beijing) Phoenix Team Project Report.
Available at www.isunet.edu
3. www.spaceadventures.com: Lunar Mission
4. www.tourismturkey.org: Central Anatolia
5. www.hitit.co.uk/tosee/cappy/ucities.html
26
Assessment of Lunar Exploration Objectives
Marc M. Cohen
Human System Integration Lead for Space Systems
Northrop Grumman Integrated Systems
El Segundo, California
Marc M. Cohen, ArchD, is a space architect who took early retirement from
NASA–Ames Research Center in 2005 where he served in the Space Human
Factors Office, the Advanced Space Technologies Office, and the Advanced
Space Projects Branch. He currently serves as the Human Systems Integration
Lead for Space Systems in the Advanced Programs and Technologies
Division, Aerospace Systems Sector of the Northrop Grumman Corporation.
Marc’s current projects are the Altair Lunar Lander and Lunar Surface
Systems. Marc has collected an AB in Architecture and Urban Planning from
Princeton, an M.Arch from Columbia, and an Arch.D from Michigan. He
is a licensed architect. He was a founder of the AIAA Space Architecture
Technical Committee, http://www.spacearchitect.org.
Abstract In 2006, NASA compiled a large collection of over one hun-

dred candidate Lunar Exploration Objectives from across the aerospace
community. NASA organized these candidate objectives into 18 “families”
of related activities. NASA then asked the aerospace industry—through the
Aerospace Enterprise Council—to help assess these objectives. On August 29
and 30, the Enterprise Council held a workshop at which industry repre-
sentatives evaluated the objectives. The workshop produced half dozen sets
of numerical ratings and text summaries covering 61 objectives that scored
above zero; covering about 1/3 of the total furnished by NASA.
This paper describes and assesses the products of the workshop. The
Workshop generated two types of metrics: prioritized rankings of the objec-
tives and time phasing of the objectives. This paper applies a simple model
to combine the disparate prioritization and time phasing results into a single
ranking scale.
This analysis yielded several important findings. It found a natural group-
ing of the 61 objectives into five overarching objectives (OAOs): Engineering,
Engineering Operations/Crew Activity Support, Habitation, Operations, and
Science Operations. The data analysis identifies the percentage of variance
from the Mars factor and the lunar time phasing for each of the OAOs.
325
The assessment presents observations and findings about the results from
the Workshop that provides insight into the properties and interactions of
the exploration objectives.
Introduction
On August 29–30, 2006, the Space Enterprise Council of the U.S. Chamber
of Commerce in Washington, DC hosted a workshop to which they invited
the aerospace industry to evaluate NASA’s candidate lunar objective. These
objectives originated in April of that year with the Exploration of the Moon
and Beyond RFI that produced 800 responses and the International Lunar
Exploration Workshop and other sources that produced 400 responses. From
these 1200 responses, the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate at NASA
HQ distilled 180 candidate lunar exploration objectives that they provided
to the Space Enterprise Council. By reducing duplication and clarifying
themes, the Space Enterprise Council team consolidated these candidates
to 150 objectives that the workshop participants considered, rating and pri-
oritizing them on a variety of criteria that they conceived and applied at the
workshop. The outputs from the workshop consisted of “Prepare for Mars”
priority votes and lunar time phase estimates for 104 objectives arranged
in 18 families of related objectives ranging in size from one to 14 topics.
Appendix A reproduces the transmittal letter from the Space Enterprise
Council to NASA.
The analysis that this paper describes determined that of these 104 candidate
objectives, some 87 were sufficiently well characterized to allow assessment
to a consistent and hopefully rigorous evaluation standard. Table 26.1 pres-
ents a descriptive overview of these 87 objectives that comprise 18 scientific
and technical families.
In addition to the quantitative point system of rating, the Workshop also
produced a set of qualitative assessments that provided background and
depth to their effort. These qualitative outputs included descriptive sum-
maries of their results on six topics: Commercial Space, Global Partnerships,
Lunar Habitation, Prepare for Mars, Public Engagement, and Science. It soon
became evident that the documentation provided for Commercial Space,
Global Partnerships, and Public Engagement did not really address putting
payloads on the moon, so the analysis focused on the other three topics.
Purposes of This Assessment:

Create a set of metrics to interpret and measure these Data.
Develop a method of analyzing, comparing, and evaluating these sur-
vey data on a systematic and objective basis.
Assessment of Lunar Exploration Objectives 327
TABLE 26.1
Summary of Lunar Exploration Objectives by Family Group
Family of Scientific No. Family Mars. Overarching
and Technical Objectives Factor Avg. Objective
Prefix Objectives in Family Score (OAO)
mA Astronomy 7 1.00 Science
mCAS Crew Activity 5 14.45 Operations
Support
mCOM Communications 3 10.13 Operations
mEHM Environmental 5 9.95 Engineering
Hazard Mitigation
mENVCH Environmental 11 1.44 Science
Characterization
mENVMON Environmental 2 1.21 Operations
Monitoring
mGEO Geology 14 2.57 Science
mGINF Global 2 1.21 Operations
Infrastructure
mHEO Heliophysics 3 1.33 Science
mHH Human Health 5 15.54 Habitation
mLRU Lunar Resource 9 2.91 Engineering
Utilization
mLSH Life Support & 4 15.71 Habitation
Habitation
mMAT Materials 2 1.00 Engineering
mNAV Navigation 1 12.45 Operations
mOPS Operations 6 15.50 Operations
mPWR Power 3 6.40 Engineering
mSM Surface Mobility 2 13.21 Operations
mTRANS Transportation 3 9.78 Operations
TOTAL 18 Families 87 Avg. = 7.54
Develop a set of constructs to allow comparison of the lunar objectives

across the variables of team size and representation, groupings of
objectives into families, and families into “overarching objectives, ”
and the family size of the objectives,
Make findings about the most important parameters of the Workshop
results.
Identify the sources of variance in the data.
Understand how the lunar time phasing will change with the shift
from “Sortie-first” to “Outpost-first” exploration strategy.
Understand the relationship between the initial emphasis on “Prepare
for Mars” versus the more pragmatic imperative—and outcome—of
“Prepare for the Moon.”
Approach and Overview of Method

This assessment followed this approach:
Synthesize and plot the raw data by “Prepare for Mars” priority. Assess
the raw data for the lunar time phasing and organize it in a useful
way.
Combine the lunar time phasing and Mars priority into a single Mars/
Lunar value for each objective.
Recognizing that the 18 families were too many to manage for this
evaluation, combine them into five Overarching Objectives (OAOs):
Engineering, Engineering Operations (Crew Activity Support),
Habitation, Operations, and Science Operations.
Translate the Mars/Lunar values to the OAO rubric, which indicated
that the scores tended to be skewed by family size and by voting
block effects.
To compensate for these effects, the last step was to adjust the OAOs
to the same mean on the Mars/Lunar value scale, which enables a
direct comparison of their point-spreads.
Scope
The scope of this evaluation depends almost entirely upon the results from
the Industry Workshop. APPENDIX B shows the summary table of the objec-
tives passed and rated non-de minimus by the Workshop with short tech-
nical descriptions. Given that output data, the challenge was to develop a
method that first could produce a useful synthesis, and then analyze what it
means. Figure 26.1 shows the scope of this assessment within the larger out-
put from the Workshop. The goal of impartial evaluation required the team
to act as an honest broker and to avoid imposing any of his or her biases or
preferences on the assessment process or outcome. Only after completion of
the analysis, does the team discuss the specific objectives, offer observations
on the implications of the ratings, and state conclusions.
The “raw data” takes the form of ratings of the priority to “Prepare for
Mars” exploration on three prioritization scales and on the time phasing of
each objectives for lunar exploration. The lunar time phasing derived from an
assessment of when NASA would need to initiate or achieve the objective, the
technology readiness level, and the degree of technical difficulty to achieve
it. Please note that the Workshop did not include a comparable “Prepare for
the Moon” criterion. The lunar time phasing serves this purpose. The general
criteria that the Workshop used to evaluate each objective were:
Taxonomy of Overarching Objectives (OAOs)

Space
Exploration
Included in Safety Cost Excluded from

Assessment Imperative Constraint Assessment
Engineering Habitation Operations Science

OAO OAO OAO OAO Management
Engineering- Life Support, Science-Ops Program

Communications
Ops OAO & Habitability OAO Execution
Crew Activities Global

Transportation Environmental
Human Health
Support & Performance Monitoring Partnerships
Environmental Mobility Geological & Public

Hazard Mitigation Systems Sample Handling Engagements
General Global Environmental

Infrastructure Commerce
Infrastructure Characterization
Navigation Geology Commercial

ISRU
Opportunities
Materials Ops Tests & Astronomy Historic

Verification Preservation
Power
Systems Domain of Assessment Heliophysics
Figure 26.1
Overview of the lunar exploration families of objectives evaluated within the overarching
objectives framework.
Whether objective was:

Enabling to Exploration, [or]
Enabled by Exploration, [or]
Enabling to and Enabled by Exploration (designated “hand-in-hand”)
Science Objectives Anomaly

Science objectives did not score well in the Workshop proceedings. There were
two reasons for this low voting result. First, there were few if any scientists
present who might advocate for science objectives or vote for them. Second,
the evaluation criteria given in the charter to the Workshop participants spoke
only of enabling exploration of being “enabled” by exploration. It did not
address—directly or indirectly—the development of new knowledge, scien-
tific or otherwise. This near-exclusion of science objectives from Workshop
results posed a challenge to the assessment team. The few science-related
objectives that scored above de minimus were largely operational, “enabling,”
in the Workshop’s terminology. The Science Operations OAO serves to recog-
nize the role of science at least as enabling and being enabled by exploration.
Examples of Top Objectives

This section provides examples of the top-rated objectives to provide insight
into what constitutes a lunar exploration objective. These five exemplars are
selected from each of the five sets of overarching objectives (OAOs).
Engineering: mPWR1 Surface Power System

As Sy Liebergot, the Apollo EECOM said during the Apollo 13 crisis,
“Power is everything.” At present, the technology of electrical power—or
rather the limitations of this technology—drive much of the lunar explora-
tion architecture, particularly for lunar outpost missions and other long
duration payloads. The lunar day/night cycle lasts 14 Earth days of sun-
light and 14 Earth days of darkness that effectively limits sortie missions
to a maximum of the 14 Earth days. The only locations on the moon where
it may be possible to avoid this penalty are the poles that offer landing
or base sites that receive close to 28 Earth days of sunlight. However, to
accomplish this near-continuous insolation, the site would be restricted to
the high rim-tops of craters, which are potentially difficult and hazardous
places to land. The NASA RFI “Lunar Lander” in 2006 described a “Go
Anywhere Lunar Lander.” Such a lander would require a “Go Anywhere
Power System.” This requirement will compel NASA to consider finally
developing a space nuclear power reactor to support all the lunar and Mars
exploration requirements.
The promise of automation has always been to “free people to be more cre-
ative and productive,” but often this promise has failed in various blue collar
and white collar applications. However, if we want moon and Mars explora-
tion crews to do better than the Mir and ISS crews that have devoted most
of their efforts to just keeping the station alive, we must push Automation to
where it can become a true partner to the crew. The critical question to answer
for every mission and every implementation is how to allocate tasks the most
effectively and economically between people and machines. Automation and
robotics will play a front line role in making space exploration affordable,
reliable, and safe. This role requires advanced research and development in
human-machine interaction, human factors, cognition, perception, and men-
tal workload. There is a teleoperation objective that rated well but not as
highly as Human-Machine Partnership. We interpret this result to mean that
NASA should resist the temptation to rely upon the crutch of teleoperation
from the Earth to the moon because it appears easier or less expensive. This
is a classic case when—as President Kennedy said—we should choose not
the thing that is easy but the thing that is hard. Human-Machine Partnership
will be harder to achieve but it is the way of the future in space exploration
as it is in many other domains.
This definition of Closed Loop consists of physical/chemical regenerative
or recycling systems and is an absolute requirement for the lunar outpost
missions of six months or more. The ISS life support system is “scarred” to
accommodate a Sabatier reactor to begin closing the water loop, but overall,
the ISS system was not designed to be fully regenerative. Most of these tech-
nologies exist at Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 4 or 5, and the Workshop
score indicates that NASA should proceed to bring them up to flight rating
over the next decade. Once the development phase is complete for physical/
chemical regenerative systems, it will become possible to apply them eco-
nomically to shorter duration vehicles and missions such as a pressurized
rover to explore the lunar surface.
This objective rates very highly because of the severe limitations in EVA
astronauts walking great distances. Unpressurized and pressurized rovers
will prove a vital part of exploration, and have already demonstrated their
value on the Mars Pathfinder Sojourner and the Mars Exploration Rovers
Spirit and Opportunity. Our inference from this maximum is that it will
be highly valuable and cost-effective for robotic precursors to traverse large
areas to perform surveys to identify and examine sites of scientific interest in
advance of crew exploration.
There were actually two objectives to characterize resources, one from
Geology, and one from Lunar Resource Utilization families. In both cases the
description clearly presents an engineering objective, and there was a recom-
mendation to combine the two objectives. In addition, there were objectives
to demonstrate ISRU processes, to utilize resources, to create ISRU products,
and to use native materials for construction. All of these objectives received
substantial scores, although we cannot explain the variance among them.
We did not have any guidelines or criteria for combining objectives, however
closely linked, so we left these objectives as rated.
Methodology
Given the raw data output from the Industry Workshop, the task was to
evaluate the results in an impartial and useful way. In developing this meth-
odology, they confronted several potential difficulties: objectives time-slip,
too many families of objectives, effect of family size, effect of participant vot-
ing blocks, and statistical validity. This story of developing the methodology
tells the essential themes of the evaluation itself.
The methodology and findings of the evaluation are presented together
because the methodology is evidence-based. The findings of one step help
determine the next step in the methodology. This evaluation involved not
just method, but truly the study of method to find the best approaches, test-
ing numerous options for each step to pull together this story in as coherent
a fashion as possible.
Prepare for Mars “Mars.Factor”

The first step was to develop the metric for the Prepare for Mars priority,
the “Mars.Factor.” The Workshop used three scoring systems for the Prepare
for Mars goal. Equation 1 shows metric for this Mars.Factor that appears in
Figure 26.3 and 26.4, based on Pythagoras’ geometric mean. The reason for
using the geometric mean instead of the arithmetic mean (average) is that it
allows the addition of 1 into the summation. That way, if all the other values
total zero, there is still the square root of 1, so it is still possible to use the
Mars.Factor in calculations (not be possible for the root of zero).
EQUATION 1. Mars.Factor = 1 + MarsScore1 + MarsScore 2 + MarsScore3
Figure 26.2 presents the legend for all the exploration objectives as they
appear in Figure 26.3 and 26.4. Figure 26.3 presents the raw data from the
Industry Workshop results. The “Prepare for Mars” raw prioritization
appears on the Y-axis and the raw lunar time phasing appears on the X-axis.
The Y-axis is a logarithmic scale to best display the closely prioritized objec-
tives at the bottom of the scale. Figure 26.2 shows the legend for the charts in
Figures 26.3, 26.4, and 26.5.
Figure 26.2
Legend for the lunar exploration objectives in Figures 26.3, 26.4, and 26.5.
Log Lunar Exploration Time Phase and Prepare for Mars Priorities with Science Objectives
Precursor 2008–2018 2008–2018 2018–2025 2025–2035 2035–2045
100 mPWR1 Power Systems
mOPS9 Crew-Centered
mHH4 Habitat Effect Control
mLSH3 on Health mCOM1 Telecommunications
‘Closed Loop’ mOPS1 Crew Surface Ops
P/C Life Support mHH1 Biological Effects mCAS1 Robotic Construction
mCAS3 Human-Machine mCOM2 Comm Network mLSH1 Safe Habitation
mEHM2 Dust Mitigation mOPS7 Biological
Partnership
mHH5 Environmental Health Contamination
mSM1 Surface Mobility
Traverse mEHM1 Radiation Shielding Control
mGEO8 Characterize mEHM3 Micrometeoroid mOPS10 Repair Equipment
Resources Protection mOPS3 Mars Analog
mTRANS3 In-Space Cryo mHH3 Health Care
Management mCAS4 EVA Robots mSM2 Mobility/
Construction Ops mGEO12 In-Situ Analysis
mNAV GNC
10 mCAS2 Lunar EVA Suit
mCAS5 Teleoperation mEHM5 Exhaust Blast
mLSH8 Fire Protection Protection
mENVMON1 Space
Weather Prediction mOPS11 Work Ops Testing
mLRU5 Excavation mLSH2 Bioregenerative
Prepare for Mars Priority Score

mENVCH1 Thermal Life Support
Assessment of Lunar Exploration Objectives
Environment
mLRU1 Quantify Resources mHEO3 Crustal Magnetic
mENVCH7 Exhaust Cratering Fields mEHM4 Thermal Protection
mENVCH3 Radiation
mGINF5 Rescue & Recovery
Environment mLRU3 Demo ISRU
mGINF6 Global mENVMON2 mGEO11 Curation &
mENVCH4 Micrometeoroid Contamination Control mGEO3-2 Cratering Flux mPWR2 Earth-Beamed
Coordinates Environment Environmental Safety Power
mENVCH2
1
mLRU9 Lunar Products mGEO2 Geology mA7 Exotic Matter mHEO11 Solar
Geotechnical 1 mMAT Effects on Materials 2 mGEO6-2 Regolith
3 4 5 Observatory
6
mENVCH8 Magnetic Field mA2 Interferometry mGEO9 Impacts
Properties
mENVCH5 Dust Environment mGEO5 Cosmic Radiation mA3 Near Infrared Astronomy mTRANS1 Redundant mHEO2 Solar Radio
mGEO1-4 mGEO10 Subsurface Transportation Astronomy
mENVCH6 Topography
Structure of Moon Structure Lunar Time Phase
mGEO1-1 Origin of the Moon mPWR3 In-Space
mENVCH9 mA6 Measure Radiation
mENVCH10 Seismic Activity mENVCH11 Electrical Field Beamed Power
Gravity Field mGEO7-1 Volatiles mGEO1-2 Crust & Mantle
mGEO1-4 Structure of the Moon
mLRU6 Process Resources mLRU8 Construction
mCOM3 Commercial mA10 Survey Science Sites
mMAT2 New Materials with ISRU Materials
Info Services mLRU10 Commercial Prospecting
mA9 NEOs
Figure 26.3
333
Logarithmic plot of the lunar objectives by prepare for Mars priorities (Mars.Factor) and lunar time phasing
Lunar Exploration Time Phase and Prepare for Mars Priorities

with Non-Science Objectives
Precursor 2008–2018 2008–2018 2018–2025 2025–2035
mHH4 Habitat Effect on
Health mHH3 Health Care
16
mLSH3 ‘Closed Loop’ mCAS3 Human-Machine mCOM1
mCAS2 Lunar EVA Suit
P/C Life Support mLRU2 Utilize Resources Telecommunication
mLSH2 Bioregenerative
mSM1 Surface Mobility mOPS10 Repair Life Support mOPS7 Biological
Traverse Equipment Contamination Control
mTRANS2 Auto-Lander mLSH8 Fire Protection mEHM1 Radiation mCAS4 EVA Robots
mTRANS3 In-Space Cryo mCOM2 Comm Network Shielding
Management mCAS5 Teleoperation mCAS1 Robotic
mOPS11 Work Ops Construction
Testing
mNAV GNC
12 mEHM2 Dust Mitigation mEHM3 Micrometeoroid
Protection
mGEO8 Characterize mHH5 Environmental mGEO12
Resources Health mSM2 Mobility/ In-Situ Analysis
Construction Ops
Prepare for Mars Priority Score
mEHM5 Exhaust Blast

Protection
mLRU5 Excavation
mLRU1 Quantify mENVMON2 mEHM4 Thermal
Resources Environmental Safety Protection
mGINF5 Rescue & mGEO11 Curation &
mMAT Effects on Recovery mLRU3 Demo ISRU
Contamination Control
Materials
mLRU9 Lunar Products mTRANS1 Redundant
mENVMON1 Space Transportation mPWR2 Earth-Beamed
Weather Prediction mMAT2 New Materials Power
0
0 mLRU10 Commercial 1 2 mLRU8 Construction 3 mPWR3 In-Space 4
Prospecting with ISRU Materials Beamed Power
mGINF6 Global mLRU6 Process
mCOM3 Commercial
Coordinates Resources
Info Services
Lunar Time Phase
Figure 26.4
Non-log plot of lunar objectives.
Figure 26.5
Mars/lunar value rating of lunar exploration objectives.
A further problem with the crowded lower tier in Figure 26.3 is that the
many low-rated science objectives obscure the non-science objectives. After
removing the science objectives, the engineering, habitation, operations, and
science operations objectives remain. Figure 26.4 attempts to make the plot
more legible by showing the objectives with the de minimus-scoring science
objectives deleted. The Y-axis is an integer scale that allows better resolution
TABLE 26.2
Lunar Exploration Time-Phasing Team’s Analytical Matrix
Lunar Time-Phasing Team’s Time-Phasing Analytical Matrix
“General Assessment Critical Subsystems Development Phase

Criteria” Criteria Criteria
Technical Difficulty, Navigation, Objective implemented,

Provides Significant Science, Communication, Ground test and demos,
Technology, or Economic
Return,
Encourages or Facilitates Control, Launch required (ELV,
Commercial Benefits, CLV/COTS, HLV) [sic],
Applications, or
Opportunities,
Involves the Public in Power, Lunar experiments,
Adventure of Exploration,
and
Emphasizes Education Etc. ISS test and demos,
Opportunities.
Non-human surface
support, and
Human surface support.
among the upper tier of objectives. This chart shows the bimodal distribution
between the almost entirely non-science objectives above and the mainly sci-
ence objectives below.
Lunar Exploration Time Phasing

The Lunar Time-Phasing team in the workshop developed a set of “general
assessments” to consider when the mission timeline and mission architecture
might be best served by accomplishing or implementing the objective. They com-
bined these two perspectives to recommend a time phase for each objective.
Lunar Time Phase Estimation

The next step was to find a way to express the Lunar Time Phase quanti-
tatively to incorporate into this single scale. Table 26.3 displays the values
into which the Lunar Time Phase translated. Taking the mean shows when
the preponderance of the preparation work must occur, so it does not hinge
on when the capability will be delivered and operational on the moon, but
rather it indicates the fiscal years in which to prepare it.
Objectives Time-Slip
This time-slip of objectives is quite common in the spaceflight business, and
it is a sure bet that some lunar exploration objectives will slip to a later phase.
The Workshop did not provide guidance about what happens to an objective
that may slip in time: Does it move to the head of the next column? Does it
slide sideways with the same Mars.Factor priority? Or, does it go to the bot-
tom of the next column? It is possible to make sensible arguments for each of
these dispositions. This dilemma made it obvious that the evaluation needs
a way to put all the objectives across time phases. The next step was to find a
way to compare all the objectives on a single, aggregate scale.
Mars/Lunar Value
In constructing the evaluation formula, the first step was to combine the
three “relevance to Mars” scores for each objective as the geometric mean as
the Mars Factor. The second step was to divide the Mars Factor by the Lunar
Phasing to generate the Mars/Lunar score, showing the combination of Mars
and lunar priorities. EQUATION 2 shows this algorithm given in units of
Mars Priority/lunar exploration years, where the lunar time phase value is
given in Table 26.3 below.
Mars.Factor
EQUATION 2. Mars / Lunar _ Value =
Lunar _ Time _ Phase _ Factor
TABLE 26.3
Lunar Time Phase Equations and Values
Lunar Time Phase
Phase Name Phase Period Equation 2 Factor (Years)
Precursor 2008–2018 = .25 (2018–2007) 3.63

Phase 2 Development 2008–2018 = .75 (2018–2007) 7.37
2025 + 2018
Phase 3 Development 2018–2025 = − 2007 14.5
2
2025 + 2035
2
2035 + 2045
2
Figure 26.5 presents the Mars/Lunar Value plotted against the Excel Rank
function. The value of using the Rank on the x-axis is that a horizontal gap
shows where there are multiple points overlaid on the left side of the gap.
This chart shows the disciplinary families of objectives and the comparative
ratings of each individual objective. However, this chart is much too busy to
draw inferences.
Overarching Objectives
The 18 families of the lunar objectives proved too many to keep track in terms
of all the characteristics and qualities that they entailed, especially when the
differences between these families were often quite subtle. A higher-level
consolidation would be helpful, which is where the “Overarching Objective”
concept arose. Table 26.4 shows assignment of each of the families to one of
five Overarching Objectives (OAOs). Figure 26.1 shows the domain of the five
OAOs within the larger universe of objectives that NASA gave to the Space
Enterprise Council.
Engineering OAO
Engineering is the largest and in some respects the most obvious OAO. It
concerns the development of products – mainly hardware and commodities
for the Exploration Economy. The Engineering technical families include:
Environmental Hazard Mitigation, Lunar Resource Utilization, Materials,
and Power.
Engineering Operations OAO/Crew Activities Support

At first we considered the Crew Activity Support as part of Engineering.
However, as we understood the content better, it became apparent that the
Crew Activities Support objectives were more active and more complex
than the other engineering objectives. Still, they were not purely operational
objectives. Therefore, we established an Engineering Operations as a hybrid
OAO subset.
Habitation OAO
Habitation grows from two families of objectives: Human Health and Life
Support and Habitation. These two families combine to define the require-
ments and solutions for the crews to live and work in a healthy, reliable, and
safe environment on the Moon and Mars.
Operations OAO
Operations concern a wide range of subsystems, systems, and integrated sys-
tems that support the full menu of mission activities, both human and robotic.
TABLE 26.4
Allocation of Lunar Exploration Objectives to Five Overarching Objectives, Using
the Color Coding Applied to the Charts in Later Sections
ENGINEERING
OPERATIONS/
Crew Activity
Objective ID ENGINEERING Objective ID Support Objective ID OPERATIONS
mEHM1 Radiation mCAS1 Robotic mCOM1 Telecomm

Shielding Construction
mEHM2 Dust Mitigation mCAS2 Lunar EVA Suit mCOM2 Comm.
Network
mEHM3 Micrometeoroid mCAS3 Human-Machine mCOM3 Commercial
Protection Info Services
mEHM4 Thermal mCAS4 EVA Robots mGINF5 Rescue,
Protection Recovery
Systems
mEHM5 Exhaust Blast mCAS5 Teleoperation mGINF6 Global
Protection Coordinates
mLRU1 Quantify
Resources HABITATION mNAV1 GNC
mLRU10 Commercial mHH1 Biological Effects mOPS1 Crew Surface
Prospecting Ops
mLRU2 Utilize Resources mHH2 Human mOPS7 Biological
Performance Contamination
mLRU3 Demo ISRU mHH3 Health Care mOPS10 Repair
Equipment
mLRU5 Excavation mHH4 Habitat Effect on mOPS11 Work Ops
Health Testing
mLRU6 Process Resources mHH5 Environmental mOPS3 Mars Analog
Health
mLRU7 Produce mLSH1 Safe Habitation mOPS9` Crew-Centered
Consumables Control
mLRU8 ISRU mLSH2 Bioregenerative mSM1 Surface Mobility
Construction Life Support Traverse
mLRU9 Lunar Products mLSH3 ”Closed Loop” mSM2 Mobility Ops/
Life Support Construction
mMAT1 Effects on mLSH8 Fire Protection mTRANS1 Redundant
Materials Transport
mMAT2 New Materials SCIENCE mTRANS2 Autonomous
OPERATIONS Lander
mPWR1 Surface Power mENVMON1 Space Weather mTRANS3 In Space Cryo
System Prediction Management
mPWR2 Earth Beamed mENVMON2 Environmental
Power Safety
mPWR3 In-Space Beamed mGEO11 Curation &
Power Contamination
Control
mGEO8 Characterize
Resources
mGEO12 In-situ analysis
Science Operations OAO

Just as CAS constitutes a hybrid subset of Engineering, Science Ops emerged
as a subset of the Science objectives as described above. As the smallest
OAO with only three objectives it makes the only direct science contribu-
tion to this evaluation. The Science Ops should be reviewed by the Science
Community.
Observations and Findings

The observations describe the properties of the data that were susceptible to
numerical and statistical inquiry and analysis.
Observation 1: Prioritization vs. Time Phasing as A Source of Variance

The Mars/Lunar value is essentially an interpretive measure of the inter-
action between the Mars.Factor and the Lunar Time Phase. To answer this
question with regard to the Mars/Lunar Value, the OAOs provide the must
useful unit of analysis. Figure 26.6 presents the coefficient of determination
R-Squared Value of Prioritization of Lunar Objectives as a Function

of the Prepare for Mars Factor versus Lunar Time Phasing by OAO
100%
Engineering
OAO
90%
All
80% All Eng’g OAOs
OAOs Ops Science Ops Minus
R-Squared Value Percent
OAO OAO Habitation

70%
Operations
OAO
60%
Habitation
50% OAO
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Over Arching Objectives
Prepare for Mars factor Lunar time-phasing factor
Figure 26.6
Coefficient of determination for prioritization vs. time-phasing
(R-squared value) results for each of the five OAOs. The R-squared value give
the percentage of the variance in Y that is a function of the variance in X,
where X is the Mars.Factor and Y is the Mars/Lunar Value. A complementary
definition is that R2 is the fraction of the total squared error that the model
explains. This approach affords the ability to identify the remainder of the
variance in M/L Value as a function of the Lunar Time Phase.
The R2 value for all the OAOs is 57.3 percent, which means that overall, the
variance in M/L is 57.3 percent a function of the Mars.Factor and 42.7 percent
a function of the lunar time phase. Although these values seem like middle-
of-the road results, the variability among the OAOs is much greater, repre-
senting their differing unique characteristics. For example, the Engineering
OAO correlates most highly with the Mars Factor at R2 = 89 percent, meaning
that about 89 percent of the variance is a function of the Prepare for Mars fac-
tor, suggesting the Engineering Objectives are almost independent of their
time phasing. In contrast, the Habitation OAO correlates the least with the
Mars factor, at R2 = 0 percent, suggesting that 0 percent of its variance is a
function of the Mars factor, meaning that variance in Habitation is purely a
function of the lunar time phasing. This result makes sense insofar as habita-
tion does not come into play until the crew arrives.
Observation 2: Family Size Effect

The larger families tend to score lower than the smaller families, sug-
gesting that there is an effect arising from different family (sample) sizes.
Figure 26.7 portrays this family size effect. The concern stemming from
this effect is that where the initial objective identification process depos-
ited a larger number of objectives into a family, it had the effect of diluting
the vote by the workshop participants. There are three low-scoring fami-
lies among the smaller families, so the effect is not clear-cut. The families
with the mid-range sizes from four to six generally score the highest. As
part of the methodology, we looked at ways to adjust for effects due to
family size.
The size of the families of objectives varied so considerably that a small
family with very high scores would overwhelm a larger family with equal
or lower scores. Therefore, the next step was to devise a means to control for
the family size in a composite score. While this approach resolved the family
size issue to a certain extent, the unexpected result was to display the OAOs
clarified into distinct “voting blocks.”
Observation 3: Voting Block Effect

While a few of the families of objectives have a wide point spread, most of the
families show a pattern of clustering that makes the raw data subject to ques-
tion without some handle on possible discipline-specific biases. For example,
in Figures 26.3 and 26.4, the Habitation-related objectives with the mHH and
Lunar Exploration Objectives Families by Size and Mars.Factor
342
mHH Human Health

16
mLSH Life Support & mOPS Operations
Habitation mCAS Crew Activity Support
mSM Surface Mobility
12 mNAV Navigation
mCOM Communications mEHM Environmental

mTRANS Transportation Hazard Mitigation
8 Systems
mPWR Power Systems
4 mLRU Lunar Resource

mEVNMON Environmental
Monitoring Utilization mGEO Geology
mGINF Global Infrastructure mHEO Heliophysics mA Astronomy
mMAT Materials mENVCH Environmental
Family Average Mars.Factor Score

0
Characterization
R2 = 0.5959
–4
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Number of Lunar Exploration Objectives in Family
mA astronomy mCAS crew activity support mCOM communications

mEHM environmental hazard mitigation mENVCH environmental characterization mEVNMON environmental monitoring
mGEO geology mHEO heliophysics mHH human health
mLRU lunar resource utilization mLSH life support & habitation mNAV navigation
mOPS operations mPWR power systems mSM surface mobility
mTRANS transportation systems mGINF global infrastructure mMAT materials
All families Poly. (All Families)
Figure 26.7
Lunar Settlements
Chart of objectives family size effect

Log Plot of Algorithm for the Voting Block Effect

for all OAOs, Including Science
1000.0
Op
Ob erat
jec ion
tiv s
es
Ha
100.0
Ob bita
jec tion
tiv
es
En
gi
ne
Eng er
Obj ’g Ops in
Score of Objectives
gO
ecti bj
ve s ec
tiv
10.0 es
Sc
i
Ob enc
jec e O
tiv p s
es
1.0 Sc
ien
ce
Ob
j ec
tiv
es
0.1
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Rank of Objectives
Operations objectives Engineering objectives

Habitation objectives Science objectives
Engineering ops objectives Science ops objectives
Figure 26.8
View of voting block effect for the overarching objectives among the workshop participants.
mLSH prefixes all appear near the top of their Lunar Time Phases. However all
the Operations mOPS objectives appear only in the second and third phases.
Nearly all the Environmental concerns with mENVCH, mENVMON, and
mEHM prefixes appear in the bottom tier or at the bottom of the upper tier.
Solution for the Voting-Block Effect: The Mean-Adjusted Mars/Lunar Value

The voting block concern was that several constituencies participated in the
Workshop, each giving their highest rating to their own discipline or product
line. Here it was necessary to find a way to equilibrate the five Overarching
Objectives, setting them to some kind of equal level. The solution was to
adjust the mean for each OAO to be equal to afford a direct comparison of
their point spread. Then, it becomes feasible to compare all the other objec-
tives on the same scale. This result appears in Figure 26.9, showing the mean-
adjusted for the top 57 lunar exploration objectives.
Observation 4: Logical Sequence of ISRU Objectives

Figure 26.9 also includes a manual adjustment to one family of objectives:
Lunar Resource Utilization to present the necessary logical progression.
One aberration in the Workshop results was that the In Situ Resource
Utilization LRU family’s objectives did not describe a logical progression.
Instead, the mLRU2 Utilize Resources has such a high Mars.Factor rating
that it overwhelms the other ISRU objectives that would serve as necessary
predecessors. Figure 26.9 presents the ISRU (LRU) objectives in a logical
sequence of development.
Observation 5: Convergence of Objectives across Families and OAOs

Figure 26.9 shows four convergences of objectives from disparate families.
Nearly all the human mission support objectives first converge in the Sortie
Mission. These objective families include Crew Activity support, Human
Health, Life Support and Habitation, and Operations (mOPS1 Crew Surface
Ops). The second convergence appears in the Outpost Mission concerning
construction: mLRU8 ISRU Construction using native materials, mLRU9
Lunar Products, mCAS1 Robotic Ops/Construction, and mMS2 Mobility
Ops/Construction. The third convergence involves the long-term habitation
that the Outpost would serve in the context of long duration environmental
exposures: mOPS9 Crew-Centered Control, mHH5 Lunar Environmental
Health, mENVMON2 Environmental Safety, and mLSH1 Safe Habitation.
Finally, while only the Outpost Phase can serve as a dress rehearsal for
Mars, a cluster of the relevant objectives occur in that phase: mOPS3 Mars
Analog, mOPS9 Crew-Centered Control, mLRU7 Produce Consumables,
mLRU2 Utilize Resources, mGEO11 Curation and Contamination Control,
and mOPS7 Biological Contamination Control.
Observation 6: Sortie-First Lunar Time Phasing

The analysis of Lunar Time Phasing, combined with prioritization yields
a plot showing the sequence of implementation of the lunar exploration
MEAN-Adjusted Objectives by Mars/Lunar Score and Rank with

Logical Progression for the ISRU (mLUR) Objectives
100.00 mMS1 Surface Mobility
mTRANS3 In-Space Cryo Management
mGEO8 Characterize Resources
mTRANS2 Automated Lander
mLSH3 “Closed Loop” P/C Life Support
Precursor Mission and Early

80.00 mPWR1 Power System Technology Maturation
Mars/Lunar Value of Objectives
mLUR1 Quantify Resources
mEMH1 Radiation Shielding
mEHM2 Dust Mitigation and Control
mOPS1 Crew Surface Ops mCAS3 Human-Machine Partnership

60.00
mCAS2 Lunar EVA Suit mOPS10 Repair Equipment mCAS5 Teleops
mCOM2 Comm Network mEHM3 Micrometeoroid Protection
mOPS11 Work Ops Testing mHH1 Biological Effects
mLRU10 Commercial mNAV GNC
Sortie mEHM5 Exhaust Blast Protection mHH2 Human Performance
Mission & mLRU3 Demo ISRU mHH4 Habitat Effect on Health
Technology mHH3 Health Care
40.00
Maturation mLSH2 Bioregenerative Life Support
mLSH8 Fire Protection mGEO12 In-Situ Analysis

mLUR5 Excavation mOPS3 Mars Analog Outpost Mission
mOPS9 Crew-Centered Control
mLRU6 Process Resources mEHM4 Thermal Protection
mMAT1 Effects on Materials mLRU7 Produce Consumables
20.00 mHH5 Environmental Health mCOM1 Telecommunications
mENVMON1 Space Weather Prediction mLRU9 Lunar Products
mLRU2 Utilize Resources mMAT2 New Materials mLRU7 Produce Consumables
mLRU8 ISRU Construction mPWR2 Earth-Beamed Power mPWR3 InSpace Beamed Power
mCAS4 EVA Robots mOPS7 Biological Contamination Control mENVMON2 Environmental Safety
mCAS1 Robotic Ops/Construction mGEO11 Curation & Contamination Control
mMS2 Mobility/Construction Ops mLSH1 Safe Habitation mGINF6 Global Coordinates
0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Rank of Objectives
mCOM3 Commercial InfoService mGINF5 Rescue & Recovery Systems mTRANS1 Redundant Transport
Operations objectives Science ops objectives Engineering objectives

Habitation objectives Engineering ops objectives
Figure 26.9
Mean-adjusted Mars/Lunar values for lunar exploration objectives indicating the three major
mission phases.
objectives, as shown in Figure 26.10. This chart places the timeline on the ver-
tical axis and the approximate sequence of objectives on the horizontal axis.
It plots three key dates: Start, Implementation, and Deployment on the moon.
One striking feature of this plot is that development of about half of these
objectives must start before NASA releases its big Lunar Lander Request for
Proposals, currently planned for January, 2012.
mOPS7 Bio. Contamination Control

mOPS3 Mars Analog
mLRU10 Commercial Prospecting
Prep Mars Mission mMAT2 New Materials
Lunar objective deployment date
mSM2 Mobility Ops/Construction

mOPS9 Crew-Centered Control
Phase 5
mOPS11 Work Ops Testing
Outpost Mission
mCAS1 Robotic Construction
mLRU2 Utilize Resources
Phase 4
mLRU7 Produce Consumables

mLRU6 Process Resources
mLRU5 Excavation
mEHM3 Micrometeoroid Protection
mEHM4 Thermal Protection
“Sortie-First” Time Phasing of Lunar Exploration Objectives
mHH5 Environmental Health

mENVMON2 Environ Safety
Sortie Mission
mLSH1 Safe Habitation

Phase 3
mEHM5 Exhaust Blast Protection

mCOM1 Telecomm
Objectives by Order of Start Dates

Lunar objective implementation date
mHH4 Habitat Effect on Health

mOPS1 Crew Surface Ops
mNAV GNC
Lunar Lander RFP Lunar Lander RFP
mGINF5 Rescue & Recovery Systems
mCAS4 EVA Robots
mOPS10 Repair Equipment
mLSH8 Fire Protection
mEHM1 Radiation Shielding
mEHM2 Dust Mitigation
mCAS3 Human-Machine Partnership
Phase 2 Prepare
Sortie Mission
mHH3 Health Care

mHH2 Human Performance
mCAS5 Teleoperation
mENVMON1 Space Weather Prediction
mCOM2 Comm Network
Lunar objective start date
mPWR1 Power Systems

mLSH2 Bioregenerative Life Support
mSM1 Surface Mobility Traverse
mCAS2 Lunar EVA Suit
mLRU1 Quantify Resources
mLSH3 “Closed Loop” Life Support
mLRU3a Demonstrate ISRU in Lab
mMAT1 Effects on Materials
Precursor
Phase 1
mHH1 Biological Effects

mTRANS3 In-Space Cryo Mgmt
mTRANS2 Autonomous Lander
mGEO8 Characterize Resources
mGINF6 Global Coordinates
2040
2035
2030
2025
2020
2015
2010
2005
Mission Time in Years
Figure 26.10
“Sortie–First” lunar exploration objective time phasing.
While these results may not prove dispositive for making policy recom-
mendations, they do portray many of the central issues, conflicts, and trade-
offs that NASA must address both in formulating lunar exploration policy
and in implementing it.
This Aerospace Industry evaluation derives from an engineering, opera-
tions, and production perspective. It gives valuable insights into how this
industry view assesses and compares these candidate objectives. In this
respect, we consider four of the top five objectives as being fundamental
for an engineering and production strategy for direct application to lunar
lander and lunar outpost missions: Closed Loop Physical/Chemical Life
Support, Surface Mobility Traverse, Human Machine Partnership, and
Characterize Resources.
Recommendations
Include Science Objectives
The omission of science objectives is a very serious problem that is poten-
tially fatal to any effort to persuade Congress to fund new human lunar
exploration. Therefore, NASA should make an equivalent effort to identify,
include, and support lunar science that humans will conduct and enable on
the moon.
Align the Closely Related Objectives Across Disciplines

The first step to implement recommendation one might be to align science
objectives with corresponding objectives from other families. For Example:
The Objectives contain a parallel track of Environmental Characterization
(Science) and Environmental Hazard Mitigation (Engineering).
Combine Concurrent, Cross-Disciplinary Development Objectives

The analysis shows that there is a strong affinity among closely related and
simultaneous objectives. The Observation of the coefficient of determination
column chart showed that the human health and habitation objectives all
depend upon the timing—the same timing—of when humans arrive on the
moon. Therefore, NASA should combine them into an allied effort. These
objectives include:
• mLSH1 Safe Habitation,

• mENVMON2 Environmental Safety,
• mHH4 Habitat Effect on Health, and
• mHH5 Environmental Health.
TABLE 26.5
Example of the Potential Alignment of Corresponding Environmental Science
and Environmental Engineering Objectives
Science Objectives: Engineering Objectives:
Environmental Characterization Environmental Hazard Mitigation
mENVCH1 Characterize Thermal Environment mEHM4 Thermal Protection

mENVCH3 Characterize Radiation mEHM1 Radiation Protection
Environment
mENVCH4 Characterize Micrometeoroid mEHM3 Micrometeoroid Protection
Environment
mENVCH5 Characterize Dust Environment mEHM2 Dust Protection
Unify Related Technologies That Serve Common Goals

Objectives that share related technologies and applications can integrate
around their common functionalities to achieve diverse goals. For example,
consider all the elements of construction on the lunar surface that may serve
a common set of goals and milestones, despite deriving from several families
of objectives:
• mCAS1 Robotic Construction

• mCAS3 Teleoperation
• mCAS4 EVA Robots
• mLRU5 Excavation
• mLRU8 ISRU Construction
• mSM2 Mobility Ops/Construction
Split Some Objectives in Two or More Parts

Some objectives need to be split into major component parts as separate objec-
tives. For example, Demonstrate ISRU as stated combined both lab and lunar
surface testing. Although there would be a relationship, the lab testing would
come at such a lower TRL level and so many years earlier, that it was neces-
sary to treat it as a separate objective; otherwise the first time the prioritiza-
tion recognizes this objective is when it becomes operational on the moon.
• Split on the basis of time-phasing differences.

• Example: mLRU3a Demo ISRU in Lab versus
• mLRU3b Demo ISRU on Lunar Surface.
• Split on the basis of mission differences.
• Example: mSM1a Surface Mobility Traverse—Unpressurized versus
• mSM1b—Pressurized.
Restructure the ISRU Objectives

The ISRU objective as presented to the Workshop and to the Space Community
at large was broken down into too many smaller objectives that made inter-
pretation of voting impossible. The result of having too many objectives was
that “Utilize Resources” was not only much higher priority than all the other
objectives that would lead incrementally up to it, but it also came out earliest
in the time phasing votes.
Conclusion
The most significant aspect of this assessment is that it reveals that way
people in the aerospace community, predominantly engineers, think about
NASA’s lunar exploration objectives. This assessment shows the deep
structure and complexity of this set of ideas and their interactions. It dem-
onstrates how it is not possible to treat such objectives individually in isola-
tion from the larger universe of exploration activities, tasks, technologies,
and operational capabilities. It shows especially how limiting and even
self-defeating it is to posit exploration objectives absent a core science mis-
sion. What the assessment conveys is that the constituent elements of an
exploration program involve profound linkages within specific families of
objectives, between families, across disciplines, and among the overarch-
ing objectives.
Appendix A: Letter to NASA

Appendix B: Lunar Exploration Objectives
Objective ID and Overarching

Short Title Objective Description Objective
mCAS1 Robotic Develop robots which support the construction EO

Construction and or assembly of human Moon base and
support astronaut’s activities.
mCAS2 Lunar EVA Develop a high performance EVA suit EO
Suit
mCAS3 Human- Human-machine partnership EO
Machine Partnership
mCAS4 EVA Robots Objective: Develop autonomous robotic support EO
for EVA and long-range exploration
mCAS5 Teleoperation Objective: Develop teleoperation capabilities to EO
support human operation of equipment on the
lunar surface. Implement human interaction
systems (telepresence) to support automation
technologies required for lunar operations.
mCOM1 Telecomm Objective: Implement a secure reliable and scalable O
telecommunications capability to support
expanding telecom needs.
mCOM2 Comm Objective: Establish a communications network O
Network that can provide high-bandwidth support for
public engagement
mCOM3 Commercial Objective: Provide commercial information O
Info Services services to the greatest extent possible.
mEHM1 Radiation Objective: Provide radiation shielding for surface E
Shielding operation to protect crews, materials, and
instruments.
mEHM2 Dust Objective: Evaluate and employ dust mitigation E
Mitigation techniques to protect crews, materials and
instruments during extended lunar stays.
mEHM3 Objective: Provide protection from micrometeorite E
Micrometeoroid bombardment during surface operations.
Protection
mEHM4 Thermal Objective: Provide thermal protection from the E
Protection lunar day/night extremes.
mEHM5Exhaust Blast Objective: Provide protection to surface E
Protection infrastructure from rocket exhaust blast ejects.
mENVMON1 Space Objective: Monitor space weather and provide SO
Weather forecasting to determine risks to lunar inhabitants.
mENVMON2 Objective: Monitor real-time environmental SO
Environmental Safety variables affecting safe operations.
mGEO 11 Curation Objective: Curation and contamination control. SO
mGEO12 In-situ Objective: Analyze lunar samples in-situ. SO
analysis
mGEO8 Characterize Objective: Characterize potential resources SO
Resources
(Continued)
(Continued)
mGINF5 Rescue & Objective: Develop lunar rescue systems with the O
Recovery Systems maximum extensibility to Mars. Note: Assuming
this is lunar surface rescue…Not moon to earth
rescue. Need to add recovery element to objective
title.
mGINF6 Global Objective: Establish a globally accepted lunar O
Coordinates reference coordinate system to utilize in
planning and executing lunar missions
(standards).
mHH1 Biological Objective: Study the fundamental biological and H
Effects physiological effects of the integrated lunar
environment on human health and the
fundamental biological processes and subsystems
upon which health depends.
mHH2 Human Objective: Understand the effects of the integrated H
Performance lunar environment, in particular partial gravity,
on human performance and human factors.
mHH3 Health Care Objective: Improve health care on the Moon by H
creating remote medical practice infrastructure
and understanding the effect of the lunar
environment on medical treatments and
procedures.
mHH4 Habitat Effect Objective: Understand the effects of vehicle habitat, H
on Health and EVA suit pressures and oxygen
concentrations on human health so as to design
mitigation strategies for extended stays.
Recommend: Delete and Merge in to mHH1.
mHH5 Environmental Objective: Understand the impact of Lunar H
Health environments on multiple generations of
terrestrial life forms that impact human health.
mLRU1 Quantify Objective: Characterize and quantify the resource E
Resources potential of the Moon.
mLRU10 Commercial Objective: Utilize the commercial sector to perform E
Prospecting resource prospecting and provide mining
materials processing, manufacturing construction
and other services/products based on lunar
resources.
mLRU2 Utilize Objective: Use lunar resources to enable and E
Resources support future exploration missions and
destinations.
mLRU3 Demo ISRU Objective: Demonstrate ISRU technologies and E
systems to reduce risk for mission integration and
commercial development.
mLRU5 Excavation Objective: Perform lunar resource excavation. E
mLRU6 Process Objective: Develop and validate tools, technologies E
Resources and systems to extract and process resources on
the Moon with the extension to other exploration
destinations.

mLRU7 Produce Objective: Produce propellants, life support and E

Consumables other consumables from lunar resources.
mLRU8 ISRU Objective: Construct facilities, manufacture E
Construction hardware, materials, chemicals and other
products on the Moon using lunar resources.
mLRU9 Lunar Objective: Investigate and develop technologies E
Products and systems that effectively utilize lunar
resources and products.
mLSH1 Safe Habitation Objective: Provide safe and enduring habitation H
systems to protect individuals, equipment and
associated infrastructure.
mLSH2 Bioregenerative Objective: Develop biologically based life support H
Life Support system components to support long duration
human exploration missions.
mLSH3 “Closed Loop” Objective: Develop and deploy closed loop H
Life Support physiochemical based life support systems to
increase self sufficiency of future long duration
human exploration missions.
mLSH8 Fire Protection Objective: Develop and implement fire detection H
and suppression strategies for 1/6 G
environment.
mMAT1 Effects on Objective: Study the effects of the lunar E
Materials environment on materials so as to design
mitigation strategies for extended stays.
mMAT2 New Materials Objective: Investigate the development of new E
materials under fractional Earth gravity and high
vacuum.
mNAV1 GNC Objective: Establish GNC capabilities to support O
human missions.
mOPS1 Crew Surface Objective: Demonstrate human surface operations O
Ops capability.
mOPS10 Repair Objective: Develop repair techniques for O
equipment operating on the Moon.
mOPS11 Work Ops Objective: Engage in operation testing to O
Testing understand the effect of the lunar environment on
basic working tasks (with timescales applicable to
early crewed Mars missions).
mOPS3 Mars Analog Objective: Conduct Mars Analog Tests on the O
Lunar Surface.
mOPS7 Biological Objective: Evaluate biological contamination O
Contamination control protocols and astrobiology measurement
Control technologies that will be used to search for life on
other planets.
mOPS9 Crew-Centered Objective: Establish crew-centered control as the O
Control norm for lunar operations with real-time and
off-line planning and scheduling.
mPWR1 Power System Objective: Develop power generation, storage, and E
distribution systems required to facilitate
increasing surface and subsurface durations.
(Continued)
(Continued)
mPWR2 Earth- Objective: Establish a power architecture where E

Generated Beamed Earth-generated power is transmitted to the lunar
Power surface and to cis-lunar transportation assets.
mPWR3 In-Space Objective: Provide space power for both in-space E
Beamed Power and Earth applications.
mSM1 Surface Mobility Objective: Implement surface mobility systems to O
Traverse support both crew and cargo traverses over
increasing distances.
mSM2 Mobility Ops/ Objective: Provide surface mobility capabilities for O
Construction Ops the purpose of constructing and operating a
permanent lunar outpost.
mTRANS1 Redundant Objective: Provide redundant transportation O
Transport services on the Moon and to and from the Moon
to increase access to the Moon and traversing the
Moon.
mTRANS2 Objective: Demonstrate Autonomous Lander O
Autonomous Lander
mTRANS3 Cryo Objective: On-orbit cryogenic fluid management O
Management technologies.
27
A Self-Sufficient Moon-Base Analogue
Niklas Järvstråt
Division of Production Engineering University West
Trollhättan, Sweden
Niklas Järvstråt has been active in international research projects since 1993,
as participant, project leader, and coordinator, and has led several national
fatigue research projects. In 1994, he commenced research and networking
directed towards the establishment of a self-sufficient human settlement on
the moon. In the meantime, he has also developed and implemented meth-
ods for technology management and quality control at Volvo Aero. He was
one of the driving forces in forming UTMIS—the Swedish fatigue network,
serving as vice chairman 2000−2002. Dr. Järvstråt has established a major
national conference on life prediction procedure and theory, arranged
for the tenth consecutive year in October 2004. He is associate professor
and head of the Division of Production Engineering at University West
in Trollhättan, Sweden, and leader for the welding research group at the
Swedish Production Technology Centre (PTC). Publications include topics
in high temperature material modeling, technology management, qual-
ity control, fatigue and residual stress calculation. Currently (2008), he is
in the process of starting up activities at the “Moon-Mine,” Storgruvan in
Pershyttan, Sweden, with the aim of creating a completely self-sufficient
underground moonbase analogue before production starts on the moon in
2020, and then to run operations in parallel with the base on the moon,
anticipating and solving problems without the dangers of external vacuum
and isolations of the moon.
Abstract Building the first base on the Moon without first thoroughly
testing all components and the system performance in a full-scale facility
on Earth would not only be dangerous but also a waste of money. How to
achieve self-sufficiency at a low cost by drawing upon previous and on-going
research and using facilities similar to those on the Moon will be shown in
this paper.
355
Why Self-Sufficient?
The cost of establishing and operating a base on the Moon is evidently monu-
mental, especially the early building phase. However, if the Moon base could
be made self-sufficient, operating it would, by definition, be possible without
additional costs. This rather self-evident reason for having a self-sufficient
Moon base can be further broken down into two main reasons:
A Self-Sufficient Colony Would Serve as an Infrastructure Backbone

This is the “external” reason—it is good for those remaining on Earth that
the Moon base is self-sufficient because:
• It will be easier to establish utilitarian functions on the Moon, as any

added commercial or scientific activities would be at “additional cost”
only, being able to capitalize on the existing infrastructure. This is
very much in analogy with establishing a casino in the middle of a
desert—nobody would even consider that. But a casino in Las Vegas
is quite a different thing, because the infrastructure is in place with
roads, shops, food and water supply. Adding a casino with employees
would in principle need additional houses and extension of supply
flows and Las Vegas is in the middle of a desert but expanding exist-
ing infrastructure is so much easier than creating one from scratch.
Thus, new casinos are opened quite frequently in Las Vegas.
• There will, by definition, be no recurring cost for keeping the Moon
base operational, once it has achieved self-sufficiency. Depending on
the reasons behind establishing a Moon base in the first place, this
may be a good, a neutral or even a bad thing. It is good if you want
to keep using the Moon base, almost regardless of purpose; it will
not have much of an impact if the plans are meant to be short-term,
and if the aim is making a profit on Earth by shipping supplies, it is
certainly not a profitable idea making the Moon base self-sufficient.
Self-Contained Society
This is the “internal” reason—it is good for colonists, lunatics, inhabitants,
staff, and long-term settlers on the Moon.
• Psychological security is perhaps the most important reason and

will also have an economic impact for terrestrial utilitarian pur-
poses. This is important because it will help the Moon settlers feel at
home, secure and rooted. It is not quite realistic to expect settlers to
feel secure if they have to depend on a regular supply of vital goods.
A Self-Sufficient Moon-Base Analogue 357
However, once the settlers know that they can survive and develop
their surroundings through their own efforts, the colony will start
growing and attracting families; eventually children will be born
and raised on the Moon. Over time, the process of making the Moon
base habitable will be replaced by making it cosy, continuously
improving the standard of living and maybe one day even surpass-
ing current life on Earth.
• Further, the colonists of a self-sufficient Moon base have the advan-
tage of living in an environment virtually immune to terrestrial
budget cuts since budget cuts on Earth would essentially only affect
the flow of luxury goods, not those easily manufactured on-site.
Survival Requirements
What is needed for survival? Imagine placing a group of people on the
Moon, and then imagine what they need to stay alive. They obviously need
oxygen to breathe, but oxygen needs to be contained in something so it can
be used for breathing. An airtight shelter or spacesuits would be a mini-
mum requirement, but shelters should also be meteorite-proof since the lack
of protective atmosphere will allow radiation, small meteorites and micro-
meteorites to impact. A micrometeorite which would not even be a visible
flash of light entering Earth’s atmosphere could still puncture a spacesuit.
After having secured air for breathing and shelter to protect against the dan-
gers of space, this imaginary group of people would soon be hungry and
thirsty, so food and water (or beer) is definitely on the list. A natural result
of eating and drinking would be the need for the people to relieve them-
selves, and subsequently hygiene facilities including sewage recycling will
be required. Hopefully, diseases and accidents will not be the first problem,
but pretty soon some emergency ward with at least basic medical supplies
will be required to keep people functional. Of course, energy to run all this
needs to be provided, as well as heat and light for work and rest. This is rep-
resented by the survival requirements chart in Figure 27.1, which also takes
the requirements breakdown to the second level, through needs to a set of
processes thus found sufficient and necessary for human survival.
The second order process activities: Agriculture; Mining and mineral ben-
eficiation; manufacture; energy generation, storage and distribution; logistics
and life support systems; and Construction can of course be broken down
further into requirements and activities. However, as shown for agriculture
in Figure 27.2, there are no new activities added—the same five production
process activities reappear again, except one extra requirement, namely the
workforce. Since survival of the inhabitants will provide the needed working
Food production
Water synthesis Agriculture
Food
Production of breathing gas
Medical equipment and supplies Mining and mineral
Water beneficiation.
Clothing
Power generation Manufacture.
Air
Survival Power distribution
Hygiene and health Water purification Energy generation.
Water and sewage recycling storage and distribution
Shelter Air purification
Logistics and life
Ventilation support system
Heat and light Pressure tight inner walls
Load carrying outer structure Construction
Radiation and meteorite protection
Figure 27.1
Survival requirements breakdown.
crew, we have, by adding survival as a primary process, seven main process

groups that will need to be fulfilled for a self-sufficient Moon settlement,
or, indeed for any human settlement regardless of location. Thus, it may be
instructive to use this process breakdown also when studying terrestrial
settlements, be it isolated outposts, small villages or major mega-cities.
For a Moon base, the basic material human needs can be quantified accord-
ing to Table 27.1, which can form a good basis for quantifying the material
needs and supply breakdown of Figure 27.1.
Available Resources on the Moon

According to Apollo samples, see Table 27.2, the lunar soil is rich in most
resources, including metals and other minerals important for manufacturing.
Fertile Soil Mining and Mineral

Beneficiation.
Water
Manufacture.
Air
Agriculture Energy Generation,
Farming Tools
Storage and Distribution
Heat and Light
Logistics and Life
Transportation Support System
Shelter Construction
Farmers Manual labour
Figure 27.2
Agriculture requirements breakdown.
Table 27.1
Quantified Survival Needs (from O’Handley 2000)
Need per day
In system
(total) Person 500 p. unit
Breathing air 60000 1,5 750 m3
Water 28000 7 3500 litres
Food 7000 1,0 500 kg
Pressurized volume 30000 m3
Heat and light 21000 3 1250 kW
Oxygen for breathing on the Moon will never be a problem for serious col-
onists although the Moon lacks an atmosphere, because regolith contains
about 44% oxygen, more in fact than our atmosphere! There have been
numerous studies about how to extract oxygen from the regolith, the sim-
plest, although not the most economical is probably to heat the regolith until
oxygen is released. However, when considering a self-sufficient settlement,
a lot of other minerals need to be extracted and in most cases this extraction
will include removing the oxygen from, for example, metal oxides.
Metals, for example, compose approximately 26% of the average Apollo
samples. There is also plenty of iron (10%), aluminium (9%), magnesium
Table 27.2
Lunar Soil Composition (Weight %, from Blair 1998 and Prado 1998)
Element Highland Mare Earth Earth rank Applications
Oxygen[1] 45 42 47 1 Fuel, essential air constituent
Silicon[1] 21 21 28 2 Glasses, ceramics, etc. Solar
Aluminium[1] 13 7.0 8.1 3 Electric wire, structures,
mirrors
Calcium[1] 11 7.9 3.6 5 Ceramics, electrical conductor
Iron[1] 4.9 13 5.0 4 Structural steel
Magnesium[1] 4.6 5.8 2.1 8 Metal alloying element
Sodium[1] 0.31 0.29 2.8 6 Chemical processing, Plant
Titanium[1] 0.31 3.1 0.44 9 High strength metal
Chromium[1] 0.085 0.26 0.01 21 Metal alloying element
Potassium[1] 0.08 0.11 2.6 7 Chemical processing, Plant
Manganese[1] 0.068 0.17 0.095 12 Metal alloying element
Phosphorus[1] 0.05 0.066 0.11 11 Plant nutrient
Sulphur[2] 0.12 Chemical processing
Carbon[2] 0.015 17 Life, chemical processing
Nitrogen[2] 0.008 Plant nutrient, air constituent
Hydrogen[2] 0.006 10 Fuel, water, chemical
processing
Helium[2] 0.005 Inert gas
(5%) and titanium (2%), all important construction materials. A deficit that
appears somewhat strange is that there was very little copper in the Apollo
samples – whether that is due to a general copper deficit or because copper
only appears in highly localised areas, has yet to be found. Although copper
is the best known material apart from gold from which to make electrical
wires, aluminium is quite feasible and, as seen in Table 27.2, it is abundant
on the Moon.
Of non-metallic materials, silicon is 21%, calcium 9% and the plant nutrient
elements nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium make up a total of about half
a percent. Half a percent may not appear to be much, but it would actually
represent a fertile soil, except for an unfortunate lack of nitrogen, hydrogen
and carbon, all necessary for plant growth, but each only present in trace
amounts, less than 0.1%. However, plants are able to make do with surpris-
ingly lean soils and by concentrating carbon and nitrogen by a moderate fac-
tor ten or so for the soil and recycling biological matter, it should be possible
to achieve good yield on most crops.
It can be concluded (O’Handley 2000) that nitrogen is the limiting factor.
Assuming 0.5 %/ day atmospheric leakage (according to measured data at
ISS), more than 400 metric tons of regolith of Apollo sample composition
would need to be processed—per person and day—in order to replenish
such losses only. This may seem very disheartening, as it would probably
never be considered reasonable to process such a large amount of regolith,
just to cover nitrogen needs.
Using the probable polar ice, instead of the dry equatorial regolith sampled
by the Apollo missions, would help a lot, reducing the processing needs to
about 100 kg, per person and day. Here, a bit of guesswork is needed, as the
composition of soil at the lunar poles is not known, and a processing need
of 100 kg per person and day was obtained by using the rather well-known
composition of volatile-rich comets.
On the other hand, this amount of nitrogen is not really needed and it
should be possible to reduce nitrogen losses. Plants use nitrogen, but most
plants extract nitrogen from the soil rather than from the atmosphere. Thus,
it would be possible to use air with somewhat less nitrogen than terrestrial.
Unfortunately, not so much research is available on the long-term effect in
humans of nitrogen-free gas mixture breathing. Nitrogen does have the
beneficial effect of reducing the risk of fire, so a one-third bar pressure,
pure oxygen atmosphere might not be a good choice. However, it seems
probable that the leakage rate could be reduced in a permanent installation
where there are no mass constraints except what escapes, and it might also
be possible to create a “shell” around the base, containing a less valuable
gas mixture at slightly higher pressure than the habitat. Thus, gas escaping
out into vacuum would have the composition of that intermediate shell,
and that might be oxygen or other easily produced yet harmless gasses.
Thus reducing the losses to cheaper gasses than nitrogen would save a fac-
tor 20, and by also improving air tightness to below 0.1% atmospheric losses
per day, it would be possible to reduce the processing to just 1 kg per person
and day of the nitrogen rich polar ice. This seems quite feasible—one kg
of ice is shovelled into the processing plant before going off to work—or,
with a settlement of 1000 persons, one person is working full time loading
a metric ton of ice per day.
The Polar Regions, apart from the cometary ice stored in cold traps, have
one additional great advantage, and that is the so called “peaks of eternal
light”: crater rims and mountain peaks receiving sunlight for a very large
fraction of the lunar day-night cycle. It is possible, by careful placement of
photovoltaic solar panels at three locations within a radius of about 30 km
close to the South Pole, to receive virtually uninterrupted electric energy
supply. Thus, and because the craters on the south pole are a bit wider and
deeper than at the north pole, the lunar south pole seems today to be the
preferred location for a first Moon base.
Production System
After having connected available resources with the survival requirements,
a production system is needed. Bearing in mind that the system should be
completely self-sufficient, capable of surviving without any supplies from
off-Luna, not only all resources, but also any equipment and consumables
used directly by humans need to be produced in-system. Also the produc-
tion system itself should be designed “producible” from in-situ resources
using tools that can also be produced by the system.
Conditions
There are some crucial differences between the conditions prevailing on the
Moon and the standard terrestrial conditions:
Low Gravity (1/6 of That on Earth)

The low gravity can be fun, and will facilitate carrying heavy objects, but there
are also some less evident effects that need to be considered. Liquids will flow
slower downhill, which would have a dramatic effect on, for example, the fill-
ing of casting moulds, unless measures are taken to counter this effect, such as
using pressure to squeeze in the liquid material in the mould. There is also less
convection—the flow of air and other gases and liquids caused by temperature
driven density variations, cold air is heavier than hot air; thus the cold air will
flow downwards replacing hotter air going up, mixing the air. Similar effects
are present in any liquid or gas, but would be six times smaller on the Moon.
This is sometimes a drawback, as in the habitat where it is important that stale
air is circulated away to the plant areas for re-oxygenating—the lower circula-
tion caused by lower gravity would have to be assisted by a higher degree of
forced ventilation than is common on Earth. Some consideration might also
be needed for liquid surfaces, which would get a slightly different geometry
as the liquid is pushed down with lesser force, allowing surface tension to
have larger impact. An interesting piece of information is that this could influ-
ence production features such as weld integrity, if the transition between weld
metal and the pieces to be joined becomes less smooth. The notch formed
would weaken the joint compared to one formed under terrestrial conditions.
Free High Quality Vacuum

There is no atmosphere on the Moon, though there are some atoms drifting
about which might vaguely be described as an atmosphere. From a terres-
trial industry perspective, however, the Moon “air” is high quality vacuum.
Vacuum is a risk and a nuisance, of course, should you need to do excur-
sions to the surface. But for the purpose of an underground base, surface
excursions, although necessary for example when maintaining photovoltaic
collectors or establishing transport connections to remote mining sites of
concentrated minerals, will probably not be a main activity. However, under-
ground mining would almost certainly take place in vacuum to eliminate
the decompression risk otherwise associated with encountering a crack pen-
etrating to the surface.
On the positive side, vacuum is beneficial to many manufacturing pro-
cesses, in particular those involving molten metal alloys because oxidation
and contamination problems are eliminated by the lack of foreign atoms.
Indeed, high purity melting and new process steps including outgassing to
vacuum may one day lead to new materials for extraterrestrial use being
invented on the Moon.
Lack of Some Minerals

As mentioned earlier, the Moon has a very poor copper, hydrogen, carbon
and nitrogen content, making any compound including these elements very
expensive and awkward to make. Thus, replacing these materials as far as
possible and pursuing as high a degree of recycling as possible in all applica-
tions containing these elements would be important.
Small Scale Solutions

The terrestrial production network is very much dependent on large-scale
multi-tier sequences of producers of even the most insignificant product. This
kind of large-scale production, however, would not be feasible on the Moon,

and a Moon settlement will in the foreseeable future remain very small in com-
parison to the terrestrial scale of cities. Thus, the economy of scale employed
on Earth when making millions of identical items, e.g., toothbrushes, at very
small individual cost will not be possible to apply. Instead, small-scale, very
flexible production methods would be required, and the machine or set of tools
used for manufacturing toothbrushes will only be busy with toothbrushes for
a very small part of the year. The rest of the time it must be used for producing
something else needed in the settlement, perhaps there would be a brush-
making tool in the settlement, but then it would have to be one capable of
producing a large range of different brushes, brooms and other utensils incor-
porating a large number of bristles attached to a handle. And the same reason-
ing can of course be applied to all steps in the production process, maybe for
a start there will not be different metal alloys, but just “metal” of the composi-
tion extracted from the regolith at hand using an economical process.
System Design
Keeping in mind the conditions outlined above, providing the production sys-
tem necessary for fulfilling the survival requirements will involve selecting
candidates from amongst existing production technologies and then replac-
ing any overly complex components of each piece of equipment, as well as
reducing or eliminating any use of resources that are difficult to produce in
sufficient quantity. Without going into details about specific manufacturing
technologies, a flowchart of the material needs for human survival is shown in
Figure 27.3. Note that although designed for a Moon settlement, this flowchart
can be applied to the Human society on Earth, a village, or a Mars base.
Habitat Design Loads

Compared to terrestrial structures, the conditions prevailing on the Moon
will result in important differences in loads acting on structures. The lower
gravity (1/6 of that on Earth) will drastically reduce the effect of structural
weight as a design consideration, while other safety critical design issues
will assume unparalleled importance in the harsh lunar environment.
Gravitation
Perhaps the most obvious difference compared to terrestrial conditions
is the lower gravitational loads. In fact, this reduction will somehow be
Regolim, Manufacture
Mining aluminium,
Excavation steel, etc. Metal Parts
Non-metal Parts
Volatile Metal
Extraction Extraction Production
Construction
Goods
Water, Supply
carbon, Auxiliary
nitrogen, Rooms,
etc. containers, Heat, Power Process
wire, bars, light,
energy,
engines,
etc. Transportation Process group
drills, etc.
Life support
Waste Recovery
Farming
Chemical
Processing
Air, food,
water, Survival
etc.
Figure 27.3
Manufacturing chain for material survival needs.
compensated for with the additional weight of the shielding covering

structures. Consider a roof structure at 500 kg/m2. Weighing 0.5*9.8 = 4.9 kN/
m2 on the Earth, the same structure with 2 meter thick regolith shielding of
density 1500 kg/m3 would on the Moon give a force of (0.5+2*1.5)* 1/6*9.8 =
5.7 kN/m2. Thicker shielding would increase this downward load corre-
spondingly. This means that, for surface structures in general, there will not
be a reduction in the vertical loads to parallel the reduction in gravitation.
Internal Pressure
The biggest difference will come from the application of inside pressure. In
a structure with inside pressure of one atmosphere, the uniformly distrib-
uted outward load will be very close to 100 kN/m2, which corresponds to
the gravitational load of almost 40 meters of regolith. Thus a structure has
almost the same gravitational load as on the Earth, but in addition a 20 times
greater upward force will create tension in the vertical members. This will
change the well-understood concept of column and result in the adoption
of a new concept like the “tension-compression-column” (Benaroya, 1993).
Correspondingly, habitats will from a structural-integrity point of view be
pressure vessels more than “buildings”.
Radiation
The Moon does not have a protective magnetic field like the van Allen belts
that shield the Earth from the bombardment of charged particles from the
sun. Neither is there an atmosphere to keep down electromagnetic radiation.

Thus, if genetic damage due to radiation is to be avoided, heavy shielding
will be necessary. According to common estimates, about 2 meters of rock
would provide sufficient shielding, also for rare events such as solar flares.
If shelters can be provided and used during solar flares, the main body of
the habitat may have significantly thinner shielding. However, such a design
solution would force activities and/or comfort to be considerably reduced
over extended periods of solar flares.
Meteorite Impact and Moonquakes

The Moon is much less geologically active than Earth, being smaller and thus
more solidified. Thus, Moonquakes due to seismic activity will be a minor prob-
lem. The corresponding “load case” necessary to consider on the Moon is the
possible impact of large meteorites. It is important to note, however, that although
the Moon is pockmarked by an incredible number of meteorite impacts, large
meteorites are very rare. Further, with proper radar surveillance, an advance
warning would arrive with quite sufficient time to evacuate sensitive equip-
ment and all personnel from threatened areas near the impact. Perhaps even to
reduce air pressure or take other active damage attenuating actions.
Air Tightness
As discussed in the above section on survival requirements, the level of
achieved air tightness will be a key parameter in determining the material
supply necessary for sustaining the lunar colony. Thus, the treatment of seals
and the choice of an airtight structure or an inner or outer sealing skin must
be given careful consideration, and may well be one of the more demanding
material challenges for the ISRU production engineers. Airlocks and seals
between habitat sections and the external vacuum must also be designed to
minimize air losses.
Habitat Approaches
Living on the Moon will require quite different considerations from terres-
trial housing projects, and may well lead to exciting new breakthroughs in
interior design and the use of living and communal spaces. Not only are
external loads and design considerations drastically different, but it will be
much more important to design the habitats for comfort as there is no exte-
rior “nature” with greenery and recreation possibilities. Thus, all this must
be “built-in” into the design of an underground habitat. This is a challenge
that, if successfully met, may well produce solutions to improve the standard
of living in many terrestrial cities as well.
Glassed Domes
The most commonly depicted “Moon colony” construction is undoubtedly
the glass dome—a giant dome of glass containing the entire colony in one
dome, or a few domes. This is not only in science fiction, but unfortunately
also in scientific and engineering articles on Moon bases. The popularity is
due to the fact that it is an aesthetically pleasing solution, which also pro-
vides a convenient view of the interior. Regrettably, the disadvantages of this
design far outweigh the advantages. The well-known fact that glass has poor
tensile properties, especially when somewhat scratched or damaged, is not in
itself a sufficient argument against this design, since pre-tensioned tendons
could be used to put the glass in compression. However, glass by its very
transparency provides poor protection against radiation. Glass would let out
infrared heat radiation during the night—putting shutters on an entire dome
could of course be done, but is an awkward chore.
Worse, in order to protect against the dangerous components of sunlight dur-
ing the day—the shutters would have to be very heavy and stay on during the
day, completely destroying the glassed beauty of the dome. Thus, sadly, there will
be no glassed domes on the Moon—at least not for permanent habitation. They
could have uses for short-term visits such as tourist scenery spots or for housing
sporting events—where the aesthetics may drive economics and stays are short
enough for radiation levels to stay acceptable. Even then, measures for improving
radiation protection would surely be needed, such as special glass compositions
with higher opacity for dangerous radiation, heavy shielding giving shadow for
spectators, or simply not using the domes in daytime or during solar flares.
Buried “Tin Cans”

The Moon is covered with several meters of fine dust, regolith. Thus, just
piling enough regolith over the “glass dome” is a straightforward means to
provide a quick and highly accessible radiation protection. This has probably
been the most commonly suggested type of habitat in more construction-
oriented papers concerning Moon bases. Of course, the dome then has no need
for transparency and other materials than glass will be more appropriate. For
a quick first shelter, the landing craft or other Earth imported rigid or inflatable
“pressure vessels” will be a much healthier and safer habitat after radiation
and meteorite shielding has been added by piling regolith dust on top.
For long-term use, concrete, aluminium, cast basalt and other in-situ pro-
duced materials have been suggested. An important design consideration for
production of these kinds of habitats is to avoid structural loads during con-
struction that are radically different than the structural loads in use. For exam-
ple, it may be necessary to gradually pressurise the habitat very carefully and
evenly when covering with regolith. One disadvantage, besides the need to
move and secure large volumes of regolith would be the need for long entrance
structures in order to reach surface without risk of regolith refill.
Sealed Lava Tubes and a Mine Shaft Society

Having technically disqualified the pretty science fiction glass dome shelter and
proven that a hole in the dirt would be more feasible, what would be more natu-
ral than going back to cavemen for inspiration? But are there caves on the Moon?
Surely no limestone caves such as the more common caves on Earth, since these
are formed in limestone deposited by ancient coral reefs. However, although not
much geological activity remains, the Moon once had only a thin solid skin over
a molten core and prehistoric volcanism is known to have been considerable.
There are strong indications for the existence of large lava tunnels on the
lunar surface. These natural cavities could be cleared, furnished and sealed to
provide readymade shelters with a proven track record of resisting meteorite
bombardment. The advantage of this solution is of course that the structure is
pre-existing, while a significant disadvantage is that gaining access and clear-
ing them from rubble might be more effort than drilling a fresh tunnel where
one is needed. A significant advantage of lunar rock dwellings is that the load
situation with regards to structural integrity is very similar to underground
constructions on Earth—because the main load is the pressure of surround-
ing rock. As a matter of fact, even the airtight sealing problem has been suc-
cessfully addressed in terrestrial underwater tunnels (although the acceptable
leakage is much lower in a Moon colony). Another idea for subterranean (or
sublunarian, rather) dwellings would be to spend just a little more effort in the
mining operation to leave a sealed and furnishable void when extracting the
richest mineral veins for satisfying the material needs of the colony.
Regardless of how the sublunarian cavities have been formed, structural integ-
rity as well as meteorite and radiation protection is provided by the surrounding
rock. Habitat design and construction is then left with the smaller task of design-
ing cavity shape and size to avoid any risk of cave-ins, sealing the cavities to keep
the air in, and furnishing for comfortable human habitation. Living in caves
might not seem an attractive option, but there is no need at all for the “caves” to
look like caves (Järvstråt, 2001). Think of large shopping arcades—under a roof
but feeling a lot like outdoors. On the Moon, the need for food production would
make all open areas much greener than an ordinary shopping malls, with “sun-
light lighting” needed for optimum plant growth. Still, care must be taken to
enhance the feeling of nature or at least cultivated farmland.
It will be an architectural and logistic challenge to arrange agricultural
areas to provide recreation opportunities in as natural a setting as possible.
The estimated need for 80 m2 agriculture and common areas per person
may not seem sufficient for a “forest walk”. But, in a colony with 1000 per-
sons and 20% of the space taken by rock support pillars, this corresponds to
100,000 m2. This could be arranged as four 5-meter wide strips of greenery
stretching 5 kilometres. Each a quite nice walk or running track if planned
properly and probably more “nature” than used by most people today. And
if the layout or design gets monotonous before the growth season is over, it
is always possible to visit a neighbouring colony section.
Active Structures and Passive Safety

As outlined in (Järvstråt & Toklu 2004), for terrestrial construction, the
designers are accustomed to conceiving civil engineering products of a cer-
tain capacity, beyond which the product cannot be used due to failure or pas-
sage to a non-functional stage. Examples can be buildings that collapse when
a level of earthquake magnitude is exceeded, or dams capable of resisting a
predetermined level of water, or highways that become blocked whenever
the traffic exceeds the design value. In the first example there is failure, in the
second example there is passage to a non-functional stage perhaps coupled
with failure, in the third example there is non-functionality. Although these
are all undesirable effects, designers and engineers have used such ultimate
limit load criteria through the millennia since Hammurabi, a Babylonian
king who established the first official written rules about collapsing houses,
walls, dams and ditches around 1800 b.c. Only very recently, with the advent
of technology and accumulation of knowledge, have the designers and con-
structors gained the capacity and consciousness necessary for distinguish-
ing between the old way, passive design and passive structure, and the new
way, active design and active structure.
When building for extraterrestrial conditions, the main difference com-
pared to terrestrial conditions is perhaps that structures are much more
safety critical. A structural collapse that would be damaging on Earth could
well be fatal on the Moon, and any crack may become fatal if left unattended,
because atmosphere will leak, bleeding vital and expensive constituent gas-
ses (nitrogen) into vacuum, possibly cutting off communication between the
areas of the settlement connected by the leaking section. That means that for
these structures new safety definitions and new ultimate load limits have
to be defined. Further, the structure must be monitored in such a way that
danger should be detected well before the design limits are reached for any
vital component of the habitat. Lastly, should dangerous values be reached,
the structure must behave in such a way that failure is prevented or reduced
as much as possible, i.e., the structure must be “intelligent” enough to sense
the danger and must act to prevent the damage, thus the term “intelligent”
or “smart” or “active” structures. Such a scheme can be made possible by
satisfying the following capabilities:
• Active Design: The structure must be designed as an active struc-

ture, with well-defined danger levels to trigger corrective actions
(Utku 2002).
• Monitoring System: There must be sensors placed in the structure to
measure critical stresses, loads, strains, and/or displacements.
• Control Units: There must be a redundant set of control units that
automatically analyze and evaluate the measurements, decide on
levels and types of actions to be taken, and command the actuators

to respond accordingly.
• Active Structure: There must be actuators embedded in the struc-
ture commanded by the control units. These actuators will make
the structure behave in such a way that temporary or permanent
measures will be taken to prevent unacceptable damage.
An example can be the reduction of inside pressure of a structure to lower

but still acceptable levels should stresses in the tendons approach prescribed
limits. Active structures should thus respond automatically to any changes,
especially if they could have dangerous consequences. Such measures will
result in more economical construction, a decreasing of the safety factors
that should otherwise be applied.
Although the use of active structures and automated control and regu-
lation systems as described above will be necessary for emergency ame-
lioration, it will, however, also be necessary to design with highly stable
self-controlling processes whenever possible. Homeostasis is the process of
environment auto-regulation encountered in many natural settings, such
as societal insects. Self-convection driven by natural day-night temperature
cycles to circulate the habitat air is an important homeostasis candidate on
Earth, though more difficult on the Moon because of the lower gravity driv-
ing force for convection.
Air leakage could be reduced with a passive solution, such as providing a
“buffer gas layer” between the habitat and the external vacuum, pressurised
to higher levels than the habitat and containing gasses cheaper-than-air, safe
for human and plant exposure, and easily detectable, e.g., by smell or color.
Whenever the internal pressure is the dominant loading for a structure, it
will be more economical to choose pressure-efficient structural types, such as
spheres, cylinders, tori, spheroids or similar forms. For flexibility, hexagonal
modules could be employed with advantage. It seems to be more appropriate
to reinforce the walls of these structures by pre or post tensioned tendons.
The tension in these tendons can be so arranged that the walls themselves
can be under tension or compression. The latter option seems to be prefer-
able on the Moon since it is much easier to find or produce compression resis-
tant materials than tensile resistant materials.
Choice of Site for a Terrestrial Analogue

of a Large Scale Moon-Base
A site for creating a Moon-base analogue must meet several criteria: first,
the environment should be as close as possible to the lunar environment.
Unfortunately, it is impossible to mimic the two most obvious features of
the lunar environment, as 1/6 g gravity cannot be found on Earth, and vac-
uum can only be created and maintained at high cost, although the vacuum
pumps needed for that could be installed at any location.
The only distinctly Moon-like feature possible to find on Earth is the habi-
tat environment, but it isn’t a grey dusty desert one should look for although
that may give the closest lunar surface analogue. In order to model the indoor
conditions of a Moon-base, the building type foreseen needs to be considered:
for a glassed dome habitat the grey desert would be the best choice, as may
well be the case also for the “buried tin-can” habitat, though the colour of the
dust would then be less important than the depth. If, on the other hand, the
interest is in a “mine-tunnel” or “shopping center” habitat, existing under-
ground tunnels are to be preferred.
Apart from being “as Moon-like as possible”, it is naturally important for a
Moon-base analogue to be accessible, e.g., situated reasonably close to main
communications and a community of reasonable size. (Compare the discus-
sion about Las Vegas in the section “Why Self-Sufficient.”) Some possibilities
could be
• An existing village or town would be ideal, if all inhabitants could be

convinced to support the project by gradually reducing all imports to
the village aiming for complete self-sufficiency. But however attrac-
tive the solution may seem, upholding democratic ideals, it seems
impossible to find such a village of dedicated Moon fans.
• An industrial area or research park with sufficient area of indoor
space could easily be converted to double as a Moon-base production
system demonstrator—in particular if the research is production ori-
ented or the industry in the area is oriented towards manufacturing
of not-too-high-tech goods. However, it would be somewhat difficult
to mimic the habitat spaces within a building, as the shape is square in
contrast to the more cylindrical shape that mined or naturally occur-
ring tunnels would prefer. Appearances could be changed, of course,
but it would be hard to avoid a lingering feeling of fabrication.
• An analogue base in the desert or arctic is attractive from the point
of view of the barren lands resembling the lunar surface. Indeed, the
Mars Society is running several such habitat analogues (see www.
marssociety.org/portal/groups/AnalogsTF). A disadvantage of such
a location is that it is hard to find one that is also easily accessible.
• Subterranean locations are commonplace on Earth, including
caves, mines and decommissioned military facilities to name
a few. Caves, and in particular lava tunnels, would be ideal to
mimic lava tunnel habitats on the Moon, but it might be argued
that terrestrial lava tunnels should be protected as they are rare
natural phenomena and some are also homes for some rare spe-
cies of bats, fish and insects. Excursions and study trips are of
course in order, and indeed, the Oregon L5 Society has performed

a series of preliminary studies (see www.oregonl5.org/lbrt/l5om-
brr1.html) in a lava tunnel complex in central Oregon. However,
although a mine seems a prime candidate for underground habi-
tat design, no such studies seem to have been performed to date.
A terrestrial mine, though containing tunnels and caverns of dif-
ferent sizes, would be rather different in layout from a lava tunnel
suitable for habitat establishment, because all connecting tun-
nels would by economical reasons be rather small—man sized—
while the caverns created from removing ore would be large, but
generally not arranged horizontally and linear in the way of a
lava tunnel. However, it will be possible to identify and use both
big hallways and narrow corridors, and with any mining taking
place on the Moon, connection tunnels and caverns very similar
to those in a terrestrial mine would soon be created, that could
be conveniently converted to living space. In addition, an added
advantage of a terrestrial mine, especially one containing some
residual metal ore is that the mining and beneficiation part of the
Moon-base analogue can be naturally incorporated and also used
for demonstrating means for expanding the habitable volume by
extracting useful minerals.
Activities for a Terrestrial Moon-Mine Analogue

Ideally, a complete system should be constructed in as complete detail as
possible, including all the activities of Figure 27.1, or equivalently all the pro-
cess steps in Figure 27.3. Naturally, it will not initially be feasible to create a
full-scale society fulfilling all needs “in-house.” However, it should not be
difficult to include typical manufacturing components in each of the process
categories, and gradually connect the systems adding more and more pieces
into the process, eventually connecting the flow of materials and products
into a fully interconnected network. Some early activities that don’t require
extensive equipment but would still provide useful insights and ideas are
illustrated schematically in Figure 27.4 and include:
• “Outdoor” mine-tunnel design, using creative design with edible

plant beds to give the underground habitat an outdoor feeling to
compensate for the lack of forest, beaches and other natural recre-
ation areas enjoyed on Earth.
• Sunlight transmission through fibers, collecting sunlight on the
surface and leading it through cables down into the safety of the
underground. Such systems are commercially available today, but
Figure 27.4
The Pershyttan Moon-Mine concept draft.
may need some adaptation for transmitting light in a beneficial way

for plant growth.
• Artificial light food-growth demo, growing vegetables in appropri-
ately fertilized lunar regolith simulant under artificial light or light
transmitted through fibers to the greenhouse.
• Low-volume high-flexibility production facilities, such as Weld
Metal Deposition, building metal components layer by layer with
each layer depositing a fraction of a millimetre of metal onto the
growing detail producing virtually any shape.
• Habitat design, transforming parts of mine tunnel or rooms into
apartments with modern facilities—while reducing as far as possible
any “imported” goods and making as much as possible in-situ man-
ufactured or possible to manufacture using minimal equipment.
• Minimal-equipment mining and ore processing, applying manual

mining techniques or small-scale semi-automated ore breaking, as
well as other processing steps that can be manufactured from the
metal extracted from the ore mined.
Current Status and Near Term Plans of Pershyttan Moon-Mine

Although it seems like the next logical step in space exploration and settle-
ment, the creation of large scale system demonstration facilities unfortu-
nately seems to be very low on the agenda of all organizations active in space
research. However, such a project has recently been started close to the small
Swedish town of Nora.
The old iron mine (see Figure 27.5) abandoned in 1967 is now being con-
verted into a demonstration facility for the technologies and systems needed
in a self-contained lunar settlement. Before starting the activities listed
Figure 27.5
Storgruvan in Pershyttan, above and below ground.
above as suitable for a Moon-mine analogue, however, the mine needs to

be emptied of water and the old hoist restored and certified for carrying
people down to the extensive network of tunnels at the 110 meter level. Here,
demonstrator projects will be performed, by selected production industry
partners, while partners in hotel and tourist industry will ascertain that the
specially designed environment and the holistic view on the material needs
of human society are appropriately showcased and made accessible to the
broader public.
The Moon-mine analogue (www.Moon-mine.com) will be established as
a think tank and demonstrator facility, not only for space exploration and
settlement, but also for research on contained spaces and environmentally
friendly, low resource impact, production supply chain management. The
vision is to bring together old traditions from mining and handicraft with
space age flexible production methods, as well as fusing the common inter-
ests of the space exploration and environmentalist movements. At the time
of print of this book, the Moon-mine is at an early stage of creation, but cur-
rent information regarding opportunities to collaborate and contribute, as
well as reports on ongoing work and research results will become available
at the www.Moon-mine.com.
References
Benaroya, H. (1993) “Tensile-Integrity Structures for the Moon” Applied Mechanics of a
Lunar Base, Applied Mechanics Reviews, Vol.46, No:6, pp. 326–335.
Blair, B. (1998). “Use of Space Resources - A Literature Survey” SPACE 98 - Engineering,
Construction, and Operations in Space VI, pp. 651–665, American Society of
Civil Engineers, New York, NY.
Järvstråt, N. (2000). “What Do You Mean by “Outside” in a Moon Town?” Moon Miners
Manifesto, #141, December 2000.
Järvstråt, N. & Toklu, C. (2004), “Design and Construction for Self-sufficiency in a Lunar
Colony”, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Advances in
Structural Engineering and Mechanics (Invited lecture), pp. 110–122, Techno-
Press, 2004.
O’Handley, D. (2000) “Final Report On System Architecture Development For A Self-
Sustaining Lunar Colony”, (http://www.niac.usra.edu/studies).
Prado, M. (1998) PERMANENT - Projects to Employ Resources of the Moon and Asteroids
Near Earth in the Near Term, Ladprao, Bangkok: Fong Tong Enterprise Co. Ltd.
Utku, Senol (2002) “Civil Engineering”, ACE 2002, 5th International Congress on
Advances in Civil Engineering, Istanbul, Vol.1, pp. 1–17.
28
Terrestrial Analogs Selection
Considerations for Planetary Surface
Facility Planning and Operations
Olga Bannova
University of Houston
Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture
Houston, Texas
Olga Bannova is a research assistant professor at the Sasakawa International

Center for Space Architecture (SICSA) of the University of Houston. She
received a Master of Architecture degree from the University of Houston in
2001 and a Master of Science in Space Architecture in 2005. She brings several
years of professional architectural practice with Houston and Moscow firms
as well as research and teaching experience at the University of Houston. Olga
conducts research and design studies that address a variety of topics such as
planning analyses for a broad range of space vehicles, habitats, and systems,
including advanced spacecraft propulsion options, inflatable hydroponics
laboratory and logistic modules, special design influences and requirements
for different gravity conditions in space, and habitat concepts for extreme
environments on Earth. She has given a number of presentations and publica-
tions at different international technical conferences and media. Olga is a cor-
responding member of the International Academy of Astronautics (IAA) and
a member of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA)
Space Architecture Technical Committee. She leads the IAA Commission
VI Space Architecture Study Group in development of a white paper report
on Space Architecture for IAA. The study group addresses such aspects as
human factors, multidisciplinary education, space tourism and commercial-
ization, art in space, and space missions’ simulators.
Abstract This paper will draw parallels and define differences between
factors that drive the planning and design of human surface facilities in space
and in extreme environments on Earth. Primary emphases will highlight
influences upon general habitat requirements, constraints upon delivery and
construction, and special provisions for safety and hazard interventions. The
overall intent is to identify important lessons that can be applied across dif-
ferent settings which present common priorities, issues and challenges. Such
environments include future bases on the Moon and Mars, offshore surface and
375
Figure 28.1
IDEEA-One conference proceedings cover.
submersible facilities, polar research and oil/natural gas exploration stations,

military desert operations, and natural and man-made emergency shelters.
Important topics of emphasis include the following considerations:
Design influences driven by transport to remote sites
Environmental influences upon facilities and construction
Influences of crew sizes, types of activities and occupancy durations
Influences of construction methods and support infrastructures
Special safety and emergency response requirements
This presentation will draw upon research and design activities at
the Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture (SICSA).
Information is also taken from a SICSA-sponsored conference “Interna
tional Design for Extreme Environments One” (IDEEA-One) at the
University of Houston which attracted more than 400 interdisciplinary
participants from 12 countries representing diverse professions and
environmental settings. (Figure 28.1).
Background and History

Extreme environments on Earth provide analog experience to support plan-
ning of extraterrestrial facilities and operations. Each environment presents
Terrestrial Analogs Selection Considerations for Planetary Surface 377
special lessons regarding habitat design, crew operations and training, and
equipment and logistical requirements for space exploration.
SICSA has extensive experience in research and design for extreme envi-
ronments, including orbital and lunar planetary facilities, disaster shelters,
polar stations and offshore surface and submersible habitats. Investigations
have addressed such issues as hardships and challenges posed by harsh cli-
mate conditions, remoteness with restricted access and return opportunities,
limitations on available equipment and support services, and ever-present
safety risks. All of these environments share many kinds of technical and
operational priorities. Key among these are needs for appropriate transpor-
tation and construction systems, efficient energy, effective and environmen-
tally-responsive waste management and life support systems, maintenance
and repair provisions, and emergency accommodations.
It is important to note that needs and priorities in extreme environments
also represent some of the most pressing challenges and issues that face
our entire planet. Increased difficulties and urgency in addressing human
need and requirements in extreme environments often motivates efforts to
find new and better solutions. Useful program advancements related to the
extreme environment of space, for example, include important contributions
to fields associated with computing and information management, material
sciences, energy technologies, environmental monitoring and life sciences.
Experiences on US and Russian spacecraft, underwater vessels, and polar
stations have revealed a variety of common issues (Figure 28.2):
• Cut off from “the outside,” crews must learn to be resourceful, and to
depend upon one another:
• They must work to help crewmates deal with psychological and
physical stresses.
• They are required to adapt to limited comfort and recreational
amenities.
• They must be prepared for fatiguing work overloads and stim-
uli deprivations.
• They must be trained and equipped to deal with equipment
malfunctions.
• Common types of constraints place stringent requirements and
severe restrictions on habitat design and operations:
• Limited internal volumes constrain storage and human activities.
• Limitations on equipment, labor and processes constrain struc-
ture assembly/deployment procedures.
• Limitations on maintenance and repairs (people, tools/spares
and methods) constrain maintenance and repair options.
• Safety and operations under harsh environmental conditions and
demanding mission schedules pose safety and operational challenges.
(a)
(b)
Figure 28.2
Destiny module interior (a), submarine interior (b), Antarctic station (c).
(c)
Human and Environmental Planning Influences

Human requirements and environmental factors specific to each different
type of environment, operation and facility must be correlated with resulting
planning needs. Some general considerations are listed below in Table 28.1.
Structure types and architectural forms are typically influenced by similar
considerations which include the following:
• Site/environment influences
• Transportation modes
• Capacity (volume, mass, size)
• Delivery method
Table 28.1
Planning Considerations
Human Requirements Environmental Influences
Number of occupants Structure selection and construction options
Social/cultural influences Climate/thermal characteristics of the site
Time frame/mission duration Logistical requirements and scheduling
Special safety hazards Types and levels of danger
Emergency escape means Proximity to major transportation modes
Recycling of expendables Type of surface transportation
Primary mission objectives/purposes In-situ resource utilization possibilities
• Mission timeline and crew work schedules

• Site/infrastructure preparation requirements
• Facility evolution/growth projections and requirements
• Special assembly/deployment accommodations and problems
Transportation, Safety, and Emergency Response Requirements

As in space, high transportation costs, restrictions on cargo payload volumes,
and limitations on periods of site accessibility pose serious constraints for
extreme environments on Earth, such as polar and emergency response opera-
tions. These constraints impact the design of facilities, applicability and use of
large equipment systems, re-supply of consumables, and crew rotation cycles.
For example, the only transportation available for most Greenland science
facilities is LC-130 heavy-lift aircraft during the summer. The dimensions
of its payload cannot exceed the size of 2.4 m × 2.4 m × 10.9 m (8 × 8 × 36 ft)
and 11340 kg (25000 pounds) in weight. A short Greenland summer and
therefore a short period of time when flights are available place additional
restrictions on payload mass and size, which can significantly extend any
construction period. To simplify construction and to make the most com-
ponents of the structure exchangeable, all members of the trusses, floor and
walls details, and utilities runs must fit the allowable payload size; therefore
in this case all dimensions of the elements should be divisible to 2.4 meters
(8 feet) (Bannova, O., Smith, I. F. C., 2005) These conditions create delivery
and access problems which are generally similar to circumstances encoun-
tered in planning future planetary bases.
Logistics and transportation to some disaster areas on Earth can also pose
challenging access difficulties. Responses to major disasters require that
complex management, training and logistics plans be developed and imple-
mented to deliver services to effected locations quickly and effectively. Special
arrangements must be planned to address a broad variety of critical needs.
Included are requirements for search and rescue operations; emergency med-
ical accommodations; evacuation and shelters for impacted populations; food
and water replenishment; waste cleanup and pollution control; and restoration
of power, communications, transportation and other vital support systems.
Terrestrial analog experiences can be useful references to assess and con-
firm important requirements for space mission planning. It must be recog-
nized, however, that the space environment is very different in many respects
from human terrestrial environments:
• There is total dependence on artificial systems.

• Altered gravity conditions influence most activities.
Table 28.2
Comparison Between Human Missions on and Close to Earth and Future Space
Missions.
Missions Orbital Winter-Over In Lunar
Factors Missions Polar Regions Missions Mars Missions
DURATION 4–6 9–12 6 16–36
(months)
DISTANCE TO 300–400 NA 350-400 60–400 million
EARTH (km) thousand
CREW SIZE 3–6 4–100 4 6–8
DEGREE OF Low to high Medium High Very high
ISOLATION
AND SOCIAL
MONOTONY
CREW Low High Medium Very high
AUTONOMY
EVACUATION Yes No Yes No
IN CASE OF
EMERGENCY
Availability of In-Site Support Measures
Outside Yes Yes Yes Very restricted
monitoring
2-way Yes Yes Yes Very restricted
communication
E-mail up/down Yes Yes Yes Yes
link
Internet access Yes Yes Yes No
Entertainment Yes Yes Yes Yes
Re-supply Yes No Restricted No
Visitors Yes No No No
VISIBILITY OF Yes Yes Yes No
EARTH
• Extreme radiation, temperature and operational conditions present

hazards for people and equipment.
• Stresses related to isolation in close confinement impact crew health
and morale.
To accomplish proper planning planners must understand special character-

istics of space environments:
• Reduced gravity levels and their implications.

• Radiation hazards and health risks.
• Micrometeoroid/space protection requirements.
• Special lunar/Mars surface features and environmental conditions.
Figure 28.3
SICSA’s concept of underwater experimental labs.
Barabasz, A.F., (1991) Kanas N. and

Manzey, D., (2003) Ocean Analogs
Oceans, like space, offer vast and exciting frontiers for science and explora-
tion. The lack of natural life support systems in space and offshore under-
water settings force mission planners to provide artificial alternatives with
control systems that conserve and protect non-renewal resources. As in
space, discharges of toxic wastes can produce harmful consequences. The
oceans and other water bodies that constitute a primary part of our natural
life support system have a limited capacity to sustain toxic abuse.
Deep ocean diving operations present requirements and constraints that
are also similar in many aspects to extra-vehicular activities (EVA) in space.
Divers and astronauts depending upon artificial life support systems must
perform exhausting, often hazardous work, encumbered by rigid pressure
suits that limit body mobility and dexterity. Poor or harsh lighting condi-
tions hamper visibility in performing demanding and potentially dangerous
work functions.
Construction Methods and Support Infrastructures

Construction methods in extreme environments must address vital struc-
tural safety and reliability requirements and take special environmental
influences into account. Included are:
• Lack of onsite equipment and limited labor personnel

• Short construction windows
• Equipment breakdowns with limited tools/spares;
• Hazardous working conditions;
• Extreme temperatures impacting thermal control and structural
fatigue.
A common construction priority for extreme environments is to design struc-

tures that can be rapidly assembled and deployed under harsh conditions.
Modular approaches facilitate deployment and afford immediate occupancy
but usually impose internal volume constraints driven by transportability
requirements. Erectable structures can overcome volume constraints but
add to on-site time and labor required for readiness. Advanced technologies
including inflatable and other tensile systems applied to polar and desert
environments can have transferable benefits.
Conclusions
Extreme environments offer good opportunities to demonstrate and assess
the practical attributes and performance of equipment and operations under
rigorous and demanding circumstances. High logistics costs and transpor-
tation constraints on allowable volume and weight force designers to cre-
ate systems that are small and highly efficient. Harsh climates and isolated
working conditions impose requirements for ruggedness and dependabil-
ity. Limited labor resources and available tools place a priority upon ease
of equipment deployment and repairs. Planning and design to optimize
human safety under normal and emergency circumstances takes on a spe-
cial urgency.
Operations in extreme environments often place people in small isolated
groups where they must learn to depend upon themselves and their team
members for social companionship and support ordinarily provided by
large and diverse communities. They often experience dangers and stresses
that test their ability to adapt, cope and perform. They are forced to work
together and be resourceful in dealing with problems and emergencies. By
observing experiences in extreme environments, we can learn about fun-

damental human capabilities and needs that are frequently overlooked or
forgotten in modern society.
Different extreme environments on Earth provide venues for testing facili-
ties, diverse issues and influences that apply to space missions. Table 28.3
presents some correlative examples.
While underwater facilities might be considered most applicable for many
space factors, other issues such as transportation and logistics may more
closely relate to polar and desert environments. In return, space technology,
including easily transportable and deployable habitats using new materials,
Table 28.3
Compatibility and Testing Abilities of Terrestrial Analog Settings for Space
Applications
Settings
Factors Polar Regions Under Water Deserts Disaster Areas
TRANSPORTATION
ENVIRONMENT
CREW: SIZE/
ACTIVITIES/
DURATIONS
CONSTRUCTION
METHODS
SAFETY AND
EMERGENCY
REQUIREMENTS
Maximum Medium Less

advanced power and power storage devices, and novel approaches to reduce
and reuse waste materials can benefit all settings.
Existing terrestrial facilities such as NASA human-rated test facilities, sub-
sea laboratories and polar camps can be used at low-cost as analogs at early
stages of mission planning. To increase analog fidelity new terrestrial facili-
ties that are specifically designed for space exploration will be necessary for
future mission development. Low Earth Orbit facilities, such as the ISS, can
provide a variety of space flight parameters and lunar outposts can provide
analogs for future Mars missions.
In every analog, an appropriate mix of systems testing, human research,
and mission operations simulation is necessary to achieve early space
exploration milestones, both technical and strategic. Earth-based preflight
crew training in high-fidelity simulators, geology training at appropri-
ate locations on Earth, new ground facilities including a life support test
facility, and life sciences research into human factors including psychoso-
cial issues and habitat design can contribute to planning successful space
exploration missions.
Transferable benefits from and between extreme environments can take
many forms. Included are advanced technological innovations, significant
scientific developments, and probably of greatest importance, enlightenment
about ways humans can live and work in harmony with all environments.
The ultimate benefit may be to help prevent our entire, fragile, planet Earth
from eventually becoming an extreme environment.
References
IDEEA One, The First International Design for Extreme Environments Assembly,
Final Conference Report, November 12–15, 1991.
Kanas N. and Manzey, D., Space Psychology and Psychiatry, Kluwer Academic
Publishers, London, 2003.
Barabasz, A.F., Effects of Isolation on States of Consciousness, in: From Antarctica to
Outer Space: Life in Isolation and Confinement, ed. Harrison A.A., Clearwater, Y.A.,
and McKay, C.P. Springer Verlag: New York, 1991.
Bannova, O., Smith, I. F. C., Autonomous Architecture: Summit Station in Greenland
Design Proposal as a Test-Bed for Future Planetary Exploration. SAE 2005
Conference Proceedings, July, 2005.
SICSA space architecture seminar lecture series. Part VIII: Shelter Design and
Construction. Section A: The Nature of Shelters, www.sicsa.uh.edu, 2006.
Adam, B. and Smith, I.F.C., (2007), Self-Diagnosis and Self-Repair of an Active
Tensegrity Structure, Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 133, 1752–1761.
29
Surface Infrastructure Planning and
Design Considerations for Future
Lunar and Mars Habitation
Larry Bell
Professor/Director of SICSA
Larry Bell is a professor of architecture and endowed professor of space archi-

tecture in the University of Houston’s College of Architecture, where he is also
the director of the Sasakawa International Center of Space Architecture (SICSA).
Larry also heads the college’s MS-Space Architecture program, serving students
from NASA and major aerospace companies along with professionals from many
countries. In addition to achievement awards from leading aerospace engineer-
ing societies and NASA headquarters, he has received important international
honors, including the Space Pioneer Award by Kyushu Sanyo University in Japan
and two of the highest honors awarded by the Federation of Astronautics and
Cosmonautics of the former Soviet Union for his contributions to international
space development. His name was placed in large letters on the Russian Proton
rocket that launched the first crew to the International Space Station.
Abstract This paper discusses and compares advantages and disad-

vantages of different types of modular habitats that offer prospective uses to
support human surface operations on the Moon and Mars. It also summa-
rizes important considerations associated with surface placement and con-
figuration options, including evolutionary growth capabilities, emergency
egress features, launch and landing economies and deployment factors. Basic
types of habitats addressed include “hard” fixed-volume modules with pre-
integrated utility systems and expandable-volume “inflatable” variations.
Scenarios include combinations of both types that can optimize overall site
development and operational benefits.
Introduction
Recognizing the enormously high costs of delivering habitats and support
equipment to any lunar or planetary surface destination it is essential to
provide means to deliver the greatest amount of useful real assets in the
387
most practical and efficient manner possible. This goal presents a number
of major planning and design challenges. All elements must comply within
stringent payload mass and volume limitations imposed by available launch,
orbital transfer and landing vehicles. If multiple habitats are to be provided,
means must be afforded to transport them from the landing area to the
operational destination over rough terrain, then position them in place with
secure pressure-tight interfaces. Utility systems, including power and life
support, must be put in a proven state of readiness prior to occupation, poten-
tially accomplished by automated devices. Means for safe egress should be
made available in the event of a pressure failure or other emergency in any
element, and opportunities for evolutionary configuration growth should
extend this capability.
Representative Design Concepts

A large variety of design concepts developed by numerous international
government, corporate and academic entities have proposed ways to address
these and other challenges. Specific solutions are guided by different assump-
tions regarding transportation system capabilities, lander and surface mobil-
ity systems, space radiation and meteorite hazard mitigation strategies and
other critical engineering accommodations. Given that no single definitive
habitat design solution can universally satisfy all variant assumptions, this
presentation will, by necessity, address three general habitat types and asso-
ciated application considerations. The first is a large diameter rigid module
oriented in a vertical surface placement. A second type is a vertically-oriented
module that incorporates a pliable, “inflatable” pressure shell deployed at
the destination site to afford greatly expanded interior volume benefits. The
third type is a smaller diameter rigid module oriented in a horizontal sur-
face placement similar in design to those used for the International Space
Station (ISS) (Figure 29.1).
Although each type of module presents special surface landing require-
ments and challenges, these issues are beyond the practical scope of this
paper. Long cylindrical modules can be expected to be particularly prob-
lematic in this regard due to difficulties in balancing the center of gravity
throughout the surface decent stages (Figure 29.2).
Module Volumetric Considerations

Habitat module scaling decisions must correlate module types with launch/
landing constraints and functional accommodation requirements driven by
Surface Infrastructure Planning and Design 389
Vertical Cylindrical Modules
Horizontal Cylindrical Module
Vertical Inflatable Module
Figure 29.1
SICSA module concepts.
Figure 29.2
SICSA launch and lander concepts.
mission applications. Each option type must be optimized for volumetric

and overall design efficiency to:
• Maximize the total amount of internal space available for essen-

tial equipment systems, human operations and crew comfort/
morale.
• Plan interior circulation within and between modules for efficient
use, convenience and safety.
• Accommodate manifesting and delivery of support equipment and
expendable logistic supplies to the extent possible.
• Enable rapid relocation, integration and change-out of utility-
dependent systems during and following operational deployment
at the site.
Large diameter modules and longer smaller diameter modules present dif-
ferent layout optimization characteristics. Vertically-oriented large diameter
modules naturally lead to a “bologna-slice” internal configuration with cir-
cular floor areas. The amount of usable floor increases greatly as a func-
tion of diameter and is only practical for modules of significant cross-section
(perhaps 30-ft diameter or more). Such modules may also facilitate landing
by combining a wide footprint for stability and a relatively compact center of
gravity during decent.
Long, smaller diameter modules naturally provide a “banana-split”, rect-
angular floor oriented orientation that uses space efficiently and affords a
longer “line-of-sight” than the bologna-slice approach. This configuration
also offers considerable versatility to accommodate wall-mounted equip-
ment systems and conventional circulation layouts (Figure 29.3).
Larger diameter and/or longer module interiors can be produced using
soft, pliable layered inflatable pressure enclosures that are compactible to fit
into constrained-volume payload shrouds and deployed at the destinations.
Here, the chief volumetric advantage is for modules that increase in diam-
eter and expand as a function of radius squared. Modules that extend only
in length expand only by linear movements.
SICSA has undertaken numerous design studies that exploit potential
capabilities of inflatable systems to greatly expand internal volumes. These
schemes typically incorporate the inflatable section into a hard lower sec-
tion that provides surface support structures, life support equipment and
utility connections, and accommodation space for the undeployed soft
upper structure during launch, orbital transfer and landing (Figures 29.4
and 29.5).
SICSA has also proposed a “pop-out” floor structure that can be incorpo-
rated into an inflatable module to eliminate the need for internal construc-
tion build-out following deployment (Figures 29.6 and 29.7).
A B
A
15 ft.
30 ft. 45 ft. 45 ft.
45 ft.
B
24 ft. 39 ft.
45 ft.
45 ft.
12 ft. 6 ft. 19.5 ft. 6 ft.
45 ft.
Bologna Slice Scheme Banana Split Scheme

Usable floor area increases greatly as a function Usable floor area efficient for modules 15 ft.
of module diameter. diameter and larger.
* Total area per floor: (A) 705 sq.ft. (B) 1585 sq.ft. * Average area per floor: (A) 545 sq.ft. (B) 1730 sq.ft.
* Total open floor area: (A) 450 sq.ft. (B) 1195 sq.ft. * Average open area: (A) 286 sq.ft. (B) 1395 sq.ft.
* Usable open floor area: (A) 420 sq.ft. (B) 1165 sq.ft. * Average usable area: (A) 286 sq.ft. (B) 1275 sq.ft.
* Usable/total floor area ratio: (A) 0.59 (B) 0.73 * Usable/total floor area ratio: (A) 0.5 (B) 0.74
* Maximum sight distance vista: (A) 24 ft. (B) 39 ft. * Maximum sight distance vista: (A) 45 ft. (B) 45 ft.
Figure 29.3
Module layout/configuration options.
Figure 29.4
SICSA’s pop-out floor system.
Figure 29.5
Inflatable module interior.
Soft Pressure Enclosure
Tension Ring
Tension Cords
Figure 29.6
SICSA’s pop-out floor system.
Figure 29.7
Inflatable module interior.
Site Configuration Considerations

Large diameter vertically-oriented modules are naturally suited for either
linear, triangular or rectangular surface configuration patterns. The refer-
ence patterns illustrated below provide separate module surface access/
egress locations at central locations, and transfer tunnel connections that
connect them together at perimeters. Both schemes (triangular and rectan-
gular) afford special advantages and disadvantages (Figure 29.8).
Triangular Configuration
• Pros: A relatively compact configuration footprint at the entry airlock level can minimize
the area for site surface preparation (if required). A loop dual-egress for emergencies is
achieved with only three modules.
• Cons: May be more difficult to position/assemble this geometry.
Rectangular Configuration
• Pros: More conventional geometry may facilitate module site positioning
• Cons: Requires larger footprint for good site geometry and/or surface selection. Four
modules are required for dual-egress from all modules.
Surface
airlock access
below
Compact Growth
footprint
Elevated
Triangular
level
Surface airlock
access below
Larger
footprint
Rectilinear
Figure 29.8
Large diameter module surface configurations.
Smaller diameter cylindrical modules can be configured in a variety of sur-

face patterns most logically organized in linear, cruciform and rectilinear geom-
etries. Connecting component elements can include separate airlock nodes for
access/egress at module intersection points, and vertically-oriented hard shell
or inflatable modules to form hybrid combinations. Each of these schemes
presents special advantages and disadvantages associated with space launch
efficiency, emergency egress opportunities, commonality of module types, evo-
lutionary growth options and relative ease of surface positioning.
For comparison purposes, four basic schemes are presented as illustrations
(Figures 29.9–29.15).
• Scheme A incorporates a combination of horizontal conventional and vertical inflatable

modules to realize special advantages of each type:
• EVA access/egress would be provided by suitlocks in each horizontal module.
• The cruciform plan could later be expanded into a closed-loop racetrack.
• Scheme B utilizes only horizontal modules in a racetrack pattern:
• Each module is assumed to contain an airlock which also serves as a berthing/ interface
passageway.
• Scheme C utilizes a combination of horizontal conventional modules and corner berthing/
airlock nodes:
• Suitlocks could be used, but are not presented to conserve functional module space.
• Scheme D presents a raft pattern with 2 types of horizontal modules plus separate
berthing/airlock nodes:
The configuration assumes that 2 EVA access/egress airlocks will be provided.
Scheme A: Cruciform with

inflatable + conventional
modules
Scheme C: Scheme D: Raft with

Conventional modules conventional modules +
with corner airlock airlock nodes
nodes
Figure 29.9
Module configuration examples.
Non-functional space
Number of launches
required to achieve
configuration
4
5 Scheme A: Scheme C:
• Suitlocks minimize non- • External airlocks
Scheme A: Cruciform with Scheme B: Overlap with functional space associated enable full utilization
inflatable + conventional conventional modules with conventional airlocks. of modules but impose
modules • Inflatable module greatly additional launch
increases crew living/work requirements.
volume over all other Scheme D:
schemes.
• Special circulation
5
4+ Scheme B: modules plus external
airlocks impose
• Internal airlocks in all
substantial launch
modules produce a high
requirements.
non-functional/useful
Scheme C: Conventional Scheme D: Raft with volume ratio.
modules with corner conventional modules +
airlock nodes airlock nodes
Figure 29.10
Space/launch efficiency.
Emergency evacuation
EVA To connecting module
EVA EVA To EVA
Scheme C:
• Connections/EVA
EVA egress through
external airlocks.
EVA
EVA
Scheme A:
• Worst case-airlock
• Direct connections, all failure prior to
Scheme A: Cruciform with Scheme B: Overlap with modules. complete racetrack,
inflatable + conventional modules conventional modules • EVA-suitlocks in isolating modules.
EVA EVA conventional modules.
• Worst case-central atrium Scheme D:
emergency. • Connections through
special modules.
Scheme B:
• EVA egress through
• Connections/EVA egress separate nodes.
through internal airlocks.
• Worst case-airlock
• Worst case-airlock failure failure prior to
prior to complete racetrack, complete racetrack,
isolating modules. isolating modules.
Scheme C: Conventional Scheme D: Raft with
Figure 29.11
Emergency egress.
A Separate Module Types

A
B Scheme A: Scheme C:
• Applies 2 module types, each • Uses a single
with important functional standard module +
B
support benefits (inflatable separate airlock
volume & conventional module element.
pre-integration).
Scheme A: Cruciform with Scheme B: Overlap with Scheme D:
inflatable + conventional conventional modules • Uses 2 types of
Scheme B:
modules modules + a
• Uses a single standard separate airlock
module but with constricted
element.
volume capacity.
A • For double connection
B interfaces the module
C must be modified for a
A
B 2nd berthing port.

Figure 29.12
Module commonality.
Possible growth interface
Site preparation/level area

boundary
Scheme A: Scheme C:
• Configuration can extend • Configuration can grow along 2
lineally & possibly replicate. axes & can replicate a 2nd
• Smallest boundary for level racetrack group.
site requirement. • Imposes the largest level site
• Does not impose a requirement of all schemes.
Scheme A: Cruciform with Scheme B: Overlap with
requirement for more than • Requires 4 modules/5 launches
inflatable + conventional conventional modules
2 modules/launches prior to achieve racetrack advantage.
modules
to operational configuration.
Scheme D:
Scheme B: • Configuration can grow along one
• Configuration can grow side (unless additional airlocks
along 2 axes & can replicate are added) requiring 4+ launches,
a 2nd racetrack group. and can replicate.
• More compact for site • More compact for site
preparation than Scheme C. preparation than schemes B&C.
• Requires 4 modules/launches • Requires 4 modules +2 airlocks
to achieve racetrack advantage. to achieve racetrack advantage.
Figure 29.13
Evolutionary growth.
Scheme A: Scheme C:
• Central inflatable module • Accurate positioning of
establishes the site center & conventional modules
is not repositioned. and nodal airlock elements
may be difficult, particularly
Establishes initial • Conventional modules with
reference on rough, uneven sites.
wheels are aligned to
interface at a single point. • While conventional modules
can have wheels, means for
Scheme B: transferring/aligning nodal
• Conventional modules with airlocks are unknown.
wheels must be forward &
rotationally aligned for Scheme D:
mating at 2 berthing points. • Accurate positioning of all
• Placement positioning may 4 conventional modules to
Scheme A: Cruciform with Scheme B: Overlap with
be difficult by towing due to accommodate berthing
inflatable + conventional conventional modules
interference by obstructing interfaces may be difficult,
modules
modules. particularly for rotational
alignments of end
Forward, rotational & circulation modules.
elevation alignments with
2 or more interfaces • Transport & positioning
problems for nodal airlock
Forward, rotational &
elements are similar to
leveling alignments with
Scheme C.
2 or more interfaces
modules with corner conventional modules + Forward, rotational &
airlock nodes airlock nodes leveling alignments with
1–2 interfaces
Figure 29.14
Surface positioning.
Good
Commonality
Space/launch
Evolutionary
Comparison
Rank Order
Positioning
Emergency
Fair
Efficiency
Summary
Module
Growth
Surface
Egress
Poor
Scheme A: Cruciform Scheme B: Overlap with
with inflatable + conventional modules
conventional modules
Scheme A 1
Scheme B 3
Scheme C 2
Scheme D 4
Figure 29.15
Summary observations.
Summary Conclusions
Guided by the configuration option comparisons, SICSA selected a reference
design that combines use of a hard and inflatable hybrid combination of
modules for special consideration (Figure 29.16).
Figure 29.16
Module hybrid combination approach.
This approach combines advantages of large interior volumes of inflatables

with means to integrate utilities and equipment systems afforded by conven-
tional modules. In addition:
• It allows conventional modules to be used to transport cargo/ equip-

ment that can’t be carried in inflatables.
• It enables conventional modules to be standardized for use as labo-
ratories and for use as logistics carriers that can be used for lab/hab
functions when emptied (excellent commonality functions).
• It can evolve into a racetrack pattern, offering dual egress capabilities.
• It can accommodate separate attachable airlocks, but potentially will
not require them.
• It presents a small footprint to minimize site selection and prepara-
tion problems.
30
Settlement Site Selection and Exploration
through Hierarchical Roving
Gregory Konesky
SGK Nanostructures, Inc.
Hampton Bays, New York
Gregory Konesky is co-founder and director of R&D of SGK Nanostructures,

Inc., established to develop advanced materials based on cross-linked car-
bon nanotubes for high strength-to-weight, isotropic heat spreader, and
hydrogen storage applications. He is also a member of the Board of Scientific
Advisors for Bovie Medical Corp., where he is developing an atmospheric-
discharge plasma beam for biomedical and defense/homeland security
applications. He has authored over 49 articles on a wide range of subjects
including teleoperation and telepresence, optical communications, astrobiol-
ogy, and plasma decontamination. He is a member of the AIAA, IEEE, SPIE,
OSA, MRS, ACS, AAAS, and NYAS, and received a BSEE from Polytechnic
Institute of Brooklyn in 1977.
Abstract While orbital reconnaissance is useful for initial lunar settlement

site selection, it is no substitute for in-situ ground truth, which could be easily
accomplished with teleoperated roving. The Mars Exploration Rovers (MER)
experience with Sojourner in 1997, and Spirit and Opportunity in 2004 show
how the selection of rover size influences the capabilities and nature of their
respective missions. Smaller rovers can more closely explore a complex envi-
ronment and tend to be more nimble, but at a cost of reduced payload capability.
Larger rovers enjoy enhanced payload capabilities, but at a cost of being some-
what ponderous and difficult to maneuver in complex environments. The best
of these extremes can be optimized by a hierarchical roving approach wherein
a large rover carries a hierarchy of smaller specialized rovers. The large rover, in
addition to serving as a transport for the collection of smaller rovers to a remote
deployment site, also acts as a communications relay link and power recharge
source for the smaller rovers. In a typical operational scenario, the smaller spe-
cialized rovers are deployed at a given site and execute their collective mis-
sion. They are then recovered by the large carrier rover and transported to the
next site. Some of the benefits of hierarchical roving include greater situational
awareness, redundancy, spatially distributed capability, and the opportunity
for self-rescue. The large rover can also serve as an anchor point for tethered
401
roving, permitting smaller rovers to negotiate steep slopes or down-hole explo-

ration that would otherwise be inaccessible to a wheeled vehicle.
Design and operating experience with a test model carrier vehicle containing
three smaller specialized rovers is discussed, as are the design tradeoffs. In
an alternate realization, a small fleet of rovers, teleoperated by Earth-bound
users, is considered as a public outreach/commercial enterprise mission. The
economics of an access fee structure are discussed for a baseline study of
10 rovers, each carrying 50 independently controllable camera heads, which
permits a hierarchy of user interaction.
Introduction
Increasingly capable lunar orbital imaging will play a key role in anticipated
settlement site selection when Man returns. However, it is no substitute for
on-site ground truth reconnaissance.
The Moon enjoys a particular advantage in its being only approximately
1.3 light seconds away, permitting near real-time teleoperation on the lunar
surface by Earth-bound users. In addition, there is a wealth of engineering
data, and operational experience, using U.S. Apollo and Russian Luna rovers
on the Moon.
For lunar settlement site selection and exploration, the physical size of the
rover used has consequences in terms of tradeoffs of variables such as mission
capabilities, mission duration and ability to deal with obstacles, instrument
suite, and so on. The early rover exploration of Mars [1] perhaps best illustrates
these tradeoffs. The first of the Mars Exploration Rovers (MER), Sojourner, in
1997, was necessarily limited both in size and scope of mission. It carried an
Alpha Proton X-Ray Spectrometer (APXS), and associated deployment mecha-
nism, and an imaging system. Sojourner lasted a few months in the Martian
environment and traveled a few hundred meters until contact was lost.
By contrast, the subsequent Spirit and Opportunity MER missions, in 2004,
carried a much larger array of instrumentation, including an APXS, Rock
Abrasion Tool, and Microscopic Imager, which were all mounted on a com-
mon deployment mechanism, Stereoscopic Panoramic Cameras, Navigation
and Hazard Avoidance Cameras, a Miniature Thermal Emission Spectrometer,
a Mossbauer Spectrometer, and an array of magnets for magnetic particle
detection. They each traveled several kilometers, collectively transmitted over
150,000 images back to Earth, and continue to operate today. Both Sojourner and
Opportunity are shown in Figure 30.1 for a comparison of their relative sizes.
The greater size of Spirit and Opportunity provided for a larger array of instru-
mentation and continued endurance, when compared to the smaller Sojourner.
However, Sojourner, by chance landed in a strewn rock field, where its small
size was an enabling asset, allowing it to maneuver around and between this
Settlement Site Selection and Exploration through Hierarchical Roving 403
Figure 30.1
Sojourner and Opportunity Mars Exploration Rovers (NASA/JPL photo).
rock field easily. If either Opportunity or Spirit had landed there, their large size
would cause considerable difficulty in negotiating these obstacles. After the
Sojourner experience, additional effort was given to reconsidering the proposed
landing sites for Opportunity and Spirit [2, 3] to avoid a similar situation.
When heading into unknown terrain, the ideal situation would provide
both the enhanced instrument payload capability and endurance of a large
rover, with the nimbleness and agility of a small rover, especially in a complex
environment. Hierarchical roving attempts to balance the tradeoffs between
large and small rovers into a single combined system.
Hierarchical Roving
The operational experiences with the Sojourner and Spirit/Opportunity MERs
serve to highlight the tradeoffs between small and large rovers respectively.
Hierarchical roving is somewhat of a paradigm shift in the allocation and
redistribution of instrumentation capability.
Rather than concentrating those capabilities in one large and ponderous
rover, they are instead redistributed into a small fleet of specialized rovers
which interact, both simultaneously and sequentially, to accomplish a specific
mission. The limited endurance of the small specialized rover fleet is compen-
sated for by using a large rover as a group carrier of the small rovers. They are
collectively transported to a deployment site by the large rover. The large rover
HyperSpectral Sample Acquisition

Imaging and Preparation
Analysis #1 Analysis #2
High Resolution
Imaging
Analysis #3 Analysis #4
Microscopic Sample Archive

Imaging
Figure 30.2a
Single large rover implementation.
HyperSpectral High Resolution Microscopic Sample Acquisition

Imaging Imaging Imaging and Preparation
Analysis #2 Analysis #3 Analysis #4

Analysis #1
Sample Archive
Carrier Vehicle
Figure 30.2b
Redistribution of capabilities among several small specialized rovers.
also serves as a power recharge source for the small rovers, and as a communi-
cations relay link. This redistribution in capability is illustrated in Figure 30.2.
Hierarchical roving presents several advantages [4] over the single large
rover approach. They include a fail-soft redundancy where the loss of any
one small rover only somewhat diminishes the overall mission capability,
rather than ends it. Several small rovers can simultaneously and/or sequen-
tially operate upon a larger area, increasing the rate of coverage of explora-
tion as well as provide a greater situational awareness. This approach also
allows for a potential self-rescue capability which is otherwise unavailable
with a single large rover.
The fleet of small specialized rovers may operate collectively in an autono-
mous mode [5–7] or in a teleoperation mode [8], which is made feasible by the
Moon’s proximity. Some potential areas of specialization for the small rovers
include imaging, sample acquisition and preparation, sample analysis, sample
archiving, and manipulation. Imaging will always include sensors for naviga-
tion and obstacle avoidance, and will be common to all small rovers. However,
additional imaging specialization would include long-distance high resolu-
tion telephoto imaging from an extended mast, with scout vehicles for path
planning, hazard avoidance and so on. Hyperspectral imaging/microscopic
imaging is another form of specialization to be used for identifying regions of
interest to be subsequently visited by other specialized small rovers.
Once a region of interest is identified, a small rover specialized in sample
acquisition and preparation provides a sample to one or more analysis-
specialized small rovers, and then finally provides a sample to a sample
HyperSpectral
Imaging
Figure 30.3a
Region of interest identification.
Analysis #1
Sample Acquisition
and Preparation
Figure 30.3b
Sample acquisition and preparation, handed to an analysis specialized rover.
Analysis #1
Sample Acquisition
and Preparation
Analysis #2
Figure 30.3c
Acquired and prepared sample shared by two analysis rovers.
Sample Archive
Figure 30.3d
Sample archived.
archive small rover. While this process is on-going, the imaging rover(s)
are off identifying a new region of interest sites. The overall process is
similar to an assembly line where sample site identification, acquisition and
processing, analysis, and archiving all proceed simultaneously at different
stages, in various sites. An example of this overall process is illustrated in
Figure 30.3.
Once the collective mission of the fleet of specialized small rovers is com-
plete, they reenter the large carrier rover and are transported as a group
to the next deployment site. During this transport process, the batteries of
the small rover fleet are also being recharged by the large rover, so they are
ready to go upon arrival at the next mission site.
Test-Bed Prototype
In order to test some of these concepts, a test-bed prototype was constructed.
Since the goal is to gain some experience with the basic concept, rather than
any specific technological implementation, commercial off-the-shelf tech-
nology was used wherever possible. To that end, simple remote controlled
hobbyist-scale vehicles provide readily available and capable vehicles and
technologies, and at low cost.
Figure 30.4a
Carrier vehicle with remote steering and hazard avoidance cameras.
In the test bed prototype, carrying and deploying the small rovers was
addressed by constructing a carrier bay on the large vehicle. The framework
of the carrier bay also acts as a support structure for solar panels, totaling
66 Watts. Overall dimensions for this proof-of-principle prototype are 34”
wide, 52” long, and 37” high. The maximum weight is 152 pounds, which
includes up to 48 pounds of small rover payload. The interior dimensions of
the carrier bay are 24” wide, 31” long, and 18” high. This basic construction
sequence is shown in Figure 30.4.
The small specialized rovers exit and re-enter the large vehicle carrier bay
through a folding ramp mechanism. The deployment sequence of this ramp
is shown in Figure 30.5.
Figure 30.4b
Construction of the carrier bay.
Figure 30.4c
Addition of the solar panels and the remote control electronics.
Large-Scale Teleoperation as a Commercial Venture

The notion of large-scale hierarchical roving can be extended to a commer-
cial venture which is potentially economically self supporting [9]. The func-
tional hierarchy here is somewhat more simplified with a lunar lander acting
as a deployment mechanism as well as a communications relay link between
the rover fleet and Earth-bound users, as shown in Figure 30.6. While lunar
settlement site selection and exploration may be the initial mission goal, the
Figure 30.5a
Ramp retracted.
Figure 30.5b
Ramp is being deployed.
addition of an array of independently controllable remote camera heads to

each rover permits a potential public outreach add-on mission. An access fee
structure is proposed that is also hierarchical, based on the level of Earth-
bound user participation.
The highest level of user participation would be a remote vehicle driver,
whose number is limited only by the size of the vehicle fleet. The next lower
level would be the ability to remotely steer a given camera head on a given
rover vehicle, which is termed an “active viewer.” Since there are a large
number of camera heads per vehicle, as illustrated in Figure 30.7, the total
number of simultaneous remote users is much larger than the number of
Figure 30.5c
Ramp is fully deployed.
Directional Antenna
to User Distribution
Onmi-directional Local Antennae
Rever 1 Rever N Local Relay
Figure 30.6
A fleet of small rovers linked to Earth-bound users through a local relay.
potential drivers. Finally, the lowest level of participation is a “tag along”

viewer (or “passive viewer”) which simply monitors any given camera head
on any given vehicle, without the ability to affect the pointing direction of
that camera head. Significantly, there are an unlimited number of potential
passive viewer users.
Suppose access to these levels of interaction was available over a high speed
internet connection, and access was allocated into 15 minute time slices. We
consider a base-line study of a 10 rover vehicle fleet on the Moon, with each
vehicle carrying 50 independently controllable camera heads, for a total of
500 simultaneous video feeds back to Earth. Additionally, a fee of $100 per
15 minute time slice is charged for remote vehicle drivers, $10 for active view-
ers, and $1 for passive viewers.
Camera Stack, Front View
Top Row
Individual
Middle Row
Camera Head
Bottom Row
Baseplate
Connection to Locomotion Module
Figure 30.7
Illustration of the camera stack array carried by each rover vehicle per active channel from the
Moon.
Assuming the entire venture is solar powered, operational availability

occurs for at most about 14 Earth days per synodic month, but low Sun angle
may limit this to 12 days. Since there are 13 synodic months per year, there
will be 156 working Earth days per year. Given that a lunar day is in continu-
ous sunlight 24 hours per Earth day, there are 3744 working hours per year,
or 14,976 15-minute time slices
Using the proposed fee structure described previously, there will be
approximately $15 million from rover vehicle driver revenue and almost
$75 million from active viewers per year. Perhaps surprisingly, the largest
potential revenue stream is from passive viewers, since there are an unlimited
number of possible passive viewers per active video channel from the Moon.
If, for example, there are 10 passive viewers per active viewer, about another
$75 million will be added to the total revenue stream. If there are 100 passive
viewers per active viewer, that number jumps to $750 million.
Conclusions
Hierarchical roving provides the possibility of combining the best attributes
of large and small rovers into a single integrated system. It provides the abil-
ity to sense and sample the local environment from multiple mobile points
simultaneously, while providing redundancy and fault tolerance so that the
loss of any given small rover only diminishes the overall mission capability,
rather than ends it.
A different form of hierarchical roving may be used to produce a poten-
tially economically self-supporting exploration venture on the Moon through
large-scale teleoperation and personal remote access to the surface of another
world. An additional and perhaps greater benefit from this is the desire to
significantly expand human presence there by the general public, the atten-
dant consequences for space-related funding.
References
1. S. Squyres, Roving Mars, Hyperion, New York, NY, 2005.
2. M. Golombek, et al., “Assessment of Mars Exploration Rover landing predic-
tions,” Nature, Vol. 436, pgs. 1588–1590, 16 June 2006.
3. M. Golombek, et al., “Rock size-frequency distributions on Mars and implica-
tions for MER landing safety and operations,” Journal of Geophysical Research,
Vol. 108, (E12), pg 8086–8089, 2003.
4. G. Konesky, “Rovers within Rovers—a Hierarchical Approach,“ Proc. of

Instruments, Methods, and Missions for Astrobiology IX, R. Hoover, G. Levin, and
A. Rozanov, editors, SPIE Proc. Vol. 6309, pgs 63090F0-8, San Diego, CA, 2006.
5. B. Siciliano and K. Valavanis, “Multirobots and Cooperative Systems,” Control
Problems in Robotics and Automation, Springer, New York, NY, pgs 19–33, 1998.
6. A. Bicchi, A. Danesi, G. Dini, S. La Porta, L. Pallottino, I. Savino, and R. Schiavi,
“Heterogeneous Wireless Multirobot System,” IEEE Robotics and Automation,
Vol. 15, No. 1, pgs 62–71, March 2008.
7. N. Michael, J. Fink, V. Kumar, “Experimental Testbed for Large Multirobot
Teams,” ibid., pgs 53–62.
8. G. Konesky, “Group Telepresence,” Proc. of Intelligent Manufacturing, B.
Gopalakrishnan, A. Gunasekaran, and P. Orban, editors, SPIE Proc. Vol. 179–187,
Providence, RI, 2003.
9. G. Konesky, “Large Scale Teleoperation on the Lunar Surface,” Proc. of Materials
in Space–Science, Technology, and Exploration, A. Hepp, J. Prahl, T. Keith, S. Bailey,
and J. Fowler, editors, MRS Proc. Vol. 551, pgs 33–38, Boston, MA, 1998.
31
Integrated Lunar Transportation System
Jerome Pearson
Star Technology and Research, Inc.
Mount Pleasant, South Carolina
John C. Oldson
Eugene M. Levin
Harry Wykes
Jerome Pearson is president of Star Technology and Research, Inc., a small

business in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina. He was an engineer for NASA
during Apollo and a branch chief for the Air Force during SDI, and invented
the space elevator and the lunar space elevator. He has degrees in engineer-
ing and geology and is author of nearly 100 technical publications, includ-
ing invited articles for Encyclopaedia Britannica and New Scientist. He has
been interviewed many times on television about space elevators and global
warming, and was featured in the Discovery Channel series, Science of the
Impossible. He is a Fellow of the BIS, an Associate Fellow of AIAA and a mem-
ber of the International Academy of Astronautics.
John C. Oldson is a senior engineer at Star Technology and Research, Inc.
and resides in San Diego, California. He has an MS in engineering geosci-
ences from UC-Berkeley, and worked for several years as a senior engineer
for Energy Science Laboratories in San Diego. He has published numerous
papers on non-eroding nozzles for chemical rockets, cooled composite nozzle
design for VentureStar linear aerospike engine, and Stirling engine regenera-
tor. He has done engineering work on advanced space propulsion concepts,
including tethers, lunar space elevators, low-cost small launch vehicle sys-
tems, and climate control.
415
Eugene M. Levin, PhD, is senior scientist at Star Technology and Research, Inc.
and a technical consultant on space tether dynamics in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
He received his PhD from Moscow University, and worked for several years at
the Institute for Mechanical Engineering Research at the Russian Academy of
Sciences in Moscow. Since coming to the United States in 1993 and later becom-
ing a U.S. citizen, he has written two definitive books on the dynamics of space
tethers and Earth and lunar space elevators, and holds several patents on space
tether concepts. He has consulted with NASA, the Air Force and Navy, and has
presented seminars at numerous universities on space dynamics.
Harry Wykes is a technical consultant for Walt Disney Engineering and for
Star Technology and Research, Inc. He has more than 30 years of experi-
ence in mechanical design, CAD drafting, and stereo lithography. He has
designed electronic special effects, optics and robotics for Disney, and is an
accomplished illustrator, painter, and photographer. He managed the stu-
dio and staff for The Brubaker Group in Los Angeles, and was in charge
of conceptual and detailed design of products and vehicles for clients such
as Learjet and North American Rockwell. He has published articles on the
design of space habitats and lunar habitation modules.
Abstract An integrated transportation system is proposed from the lunar

poles to Earth orbit, using solar-powered electric vehicles on lunar tramways,
highways, and a lunar space elevator. The system could transport large amounts
of lunar resources to Earth orbit for construction, radiation shielding, and pro-
pellant depots, and could supply lunar equatorial, polar, and mining bases with
manufactured items. We present a system for lunar surface transport using
“cars, trucks, and trains,” and the infrastructure of “roads, highways, and tram-
ways,” connecting with the lunar space elevator for transport to Earth orbit.
The Apollo Lunar Rovers demonstrated a battery-powered range of nearly
50 kilometers, but they also uncovered the problems of lunar dust. For building
dustless highways, it appears particularly attractive to create paved roads by
using microwaves to sinter lunar dust into a hard surface. For tramways, tall
towers can support high-strength ribbons that carry cable cars over the lunar
craters; the ribbon might even be fabricated from lunar materials. We address
the power and energy storage requirements for lunar transportation vehicles,
the design and effectiveness of lunar tramways, and the materials requirements
for the support ribbons of lunar tramways and lunar space elevators.
Introduction
NASA is implementing a plan for a return to the Moon, which will build on and
expand the capabilities demonstrated during the Apollo landings. The plan
includes long-duration lunar stays, lunar outposts and bases, and exploitation
Integrated Lunar Transportation System 417
of lunar resources on the Moon and in Earth orbit.1 Because there are apparently
deposits of water ice in shadowed craters near the lunar poles, and extensive
areas of lunar regolith deposits of useful minerals in the lunar maria nearer
the lunar equator, it will be necessary to create an integrated lunar transporta-
tion system to connect these locations with each other and with locations in
Earth orbit. Because of the large delta-V requirements for carrying rocket fuel
from the Earth’s surface all the way to the Moon, we examined alternative
transportation systems that do not use rockets, but do use indigenous lunar
materials. The system we propose here is based on presentations at the Rutgers
Lunar Settlements Symposium in 2007,2 the Moonbase conference in Venice,
Italy in 20053 and the final report of a study for NIAC in 2005.4
The integrated lunar transportation system consists of a lunar space eleva-
tor (LSE) balanced about the L1 Lagrangian point and extending directly
down to the lunar equator; an elevated tramway, using the same composite
ribbon as the space elevator, extending to the lunar south pole; and robotic
vehicles that move along this transportation system by solar power and effi-
cient energy storage to operate through the lunar night. As part of the pro-
cess of building the tramway suspended on towers located on mountain tops
and crater rims, highways can also be created for robotic vehicles (and per-
haps even manned vehicles) to move the 2700 km between the lunar equator
and the poles. The integrated transportation system is shown schematically
in Figure 31.1.
This system is designed to transport lunar polar ice over the tramway, up
the space elevator, and from there into high Earth orbit, where it can be used
for refueling hydrogen/oxygen rocket engines for launches to all over the
solar system. The flow in the opposite direction will be supplies and manu-
factured goods from Earth orbit to the lunar bases and the polar mining sta-
tions. The components of the system are described in the following sections.
Earth
Payloads
Ballast L1
Lunar Space Elevator
Payloads
Moon
Tramway
Figure 31.1
Integrated lunar transportation system.
System Description
The key component of the system is the lunar space elevator, shown in
Figure 31.2, first published by Pearson5,6 in 1977 and independently by
Artsutanov7 in 1979. (Tsander, the Russian visionary, looked at a lunar space
elevator even earlier.8) The LSE is an extension of the concept of the Earth
space elevator, invented by Artsutanov9 (1960) and independently by Pearson
(1975).10
The classical Earth space elevator is essentially a geostationary satellite
that is elongated until the lower end touches the Earth at the equator, and the
upper end extends to an arbitrary distance and ends in a counterweight that
keeps the entire structure in balance about the geostationary orbit altitude.
Unfortunately, the Earth space elevator requires materials as strong as car-
bon nanotubes, because of the Earth’s high gravitational field. The lunar
space elevator can be constructed from current composite materials, but it is
more complicated to analyze, because it can only be balanced about the L1
or L2 unstable Lagrangian points of the Earth-Moon-spacecraft three-body
system. These points are about one-sixth of the Earth-Moon distance from
the lunar surface. The lunar transportation system uses the L1 lunar space
elevator with ribbons of available high-strength composites. As shown in
the figure, the lunar space elevator could be curved to touch down at points
other than the lunar equator.
Figure 31.3 shows an artist’s concept of the transportation system for car-
rying payloads of water from the lunar poles to the lunar space elevator, and
from there to Earth orbit. Robotic vehicles with electric motors powered by
large solar arrays and energy storage, like the one shown here, would move
from the pole along the tramway, climb up the LSE, be released at the top,
Counterweight
N
L-2
Equatorial Base
To HEO L-1
Tramway S
Cargo Capsules Polar Base
Counterweight
Figure 31.2
Lunar space elevators.
Figure 31.3
The lunar space elevator and tramway system.
and continue to Earth orbit using electric propulsion. The vehicles could
drop lunar resources in Earth orbit, pick up supplies for the lunar polar sta-
tion, and return by rendezvous with the top of the elevator and continue
down to the tramway. The second major element of the system is the lunar
tramway connecting the base of the LSE on the equator with the ice mines
at the poles. The lunar tramway is envisioned to run over 2700 km from
the equator to the poles, connecting various maria mineral deposits and
regolith mining sites as well as the water ice mines at the south pole. There
may be ice deposits at the north pole as well, and a second tramway could
be constructed in that direction.
The tramway needs to be constructed of the same high-strength compos-
ite ribbons as the space elevator, suspended from towers located on lunar
mountains and crater rims. The high strength allows long spans of scores to
hundreds of kilometers, minimizing the number of support towers required.
For maximum span, the support towers could be located on the rims of cra-
ters and on the tops of mountains. The tramway system is shown schemati-
cally in Figure 31.4, with spans extending up to scores of kilometers between
towers in the low lunar gravity field.
The tramway terminates at the lunar polar mining camp, where the same
kind of high-strength ribbons can support mining rigs suspended over shad-
owed polar craters, as sketched in Figure 31.5. The water is mined in the
Equator
3°
6°
9°
1 km Tower = +6000 M 12°
91 Kilometers
+4000 M 15°
+2000 M
0 Meters
–2000 M
–4000 M
–6000 M
Figure 31.4
The lunar tramway extends from equator to pole.
crater at a temperature of less than 100K (~10-9 Torr), and is transported at a

temperature of about 270 K (~2 Torr). Such a facility, powered by 110 kW of
continuous power from a nearby sunlit area covered with solar cells, could
collect about 200,000 kg of water per year. This would compose the bulk of
the cargo carried by the tramway capsules to the lunar space elevator and on
to Earth orbit.
The next sections discuss these components of the integrated transporta-
tion system in more detail, and provide some numbers on the system design
parameters and operation.
Figure 31.5
In-Situ lunar resource mining at a polar crater.
The Lunar Space Elevator Component

Lunar and Mars space elevators are much easier than Earth space elevators,
as shown in Figure 31.6. The basic parameter is the specific strength of the
material, h = σ·ρ/g0, the limiting stress times the density divided by Earth’s
gravity. The term h has the dimensions of length (the longest cable that can be
suspended in 1 g), and has been called the “characteristic height,” or “break-
ing height.” Typical metals like aluminum and steel have h = 10–50 km,
high-strength composites like M5 are about 500 km, and carbon nanotubes
are about 2200 km. The design parameter for a space elevator is the area
taper ratio in cross-sectional area from the maximum at the balance point
to the minimum at the surface. The minimum cross-sectional area is deter-
mined by the required lifting capacity at the base, which is the stress limit
divided by the area. The lunar space elevator has about 1% of the specific
stress requirements of the Earth space elevator.
The space elevator must be constructed of extremely strong, lightweight
materials, to support its weight over the tens of thousands of kilometers of
length; even then, for minimum mass it must be tapered exponentially as a
function of the planet’s gravity field and the strength/density of the building
material. The table below shows some candidate materials for lunar space
elevators, with density, stress limit, and the breaking height. Lunar space ele-
vators require much lower material strengths than the Earth space elevator,
which will require carbon nanotubes (shown in Table 31.1 for comparison).
All these materials, save the carbon nanotubes, are available now.
1000
Required Area Taper Ratio
100
Earth
Mars
10
Moon
1
100 1000 10000
Characteristic Height, km
Figure 31.6
Space elevator taper ratios.
Table 31.1
Candidate Materials for LSE Compared with Carbon Nanotubes
Density ρ, Stress Limit σ, Breaking height
Material kg/m3 GPa h = σ/ρg, km
SWCN* 2266 50 2200
T1000G† 1810 6.4 361
Zylon PBO‡ 1560 5.8 379
Spectra 2000¶ 970 3.0 316
M5** 1700 5.7 (9.5) 342 (570)
Kevlar 49†† 1440 3.6 255
* Single-wall carbon nanotubes (laboratory measurements)
† Toray Carbon fiber
‡ Aramid, Ltd. Polybenzoxazole fiber
¶ Honeywell extended chain polyethylene fiber
** Magellan honeycomb polymer (with planned values)
†† DuPont Aramid fiber
The design of the lunar space elevator ribbon can be made more robust and
fail-safe by using multiple ribbons with alternate load paths, after Forward
and Hoyt.11 The concept is shown in Figure 31.7, with a table of the required
safety factor vs. the number of ribbons. The lifetime of the LSE can be esti-
mated from the mean time between meteor cuts: T, yrs = 6 h2.6/L, where h is
the ribbon width in mm and L is the length in km.
Once the minimum base area is set and the taper ratio is known, the total
mass of the space elevator can be calculated. For a modern high-strength
composite like the Magellan M5, the total system mass is shown in
Figure 31.8. The mass is plotted vs. the length of the space elevator, from
the surface to a point beyond L1, where it is terminated by a counterweight
that keeps it in balance while it lifts loads at the surface. The CW must equal
in weight the entire length of the ribbon below L1; its weight is zero at L1,
where it is balanced in orbit, and rises linearly with distance above L1. If the
ribbon extends to infinity, no counterweight is required. This gives the very
interesting paradox that the longer the space elevator, the less the total weight,
Number of Ribbons, n 2 3 4 5 6
Safety Factor, f0 4 3 2.7 2.5 2.4
Figure 31.7
Fail-safe ribbon design.
1.E+07
1.E+06
Mass, kg
Ribbon
CW
Total
1.E+05
1.E+04
60 120 180 240
Height, Thousands of km
Figure 31.8
Mass of the LSE ribbon and counterweight for different lengths.
although the amount of high-strength ribbon goes up. The counterweight

can be inert lunar regolith material, or even a space station.
The analysis of lunar space elevators by Levin12 is the basis for these
results. The L1 point is only about 58,000 km from the center of the Moon,
but there are two advantages to making the lunar space elevator extend far
beyond this point. The first is the drastic reduction in the mass of the CW,
and therefore the total mass that must be lifted from the Moon to L1 for its
construction. The second is the fact that payloads released from the top of
the LSE drop into elliptical Earth orbits whose perigees will be lower the
longer the LSE is. Figure 31.9 shows this effect. If the LSE reaches 130,000
km, payloads will have perigees at GEO; 180,000 km puts them in MEO, and
releasing at 240,000 km would cause them to enter the atmosphere. Because
the tram vehicles have plenty of electric power, they could use electrodynamic
propulsion to circularize their orbits if the perigee is below about 8000 km
radius. Conversely, electrodynamic propulsion vehicles leaving LEO to carry
payloads to the Moon could propel themselves to the top of the LSE without
rockets if the top were about 210,000 km from the Moon. For these important
reasons, the lunar space elevator should be perhaps up to 200,000 km long;
this will require 400,000 kg of ballast material, typically lunar regolith, in
addition to the 800,000 kg of high-strength composite. The conceptually
simplest way to send this material to the L1 position is with a mass driver.
Arthur Clarke13 suggested electromagnetic launching in 1950, and the
concept of the electromagnetic mass driver was revived14 in the 1970s.
However, this design requires high power, high precision, and lots of material
to be shipped from Earth for its construction. A simpler system would be a
rotating sling launcher after Heppenheimer,15 Levin,12 and Landis,16 using
the same high-strength material as the lunar space elevator. Emplacing such
300
250
Apogee
Earth Orbit Radius, km
200
150
Perigee
100
Synchronous orbit
50
0
60 90 120 150 180 210 240
Release Height on L1 Elevator, km
Figure 31.9
Earth orbit after release.
a sling near the lunar North Pole on a high point in nearly constant sunlight
would allow the use of solar power to rotate the system, with dual payloads
at the ends. The concept is shown in Figure 31.10, based on the Levin analysis.
The power station and sling tower are on a mountain top, and the cables are
extended as the rotational velocity rises to the launch velocity.
For 100 kW of total power, the tip velocity could reach 2.38 km/sec, enough
to reach escape (or L1), at a length of 236 km, and the system could launch
3 tons per day to L1. The lunar sling could launch both regolith counter-
weight and high-strength ribbon material into L1, from which the lunar
space elevator could be extended until the bottom touched the ground. The
LSE could then support climbers to lift additional materials.
L1
Type h, km r, km Vtip , km/s atip , g’s P, kW Tons/day

Low Orbit 4 118 1.68 2.4 100 3
Escape 4 236 2.38 2.4 100 3
Figure 31.10
Lunar sling launcher.
Lunar Tramway and Cable Cars

The lunar tramway component must extend from the equator to the pole,
about 2700 km. There is a trade-off between the height of the towers and the
span, as shown in Figure 31.11. The ground clearance height is shown vs.
the latitude span for support towers of 1, 2, and 3 km height. The 1-km tow-
ers allow spans over level ground of at least 3 degrees, or about 90 km. This
would require only 30 towers between the equator and the pole. If the tram-
way takes advantage of topography, it would require even fewer towers.
Towers of 2 or 3 km would reduce the number required to 20 or even 16,
but their greater height might cause problems in construction and stability.
Building 1-km towers on the Moon is like building 160-meter towers on the
Earth, and they can be very light if made of modern composite designs, such
as that shown in Figure 31.12.
One method for reducing the overall cost of the lunar space elevator is to
use in situ lunar materials to make fibers that are strong enough to reinforce
the initial ribbon. This could greatly increase the carrying capacity of the
LSE, and also greatly reduce the amount of material that must be lifted out
of the Earth’s gravity well.
Lunar aluminum, silicon, iron and titanium are abundant. Aluminum
has a relatively low density, and can be used to create high strength fibers.
Its strongest form seems to be sapphire, which can be grown as long single
crystals or whiskers. The processes involved might even benefit from the
microgravity environment at L1. Perhaps we could grow continuous crystal
strands that could go directly into the ribbon assembler. Sapphire whiskers
are almost as strong as graphite whiskers, although they are more than twice
as heavy.
1.00
Ground Clearance/Height
0.80
0.60 h = 3 km
h = 2 km
0.40 h = 1 km
0.20
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Latitude Span, Deg
Figure 31.11
Tower span vs. height.
Figure 31.12
Lightweight composite towers.
Another material which compares favorably is quartz whisker. Silicon is

plentiful and if we can generate whiskers in space they would be many times
stronger than glass fibers made from the same element. Fibers in a metal
matrix are also currently popular, and an application might be sapphire
whiskers in glassy aluminum foil. Glass fibers with metal coatings might be
used, since there is no water or oxygen problem.
Lunar Highways, Vehicles, and Service Stations

The construction of the lunar tramway will require that service vehicles travel
over the length of the system, and they will need a good surface on which to
travel. It is possible that the vehicles that erect the support towers could also
smooth or pave a road on which ground vehicles could travel. Taylor and
Meek of UT Knoxville developed a method17 for using microwaves to sinter
Microwave Source
Parabolic
Metal
Primary Cone Reflector
of Microwaves
Figure 31.13
Lunar microwave paving machine.
lunar regolith into a hard, smooth surface like a paved road. Figure 31.13
shows a sketch of their microwave paving machine. It would have two sets
of magnetrons that can be set to various microwave frequencies and power
in order to effectively sinter/melt the lunar soil.
The first set would sinter the regolith to a depth of about half a meter, and
the second set would melt the top 3–5 cm to create a hard, smooth road sur-
face. The microwave process would release most of the solar wind particles
imbedded in the regolith, notably hydrogen, helium, carbon, and nitrogen,
which might be captured for other uses.
This could be very valuable in solving the problem of lunar dust, which
has proven to be very difficult to deal with. In building the lunar tramway,
we could also end up with a lunar highway for surface vehicles.
This leads into the problem of powering vehicles, whether tramway cap-
sules or robotic ground vehicles, or eventually manned vehicles, over long
distances during the lunar night. The Apollo rovers used silver-zinc batteries
with storage efficiency of about 130 W·hr/kg, and achieved ranges over “dirt
roads” of about 50 km.18 More efficient storage systems, whether advanced
rechargeable batteries such as lithium ion at 350 W·hr/kg, or hydrogen/oxy-
gen fuel cells at 650 W·hr/kg, could raise the range considerably, as shown
in Figure 31.14.
More importantly, the rolling resistance of wheels on the lunar regolith can
be greatly reduced by preparing the surface. The hatched line on Figure 31.14
represents the Apollo lunar roving vehicles—flexible aluminum tires on unim-
proved regolith. The dashed line represents the rolling resistance of typical
tires on concrete, which might be achieved by treating the regolith with micro-
waves. Finally, the solid line represents the ranges that could be achieved with
metal wheels and rails, like typical railroads on Earth. These three cases rep-
resent coefficients of rolling resistance of 0.12, 0.015, and 0.005, respectively.
The best we can do with unimproved regolith is perhaps 300 km of range.
That would require about 9 service centers spread over the 2700 km from the
pole to the equator. By microwave treatment of the regolith, we might achieve
up to 2000 km of range, requiring only one service station, in the middle of the
trip. If we could create a lunar railroad, however, with solid metal-wheeled
4000
3000
Range, km
2000
1000
0
100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Storage Efficiency, Whr/kg
Unimproved Tires on Metal wheels

regolith hard surface and rails
Figure 31.14
Surface vehicle range vs. storage efficiency.
vehicles and metal rails, then we could achieve pole-to-equator range dur-
ing the lunar night, and not require service stops along the way at all, except
perhaps as a backup for vehicle failures. The capsules traveling on the lunar
tramway should be roughly equivalent to metal wheels on metal rail, and
would not need to stop during the long lunar night. At a speed of 30 m/s, the
tramway capsules could cover the entire distance in just 25 hours.
Even if service stations are required for the ground vehicles, they could be
automated to charge enough batteries by solar power during the lunar day to
provide charged batteries for many vehicles during each night. If required, an
occasional vehicle could drop off extra batteries, leaving sufficient numbers
of charged batteries each lunar night. With parallel tracks, or even occasional
“passing tracks,” the system could provide continuous two-way traffic.
Advanced System Operations

The system of robotic vehicles on tramway, roadway, and space elevator
might be able to function nearly autonomously, carrying multiple vehicles
both ways. Robotic attendants at the equator, pole, and central service station
might be all that is required to keep operations smooth.
There are some possible advanced methods to improve the operation of
the lunar space elevator. Building a tall tower at the base of the space eleva-
tor, creating a space elevator partly in tension and partly in compression19
would reduce the taper ratio required, resulting in much lower mass and less
counterweight. Curving the lower end of the elevator ribbon to touch down
away from the equator is not an improvement; although it lowers the number
of towers required to reach the pole, it drastically reduces the payload capac-
ity of the elevator ribbon. Reaching just 15 degrees of latitude reduces the
carrying capacity by 25%.
Finally, it may be possible eventually to use the tramway ribbon itself to
carry electrical power along its length, allowing capsules to draw power con-
tinuously through the night. Other, less likely, methods are to beam power
to spots on the tramway from solar power stations at the equator, the poles,
and perhaps even in low lunar orbit.
Conclusions
The integrated lunar transportation system is a complete non-rocket trans-
portation system for carrying lunar resources to Earth orbit and for carrying
manufactured goods from Earth orbit to the lunar poles. It depends on high
power from solar arrays, electric motors for propulsion along the tramway
and space elevator, and electric rockets for the free-flight leg between the
top of the lunar space elevator and Earth orbit. If the Earth space elevator is
ever built, the system could provide two-way cargo transportation from the
surface of the Earth to the surface of the Moon.
Acknowledgments
The authors are indebted to Klaus Heiss for support of the lunar develop-
ment initiative and for information on in situ lunar resource recovery, and to
Paul van Susante for information on tramway systems over the world.
References
1. Moore, C., “Exploration Systems Research and Technology,” Presented at the
NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts Fellows Meeting, 16 March 2005.
2. Pearson, J., Wykes, H., Levin, E., Oldson, J., Heiss, K., and van Susante P., “Lunar
Frontier Transport System,” Rutgers Symposium on Lunar Settlements, New
Brunswick, NJ, 3–8 June 2007.
3. Pearson, J., Levin, E., Oldson, J., and Wykes, H., “Lunar Space Elevators for
Cis-Lunar Transportation,” presented at Moonbase: A Challenge for Humanity,
Venice, Italy, 26–27 May 2005.
4. Pearson, J., Levin, E. M., Oldson, J., and Wykes, H., Lunar Space Elevators for
Cislunar Space Development, Final Technical Report on NIAC Research Sub-
Award 07605-003-034, May 2005.
5. Pearson, J., “Anchored Lunar Satellites for Cis-Lunar Communication and
Transportation,” 1st European L-5 Conference, London, 20 Sep 1977.
6. Pearson, Jerome, “Anchored Lunar Satellites for Cislunar Transportation
and Communication,” Journal of the Astronautical Sciences, Vol. XXVII, No. 1,
pp. 39–62, Jan/Mar 1979.
7. Artsutanov, Yuri, “The Earth-to-Moon Highway,” (in Russian), Technika-
Molodyegi, No. 4, 21, 35, 1979.
8. Tsander, F., Selected Papers (in Russian), Zinatne, Riga, 1978.
9. Artsutanov, Yuri, “V Kosmos na Electrovoze (in Russian, Into Space on a Train),”
Komsomolskaya Pravda, July 31 1960.
10. Pearson, Jerome, “The Orbital Tower: A Spacecraft Launcher Using the Earth’s
Rotational Energy,” Acta Astronautica, Vol. 2, pp. 785–799, Sep/Oct 1975.
11. Forward, R., and Hoyt, R., “Failsafe Multiline Hoytether Lifetimes,” AIAA
Paper 95-2890, 31st AIAA/SAE/ASME/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference, San
Diego, CA, July 1995.
12. Levin, E., “Colonizing the Moon,” Chapter 7 of Dynamic Analysis of Space Tether
Missions, Advances in the Astronautical Sciences, Vol. 126, April 2007.
13. Clarke, A., “Electromagnetic Launching as a Major Contributor to Spaceflight,”
JBIS, Vol. 9, No. 6, pp. 261–7, November 1950.
14. O’Neill, G., and Kolm, H., “Mass Driver for Lunar Transport and as a Reaction
Engine,” Journal of the Astronautical Sciences, Vol. 15, No. 4 Jan/Mar 1976.
15. Hoppenheimer, T. A., “Rotary Pellet Launcher,” in NASA Space Settlements: A
Design Study, R. D. Johnson and Holbrow, Editors, NASA SP-4113, pp. 130–132,
1977.
16. Landis, G., “A Lunar Sling Launcher,” JBIS, Vol. 58, No. 9/10, pp. 294–297,
16 March 2005.
17. Moore, C., “Exploration Systems Research and Technology,” Proceedings of the
International Lunar Conference 2003/ILEWG5, American Astronautical Society
108 (Sciences & Technology Series), 109–123, 2004.
18. Anon., “Lunar Roving Vehicle,” NASM, http://www.nasm.si.edu/collections/
imagery/apollo/lrv/lrv.htm
19. Landis, G., and Cafarelli, C., “The Tsiolkovski Tower Reexamined,” IAF-95-
V.4.07, 46th IAF Congress, Oslo Norway, 1995, J. British Interplanetary Society,
Vol. 52, 175–180, 1999.
Section VI
Lunar Bases
32
Lunar Base Site Preparation
Florian Ruess
HE2 – Habitats for Extreme Environments
Bremen, Germany
Benjamin Braun
HE2 – Habitats for Extreme Environments
Stuttgart, Germany
Kris Zacny
Director, Drillling and Excavation Systems
Honeybee Robotics Spacecraft Mechanisms Corporation
New York, New York
Martina Pinni
Architect, ESA-EAC Crew Instructor
Koeln, Germany
Florian Ruess, Dipl.-Ing, University of Stuttgart and University of Calgary

civil engineering (1988–2004); research on lunar bases at Rutgers University
as part of the master thesis (2004); structural engineer with BDE engineer-
ing in Stuttgart with focus on bridge design and engineering (2004–2006),
and since 2006 structural engineer at Airbus Bremen, Wing High Lift Design
HE2–Habitats for Extreme Environments.
Kris Zacny, PhD, is a director of drilling and excavation systems at
Honeybee Robotics Spacecraft Mechanisms Corporation, and focuses on
autonomous terrestrial and extraterrestrial drilling, excavation, and geo-
technical systems, as well as sample acquisition, transfer and process-
ing technologies. In his previous capacity as an engineer in the South
African mines, Dr. Zacny managed numerous mining projects and pro-
duction sections. Dr. Zacny received his PhD in 2005 from the University
of California, Berkeley. During his graduate work on drilling mechanics
in planetary environments he discovered a sublimation effect that has tre-
mendous impact on drilling performance on many extraterrestrial bodies.
He received a B.Sc. in mechanical engineering from the University of Cape
Town in 1997 and an ME in petroleum engineering from the University
433
of California, Berkeley in 2001. He participated in two Arctic expeditions

(Ellesmere Island, 2004 and Devon Island, 2006) where he performed exten-
sive drilling tests in the Arctic permafrost and in ice. Dr. Zacny has over
100 publications, is a member of numerous committees, has been invited to
speak at national and international meetings, reviewed scientific papers for
various scientific journals, chaired a number of sessions and symposiums
and recently completed an edited book, Drilling in Extreme Environments:
Penetration and Sampling on Earth and Other Planets (J. Wiley & Sons). Dr.
Zacny is executive committee member of the American Society of Civil
Engineers Aerospace Division.
Martina Pinni is a registered architect with an interest in high-tech build-
ings, extreme environments, and spinoff applications of space technology
in building construction. Her thesis in architecture focused on an inte-
rior design for a space habitation module (2000). Her professional expe-
rience includes 6 years of technical and commercial positions in façade
engineering, architectural design, and research (2001−2007). Teaching
experience includes three semesters as faculty assistant of building tech-
nology at the University IUAV of Venice (2006−2007), and current position
in astronaut training—structures, thermal control, life support system,
emergencies—at ESA-EAC Cologne for the International Space Station
project (2008–present). She earned a Laurea (M. Arch.) from the University
IUAV of Venice (2000), an MS from the University of Houston, Space
Architecture (2004), and attended the ISU SSP’07 at BeiHang University
in Beijing (2007).
Abstract The construction of a base on the Moon will require exca-

vation and movement of large quantities of lunar soil, the regolith. This
paper focuses on the initial site preparation tasks that need to be performed.
Excavation technologies that control dust generation and mitigation are
highlighted as being critical for lunar base operations.
Possible site preparation, excavation, hauling and dust control equipment
designs are reviewed, starting with designs based on terrestrial “traditional”
construction equipment. Then, innovative ideas that try to overcome the lim-
itations of traditional approaches, among them sintering of regolith, vibra-
tory and pneumatic excavation, are discussed. Efforts to evaluate different
equipment designs are on the way but need to address the latest technology
developments.
In a qualitative approach, the pneumatic and vibratory excavation methods
are identified to be very promising technologies with great potential for
lightweight, robust and reliable yet high-performance designs. Such tech-
nologies could help to significantly reduce Lunar Base construction cost
and risk.
Lunar Base Site Preparation 435
Introduction
The capability to excavate and move large quantities of lunar soil and rocks
will be required to establish and operate a lunar base for several reasons
(Eckart 2006, Ruess et al. 2006):
• ground preparation for the placement of habitation modules and

other infrastructure elements
• clearing the immediate lunar base area from dust
• covering habitation modules with regolith for insulation, radiation
and micrometeoroid protection
• construction of roads and launch pads
• mining and extraction of lunar resources
Initial Excavation Tasks to Establish a Lunar Base

Especially the first three tasks will have to be performed at the very start of
establishing a base on the Moon.
In particular dust control is generally recognized as the most critical issue
for lunar operations. The complexity of this matter was summed up by
Eugene Cernan, Apollo 17 astronaut: “I think dust is probably one of our
greatest inhibitors to a nominal operation on the Moon. I think we can over-
come other physiological or physical or mechanical problems except dust.
Dust adheres” . . . “to everything no matter what kind of material, whether it
be skin, suit material, metal, no matter what it be and its restrictive friction-
like action to everything it gets on. For instance, the simple, large tolerance,
mechanical devices on the rover began to show the effects of dust as the
EVAs (Extra Vehicular Activities) went on” (Gaier 2005).
Therefore it has been proposed to put the regolith for radiation & micro-
meteoroid protection in bags in order to be able to control dust mitigation
(Ruess et al. 2008, Smithers et al. 2007, Lindsey 2003) among other advantages
(see Figure 32.1).
Combined with clearing the immediate lunar base area from the fine top
layers of regolith, which are the main contributor to dust generation, the dust
problem could be minimized at least for the immediate lunar base site itself
and all surrounding operations.
Lunar construction equipment designs should also consider the dust prob-
lem in terms of their own maintainability and robustness. Few moving and
easily cleanable and replaceable parts will be critical for successful designs.
The immediate tasks for the lunar base site preparation equipment to
achieve dust control, prepare the construction ground and excavate regolith
include (Gies 1994):
• Digging (scooping, scraping, dozing, ripping, trenching)

• Hauling (loading, transport, unloading)
• Placing (spreading, piling, compacting, shaping, grading)
Other ideas call for sintering the regolith surface to control dust and con-
struct roads and launch pads. This can be achieved for example by using
microwaves as suggested by Taylor and Meek (2005).
Site Preparation Equipment

Terrestrial equipment that performs similar functions is often used as a
starting point for the design of lunar construction equipment.
Among the terrestrial construction equipment proposed for lunar applica-
tions are:
• Backhoe
• (Front-end) loader
• Bulldozer
• Scraper
• Grader
• (Bucket) excavator
• (Dump) truck
• Belt conveyor
Figure 32.1 to Figure 32.14 show examples of some of these machines on

Earth as well as a corresponding lunar application.
In June 2008, NASA tested the prototype of a mobile lunar platform,
named CHARIOT, which may be equipped with a lightweight bulldozer
blade (LANCE—Lunar Attachment Node for Construction Excavation) to
perform site preparation and clearing of areas where a lunar outpost could
be deployed (see Figure 32.13 and Figure 32.14). For use as a bulldozer alone,
this vehicle looks much too massive but if surface leveling is only one func-
tion among many, the concept might prove suitable. For example other
exchangeable nodes could be developed with the construction equipment
functions listed above. However, the design of the CHARIOT leaves many
questions unanswered: It is an extremely complex machine with many mov-
ing parts. How such a design will perform under lunar conditions, especially
Figure 32.1
Excavator in bucket-wheel configuration—terrestrial application.
Figure 32.2
Excavator in bucket-wheel configuration—lunar application prototype (van Susante 2008).
Figure 32.3
Excavator in bucket-ladder configuration—terrestrial application.
Figure 32.4
Excavator in bucket-ladder configuration—lunar application prototype (van Susante 2008).
Figure 32.5
Terrestrial clamshell excavator.
Figure 32.6
Lunar clamshell rover (courtesy: DigitalSpaces).
Figure 32.7
Terrestrial bulldozer (courtesy: Caterpillar).
Figure 32.8
Lunar haul-dump vehicle with bulldozing capabilities (Podnieks and Siekmeier 1992).
Figure 32.9
Terrestrial front loader.
Figure 32.10
Lunar front loader vehicle (courtesy: DigitalSpaces).
Figure 32.11
Terrestrial “dump truck” hauler (courtesy: Caterpillar).
Figure 32.12
Lunar miner and hauler (courtesy: NASA).
Figure 32.13
CHARIOT—The prototype mobile lunar platform (courtesy: NASA).
in combination with the lunar dust, remains to be proven. The current design
lacks even the most basic precautions like fenders for example.
As already outlined with the NASA CHARIOT design, it seems to be desir-
able to try and include many functions into one vehicle. Mueller and King
(2008) used this guideline for their design of a small, tele-operated, multi-
purpose lunar excavator (see Figure 32.15).
Figure 32.14
CHARIOT equipped with lightweight bulldozer blade LANCE (courtesy: NASA).
E A
C
D
Figure 32.15
A multi-purpose excavator: A: Transport box, B: Bucket, C: Outrigger, D: Manipulator, E: Blade
(Mueller and King 2008).
It is obvious that although the functions to be performed on the Moon are

similar to those performed on Earth, the equipment for lunar surface opera-
tions will be different due to the constraints imposed by the lunar environ-
ment. Considerable modification of terrestrial designs will be needed to suit
the conditions on the Moon (Boles 1992, Toklu 2003).
For example equipment will most likely be electrically operated since die-
sel engines don’t work in a hard vacuum environment.
Figure 32.16
Lunar excavation equipment pulled down by cables (Toklu 2003).
Also low mass of the equipment is critical due to cost constraints. Bernold
(1991) reported about efforts to study the unique problems related to digging and
trenching on the Moon. All the common excavation technologies used on Earth
depend on the effect of gravitational acceleration that turns mass into forces that
are needed to cut, scoop, and move soil (Bernold 1991). Boles and Connolly (1996)
reported that the mass of “terrestrial design” lunar excavators will only be half
effective hinting that such designs will come with prohibitively high masses
to be transported to the Moon (Boles and Connolly 1996). None of the above
lunar applications in Figures 32.2 to 32.13 seems to answer the mass question.
All designs look like mere scaled-down copies of their terrestrial “brothers.”
Alternative approaches to really tackle this problem include:
• pulling down the machines with cables (Toklu 2003, see Figure 32.16)
• using regolith as “ballast” to increase the mass of excavation equip-
ment in-situ
• sintering of soil using microwaves (Taylor and Meek 2007)
• pneumatic excavation systems (Zacny et al. 2008a, see Figures 32.17
to 32.18)
• vibratory excavators (Zacny et al. 2008b, see Figure 32.19 and
Figure 32.20)
• loosening of regolith using explosives prior to excavation (Dick et al.
1992)
Fluidized
regolith travels
up between
the outer and
inner tubes
(Primary path)
Some gas
escapes through
the regolith
outside the
sample tube
which is the
secondary and
least preferred
path
Figure 32.17
Pneumatic excavator: principal gas and regolith flow (Zacny et al. 2008a).
Figure 32.18
Pneumatic excavator “Rookie”: Application for lunar base site preparation and transferring
regolith into bags (Ruess et al. 2008).
The cable solution doesn’t seem suitable because it massively hinders move-
ment of the excavation vehicle to the point where it can barely move at all.
Regolith on an excavator as ballast has to get there in the first place and stay
there. The ballast itself also only provides weight corresponding to 1/6 g. So
large quantities would be needed in relation to the overall excavator dimen-
sions. It can also be expected that confining structures would be needed to
control the regolith and dust ballast, so such a design would still come with
mass and volume penalties.
Figure 32.19
Honeybee Robotics percussive scoop on the Foster Miller Talon rover (Zacny et al. 2008b).
The regolith processed with the microwaves rapidly increases in tem-

perature to as much as 2000 degrees centigrade and heating rates as fast as
140 degrees K/sec. This melts the regolith into a glassy substance with good
mechanical strength. One of the interesting details of the microwave sinter-
ing process is that it can be tuned to provide surfaces of various strengths.
However, possible applications are restricted to paving surfaces, e.g. for
roads or landing pads.
A landing pad with a diameter of 20 m for example could be sintered
within 2 lunar days consuming about 50,000 kWh of power (Taylor and
Meek 2007).
Also the pneumatic excavator shows great promise. It can combine all
the initially needed tasks in one machine. For example it is able to clear the
immediate lunar base site from regolith dust and to fill regolith bags for habi-
tation shielding with it in one step (see Figure 32.18).
Gas is injected (pulsed to increase efficiency) into the regolith and creates
high-pressure gas cells. The easiest path for the gas to escape is straight up
the nozzle and into the collection container (and not down and around the
rim of the nozzle and into the lunar vacuum). Thus as the gas moves up it
also carries the regolith particles with it. Impressive efficiency rates (it has
Figure 32.20
Honeybee Robotics percussive scoop on the iRobot PacBot (Zacny et al. 2008b).
been shown that with 1kg of gas 1000-3000 kg of regolith can be mined at
1/6g) further support this concept (Zacny et al. 2008a, Ruess et al. 2008).
The pneumatic system can also be applied into the transfer of regolith.
For example other excavation methods such as backhoe, could be integrated
with a pneumatic transfer system for moving lifted regolith to a mined con-
tainer. This will reduce the time required to dump the regolith since now the
excavation and movement of regolith can occur simultaneously.
In addition to the pneumatic mining system, another promising technol-
ogy includes the percussive digger developed by Honeybee Robotics (Zacny
et al. 2008b). A scoop or a blade that uses percussive system requires 90%
smaller digging force. This translates directly into smaller vehicle mass and
reduced traction requirements. Percussive or vibratory motion of a scoop
essentially reduces sliding friction. This is because the regolith particles are
in constant vibratory motion, bouncing up and down, instead of continu-
ously pressing against the surface (see Figure 32.19 and Figure 32.20).
Dick et al. (1992) presented the result of experimental work to study
another alternative or supplementary technique to traditional excavation of
soil, namely the use of explosives to loosen the dense soil below 30 cm depth
so it can be excavated with a limited amount of force. Although the ejection
of regolith would not be acceptable on the lunar surface since the resulting
dust would travel far, research showed that explosives buried deep enough
would not create craters but loosen the soil very effectively.
Design Evaluation
The discussion so far clearly shows that lunar construction and especially
excavation equipment design requires a highly multidisciplinary approach.
Long-term operation and maintenance, effects of radiation, temperature,
vacuum, micrometeorites and dust must be considered for lunar construc-
tion equipment design. Tele-operation capabilities increase the safety and
effectiveness (Podnieks 1994).
Flexibility and commonality of mining equipment should also be considered,
especially for the early stages of lunar base development before specialized
equipment is introduced.
For the selection of an appropriate set of lunar construction equipment,
a methodology needs to be developed that includes considerations of per-
formance in terms of productivity and life-cycle launch mass requirements
such as re-supply and maintenance. Criteria for lunar construction equip-
ment selection include robustness, modularity, servicing and maintenance
requirements (Gies 1996).
Several scientific studies have tried to evaluate lunar excavation and min-
ing technologies. While the bucket-wheel excavator is favored many times,
Table 32.1
Construction and Mining Task Comparisons: Earth vs. Moon (Connolly 1994)
Tasks Earth Moon
Bulk cargo loading/ Shovel, backhoe, track Front-end wheel loader,
unloading loader, excavator, scraper wheel excavator
Bulk cargo hauling Truck, belt conveyor Rover/truck, front-end
loader
Rock breaking/blasting Explosives, pneumatics Thermal breaking,
explosives
Site leveling and grading Scraper, bulldozer, grader Scaled-down scraper
Digging and trenching Shovel, draglines, Front-end loader, bucket
excavator, loader wheel excavator
Regolith excavation Excavator, backhoe Bucket wheel excavator
Raw materials transport Dump truck, scraper Rover/truck
Underground mining Tunnel boring machine, Scaled-down roadheader,
drum-type continuous hydraulic rock splitter,
miner, roadheader, tunnel boring machine,
hydraulic rock splitter, explosives
explosives
Connolly (1994) for example concluded that the versatility of the front-end
loader would probably be best for low-volume surface mining. The same
study compared construction tasks and the corresponding equipment on
Earth vs. on the Moon (see Table 32.1).
Mueller and King (2008) have introduced an evaluation method for lunar
excavation concepts. The resulting decision matrix is based on a weighted
points system taking into account capabilities, productivity, reliability, dust
generation, power efficiency, maintainability, supportability and versatility.
Suitable designs should yield a high point value. It has to be noted though,
that almost all concepts under consideration were based on terrestrial exca-
vation designs. The only exception, a pneumatic concept, was not evaluated
in all criteria and also not with respect to the latest developments as pre-
sented in Zacny et al. (2008a) and Ruess et al. (2008).
An evaluation including the newest developments in microwave sin-
tering, pneumatic and vibratory excavation systems seems advisable and
only consequent.
Conclusion
The settlement of new worlds such as the Moon will be difficult at best. To
succeed in such a task from a technological as well as a budgetary standpoint
we have to use the resourceful ingenuity of the human mind to the largest
degree possible. Simple solutions based on terrestrial experience as well as

completely new ideas have to be taken into account, weighed and the best
solution for the task under consideration has to be chosen.
In the paper at hand, the authors detail the preparatory construction and
excavation tasks for a permanent lunar base. Initially large quantities of
regolith will have to be moved and used for construction. Lunar dust poses
one of the highest obstacles for human and robotic operations on the Moon,
so it is proposed to clear the immediate lunar base site of the upper fine lay-
ers of regolith, which are the main contributor to lunar dust.
A fine collection of excavation equipment proposed for these tasks is
reviewed starting with concepts based on terrestrial applications and finally
discussing innovative ideas that try to better account for the special environ-
mental conditions on the Moon as well as the mass restrictions for all equip-
ment that needs to be transported to Earth’s companion.
Two particularly interesting technologies, namely the pneumatic and
vibratory excavation methods, are identified to be very promising. They
show great potential in terms of providing lightweight, flexible, robust and
reliable systems with high performance for the tasks needed to prepare a
lunar base construction site. Such technologies could help to significantly
reduce Lunar Base construction cost and risk.
References
Bernold, L. (1991) ‘‘Experimental studies on mechanics of lunar excavation.’’ Journal
of Aerospace Engineering, 4 (1), pp. 9–22, ASCE, NY.
Boles W. (1992) “Performance-Based Evaluation of Lunar Base Construction Equip
ment and Methods.” Proceedings of SPACE 92, Vol. I, pp. 332–340, ASCE, NY.
Boles W., Connolly, J. (1996) “Lunar Excavating Research.” Proceedings of SPACE 96,
pp. 699–705.
Connolly, J., Shoots, D. (1994) “Transferring Construction Technology to the Moon
and Back” Proceedings of SPACE 94, pp. 1086–1096, ASCE, NY.
Dick, R., Fourney, W., Goodings, D., Lin, C.-P., and Bernold, L. (1992) ‘‘Use of explo-
sives on the Moon.’’ Journal of Aerospace Engineering, 5 (1), pp. 59–65, ASCE, NY.
Eckart, P. (2006) The Lunar Base Handbook 2nd Ed. McGraw-Hill.
Gaier, J. (2005) “The Effects of Lunar Dust on EVA Systems During the Apollo
Missions.” NASA/TM–2005-213610, NASA Center for Aerospace Information,
Hanover, http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov
Gies J. (1994) “Design Criteria for Lunar Construction Equipment.” Proceedings of
SPACE 94, Vol. II, pp. 1237–1255, ASCE, NY.
Gies J. (1996) “The Effect of the Lunar Surface Environment upon Machinery.”
Proceedings of SPACE 96, Vol. I, pp. 639–645, ASCE, NY.
Lindsey N. (2003) “Lunar Station Protection: Lunar Regolith Shielding.” Proceedings
of the International Lunar Conference, American Astronautical Society, Science and
Technology Series, Vol. 108.
Mueller, R. and King, R. (2008) “Trade Study of Excavation Tools and Equipment
for Lunar Outpost Development and ISRU”, Space Technology and Applications
International Forum—STAIF 2008, pp. 237–244, AIP.
Podnieks E., Siekmeier J. (1992) “Lunar Surface Mining Equipment Study.” Proceedings
of SPACE 92, Vol. I, pp. 1104–1115, ASCE, NY.
Podnieks E., Siekmeier J. (1994) “Role of Mining in Lunar Base Development.” Journal
of the British Interplanetary Society, Vol. 47, pp. 543–548, BIS, London.
Ruess, F., Braun, B. and Zacny, K. (2008) “Lunar in-situ resource utilization—Regolith
bags automated filling technology“ Paper No: AIAA-2008-7678 and Presentation,
AIAA SPACE 2008 Conference, 9–11 Sep 2008, San Diego, California.
Ruess, F., Schaenzlin, J., Benaroya, H. (2006) “Structural Design of a Lunar Habitat.”
Journal of Aerospace Engineering 19, No. 3, pp. 133–157, ASCE, NY.
Smithers, G., Miller, J., Broughton, R. and Beale, D. (2007) “A one-piece lunar regolith-
bag garage prototype.” Lunar Settlements Symposium, Rutgers University, NJ.
Taylor, L. and Meek, T. (2005) “Microwave Sintering of Lunar Soil: Properties, Theory, and
Practice” Journal of Aerospace Engineering, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp. 188–196, ASCE, NY.
Toklu, Y., Järvstråt, N. (2003) “Design and construction of a self sustainable lunar
colony with in-situ resource utilization.” CE: The Vision for the Future Generation
in Research and Applications, pp. 623–628.
van Susante, P. (2008), copyright Paul van Susante, Colorado School of Mines. For
more information contact: paulvans@mines.edu.
Zacny, K., Mungas G., Mungas C., Fisher D., and Hedlund M. (2008a) “Pneumatic
Excavator and Regolith Transport System for Lunar ISRU and Construction“
Paper No: AIAA-2008-7824 and Presentation, AIAA SPACE 2008 Conference,
9–11 Sep 2008, San Diego, California.
Zacny, K., Craft, J., Wilson, J., Chu, P., and Davis, K., (2008b) “Percussive Digging Tool for
Lunar Excavation and Mining Applications” Abstract 4046, LEAG-ICEUM-SRR,
28–31 October 2008, Cape Canaveral, FL.
33
A Review of Technical Requirements
for Lunar Structures: Present Status1
Alexander M. Jablonski
RAST
Defence R&D Canada Ottawa
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Kelly A. Ogden2
University of Waterloo
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Alexander M. Jablonski, PhD is program manager/defense scientist at the

Defence R&D Canada Ottawa (DRDC Ottawa), on secondment from the
Canadian Space Agency (CSA). He received his BSc and MS degrees in civil
engineering (structures) at the Technical University of Kracow, Poland, MS in
mechanics and materials engineering at the University of Illinois at Chicago,
and PhD in structural dynamics at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada.
He has more than 28 years experience in the R&D and reconnaissance proj-
ects, strategy planning, and project management. He worked in Poland,
Finland, Germany, and in the United States and now since 1982 he works
in Canada. His initial career in Canada started in 1988 in the field of struc-
tural dynamics and earthquake engineering at the Dynamics Laboratory,
Institute for Research in Construction, National Research Council (NRC) in
Ottawa. In 1992, he joined Directorate of Space Mechanics, Space Technology
Branch, Canadian Space Agency, where he worked on various space proj-
ects as dynamics research engineer and research scientist (the Lens Antenna
Deployment Demonstration (LADD) test article, Observations of Electrical
field Distribution in Ionospheric Plasma Unique Strategy (OEDIPUS C) and
Bistatic Observations with Low Altitude Satellites (BOLAS) missions). He was
Tether Technology Project Leader in 1993−2000. During the period 1998−1999
he was one of eight managers working for Space Plan Task Force (SPTF), CSA,
to formulate Canada’s space plan under the leadership of Dr. Karl Doetsch,
1 This paper is a new version of the paper originally presented at the International Lunar
Conference 2005 in Toronto, ON, Canada and includes updated results from the paper enti-
tled “Technical Requirements for Lunar Structures,” Journal of Aerospace Engineering, Vol. 21,
No. 2, April 1, 2008. pp. 72–90.
2 Formerly Research Manager, Canadian Space Agency, Saint-Hubert QC, Canada.
451
VP and chairman of SPTF. Then he worked for Space Science Program as aca-
demia and research institution liaison, being responsible for the CSA Grants
and Contributions Program. Dr. Jablonski is the author and the co-author of
more than 50 design projects of structures built for various industries and
more than 85 publications (papers, reports, manuals and guidelines) on vari-
ous aspects of space engineering and dynamics. He is recipient of a number
of professional awards and is Associate Fellow of the American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) and the Canadian Aeronautics and
Space Institute (CASI).
Abstract The Moon has recently regained the interest of many of the
world’s national and international space agencies. Lunar missions are the
first steps in expanding manned and unmanned exploration inside our solar
system. The Moon represents various options. It can be used as a laboratory
in lower gravity (1/6 of the Earth’s gravity field), it is the closest and most
accessible planetary object from the Earth, and it possesses many resources
that humans could potentially exploit. This paper has two objectives: to
review the current status of the knowledge of lunar environmental require-
ments for future lunar structures, and to attempt to classify them on the
current knowledge of the subject. This paper divides lunar development into
three phases. The first phase is building shelters for equipment only; in the
second phase, small temporary habitats will be built, and finally in the third
phase, habitable lunar bases will be built with observatories, laboratories, or
production plants. Initially, the main aspects of the lunar environments that
will cause concerns will be lunar dust and meteoroids, and later will include
effects due to vacuum environment, lunar gravity, radiation, a rapid change
of temperature, and the length of the lunar day. This paper presents a clas-
sification of technical requirements based on the current knowledge of these
factors, and their importance in each of the phases of construction. It gives
recommendations for future research in relation to the development of con-
ceptual plans for lunar structures, and for the evolution of a lunar construc-
tion code to direct these structural designs. Some examples are presented
along with the current status of the bibliography of the subject. The specific
sources of lunar information are also presented.
Introduction
The Moon has recently regained the interest of many of the world’s national
space agencies. The Moon has developed a dual role in human thought. First,
through pre-Apollo years (1958–1969), Apollo exploration (1969–1972), and the
current post-Apollo era (1972 to date), it has been shown that the Moon is a
scientifically important planet. Second, the Moon, because of its closeness to
A Review of Technical Requirements for Lunar Structures 453
Earth, is a natural target for the first step of human exploration beyond our
planet, including future utilization of its vast resources (see Jolliff et al. 2006,
p. 619) and even colonization. The knowledge of the Moon’s environmental
conditions and resultant technical requirements for lunar structures is key
for their successful designs depending on the phase of construction. This
paper proposes three phases of construction on the Moon:
• Phase 1 (2010–2020): Designs for equipment shelters during initial

unmanned robotic or manned missions;
• Phase 2 (2020–2030): Development of structures for medium length
of stay (up to several months);
• Phase 3 (2030 on): Long-term construction of lunar structures for
different purposes (primarily for long term habitats, resource use,
laboratories, and finally permanent lunar bases).
First, a brief description of each phase is presented. Then the Moon’s envi-
ronmental conditions and technical requirements for lunar structures are
discussed based on available data. They include temperature, radiation,
gravity, atmosphere/pressure, the lunar day, lunar surface conditions (lunar
dust), lunar seismicity, and meteoroids. The impact on materials, shapes and
location of lunar structures is also assessed. Then, a short review of recent
findings of lunar missions and how they can affect future lunar structures is
provided. Science objectives of selected planned missions that will be useful
for lunar structure design are also described. Finally a set of recommenda-
tions for future research is presented.
Moon: The Nearest Important Destination

The Moon is the only celestial body, beyond the planet Earth, which has been
systematically sampled and studied. Physical characteristics of the Moon
and Earth are compared below (see Table 33.1).
Although exploration of the Moon is still incomplete, the overall effort
has been extensive. The first Russian imaging missions (Luna, Zond) and
American missions (Ranger) were flown between 1959 and 1965. At the same
time, a systematic Earth-based mapping of the Moon by telescope began, and
it led to determination of lunar stratigraphy. The Luna 10 mission provided
the first orbital gamma-ray chemical data in 1966. Lunar Orbiter returned
images in preparation for the U.S. manned Apollo missions. Unmanned soft
landings and surface operations took place between 1964 and 1976, with the
first data on soil physics and chemistry sent by radio back from lunar service
in 1966 and the first Soviet robotic collection of lunar samples returned by
Luna 16 in 1970. However, the greatest achievements in lunar sampling were
Table 33.1
Comparison of the Physical Characteristics of the Moon and Earth
Property Moon Earth
Mass 7.353 × 10 kg
22 5.976 × 1024 kg
Radius (spherical) 1,738 km 6,371 km
Surface area 37.9 × 106 km2 510.1 × 106 km2
Flattening* 0.0005 0.0034
Mean density 3.34 g/cm3 5.517 g/cm3
Gravity at equator 1.62 m/s2 9.81 m/s2
Escape velocity at equator 2.38 km/s 11.2 km/s
Sidereal rotation time 27.322 days 23.9345 hr
Inclination of equator/orbit 6°41’ 23°28’
Mean surface temperature 107°C (day); −153°C (night) 22°C
Temperature extremes (see also Table 2) ∼233°C (?) to 123°C −89°C to 58°C
Atmosphere ∼104 molecules/cm3 (day)
200 × 103 molecules/cm3 (night) 2.5 × 1019 molecules/cm3 (STP)
Moment of Inertia (I/MR2) 0.395 0.3315
Heat flow (average) ∼29 mW/m2 63 mW/m2
Seismic energy 20 × 109 (or 1014?)J/yr** 1017 – 1018 J/yr
Magnetic field 0 (small paleofield) 24 – 56 A/m
*(Equatorial-ideal)/ideal radii
**These estimates account for Moonquakes only and do not account for seismicity from
meteoroid impacts
Heiken et al. 1991, Table on p. 28, reprinted with permission of Cambridge University Press.
the six Apollo manned landings between 1969 and 1972 (NASA 1969, 1970,
1971a, 1971b, 1972, 1979). Sites of six Apollo and three Luna sample-return sites
are depicted in Figure 33.1 (Spudis 1999, p. 126).
Lunar research has brought to attention a rich output of information
achieved from the past lunar exploration scientific data; there are several
depositories of lunar samples and scientific results. The most important are
listed below:
Lunar and Planetary Institute (LPI)

National Space Science Data Center (NSSDC)
National Technical Information Service
NASA Johnson Space Center History Office
NASA Johnson Space Center Lunar Sample Curatorial Facility
These data have provided the database for various scientific aspects of the
Moon. Some of these data are the basis of the current knowledge on derived
technical requirements for future lunar structures (Heiken et al., 1991, p. xix).
MARE A-15 MARE

IMBRIUM MARE CRISIUM
\SERENITATIS
Eratosthenes A-17 L-24

MARE
Copernicus TRANQUILLITATIS
OCEANUS A-11 L-20
PROCELLARUM A-14
L-26
A-12 MARE
FECUNDITATIS
A-16 MARE
MARE NECTARIS
HUMORUM
Figure 33.1
A pair of Lick Observatory (USA) photographs with labels showing selected lunar features
and the location of the six Apollo (A) and three Luna (L) sample-return sites (photograph © UC
Regents/Lick Observatory).
Future lunar structures will serve to achieve a permanent utilization of the

Moon and its resources. The Moon will also serve as a place for future labora-
tories, astronomical observatories, testing grounds, and manufacturing plants.
Finally, it will be an important stepping-stone to reach to other planets from our
solar system. The comprehensive scientific context for exploration of the Moon
is provided in the current report prepared by the Space Studies Board, National
Research Council of the National Academies (Space Studies Board, 2007).
Three Phases of Construction

Lunar base development has previously been categorized into stages, usu-
ally by the degree of human presence on the Moon (Eckart, 1999; Toklu, 2000;
Ruess et al., 2004). A similar approach is taken here, although the phases are
defined by the uses of the different structures in each phase, rather than the
human presence, thus focusing on the technical requirements for construc-
tion. The evolution of the structures that will be used on the Moon can be
classified into three general phases: those of support and shelters for scien-
tific equipment, temporary habitats for conducting science and exploration,
and long-term settlements primarily for resource utilization.
Phase 1
The first phase involves the structures that are closest to realization. It is not
included as a stage in the previously mentioned lunar base plans because it does
not involve inhabitants; however in lunar structure evolution, it is an important
phase. Structures that will support or contain scientific equipment are the
basis of this phase. Phase 1 will begin around 2010, and extend exclusively
until around 2020; after that time, it will continue, running concurrently
with phases two and then three. An example of a structure in this phase is
an assembly that would house a Lunar Liquid Mirror Telescope, which was
recently proposed by Dr. Roger Angel and his team. A possible structure that
would surround the LLMT and a rigidizable structure developed by the Jet
Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) and L’Garde are shown in Figure 33.2 (Cadogan
and Scarborough 2001; Angel, 2005). These structures will be built entirely on
Earth and transported to the Moon, where they will be automatically deployed,
or set up by robots or humans. These structures will not be inhabited by
humans; if people are required to erect the structures, they will use the lunar
module of their spacecraft for shelter during their short stay on the Moon,
which is not considered part of the phase. Any extended time spent on the
Moon for which a separate shelter is required is considered part of Phase 2.
Figure 33.2
Possible structure to surround the LLMT (left) (Angel, 2005; drawn by Tom Connors), and a
rigidizable support structure developed by JPL and L’Garde in the 1990s (right) (Cadogan and
Scarborough, 2001 with permission from ILC Dover).
The function of the structures in this phase will be to protect the equip-
ment from dust, meteoroids, and radiation, as well as to provide structural
support. The temperature fluctuations and seismic activity will also be
important considerations that will affect the design of the structures.
Phase 2
Phase 2 of construction begins with the first structures that are deployed on
the Moon and inhabited by humans, which will start around 2020 (Hawes,
2005). This phase is similar to the late part of Eckart’s Pioneering Phase and
the First Lunar Outpost (Eckart, 1999 p. 236), as well as to Toklu’s Pre-Fabricated
classification (Toklu, 2000). The purpose of the structures in this phase will
be to conduct science, allowing people to work with the equipment that has
already been placed there, and to investigate and prepare possible locations
for a permanent lunar base. They will be intended for only a short time on
the Moon, up to several months. As well, they will be designed for few peo-
ple, up to approximately 10.
In this phase, the structures will be inflatable to maximize the final vol-
ume of habitable space while minimizing the initial, compacted volume and
weight because these structures will also be constructed on Earth before
relocating them to the Moon; as well, they should be modular to allow the
lunar base to be expanded, eventually leading into Phase 3. An example of
an inflatable habitat, possible in Phase 2, is shown in Figure 33.3 (Criswell
and Carlson 2004). Although they will initially be constructed with resources
from Earth, Phase 2 will involve some lunar resource utilization. This will
mainly be the use of regolith for shielding the habitat from radiation, ther-
mal extremes and cycling, and meteoroids.
Vertical supporting Top ring

member
3 Main
Horizontal ribs
supporting
member
Side
rings
Inner tubes
Support feet
Figure 33.3
Example of an inflatable habitat, possible in phase two (Criswell and Carlson, 2004, ASCE).
Figure 33.4
A Lunar concrete structure that would be constructed under a pressurized dome; Phase 3
example (Eckart, 1999, p. 297).
These requirements, unique from those of Phase 1, are impacted by addi-

tional environmental conditions, which must be considered in their design.
As well as dust, meteoroids, radiation, temperature, and seismic activity, the
effects of gravity, pressure, and the length of the lunar day will also become
significantly more relevant because human safety is involved. As well, each
of the conditions that were important in Phase 1 will affect design in Phase 2
in a different, often more significant way.
Phase 3
The final phase of lunar construction, as the farthest from realization, is also
the least rigidly defined. It will begin with more permanent, habitable lunar
bases, as in the Consolidation and Settlement phases of Eckart, and the In-Situ
Resource Construction of Toklu (Eckart, 1999, p. 236; Toklu, 2000). This phase
will develop through a gradual transition from Phase 2, by about 2030 (Hawes,
2005). Instead of relocating the structures to the Moon, additions to Phase 2
structures will be constructed on the Moon from in-situ resources such as lunar
concrete (see Figure 33.4). They will be able to house many people comfortably,
as their inhabitants will stay in them for extended periods of time; as well, it
should be possible to build on and expand them to increase capacity.
The purposes of this phase will be to continue science involving the Moon
and to increase lunar resource use. After phase three begins, processing and
production plants will be built to develop in-situ resource utilization. Lunar
resources will be used to a further extent than simply for regolith shielding;
they will be used to expand the previously existing bases and reduce depen-
dence on supplies from the Earth. At this time, the lunar habitats should
have little dependence on supplies from Earth for survival.
The environmental conditions that are important in this phase will be the
same as those that were considered in phase two; however, they will be dealt
with differently. Specifically, radiation shielding will be more advanced and
location will be selected to minimize the effects of radiation, temperature,
and meteoroids. As well, all of the conditions must be addressed so that the
inhabitants are comfortable, rather than simply surviving, because they will
remain in the habitats for a longer time.
Environmental Conditions and Resultant Requirements

Unique technical requirements exist for construction on the Moon, and are
primarily caused by the harsh lunar environment. Between the Earth and the
Moon, there are several important differences to consider, and while most
of these are challenges to the design, some, such as seismicity, are actually less
important considerations than they would be on Earth. The most significant fac-
tors that differ lunar construction from construction on Earth are the following:
• Temperature
• Radiation
• Atmosphere and pressure
• Meteoroids
• Gravity
• The length of the lunar day
• Dust
• Seismicity
Each of these must be considered to varying degrees with respect to each

phase of construction, although the most important in all phases are tempera-
ture, radiation, pressure, and meteoroids (see Appendix A for importance of and
requirements due to each condition). The Lunar Construction Code should include
information on these conditions and the structural requirements that they create.
Temperature
One of the most important environmental differences between construction on
the Moon and construction on Earth is the temperature ranges of the two plan-
ets. Because of the long lunar day and thin atmosphere, the temperature on the
Moon varies greatly, by up to 280 K at the equator. Further, at the equator it has
an average temperature of only 255, or −18°C (Aulesa et al., 2000). This means
any structure placed on the Moon must be able to sustain very cold tempera-
tures, as well as severe thermal strain caused by the fluctuation.
Although the equator represents the largest temperature variation on the
Moon, the coldest temperatures occur in the permanently shadowed parts of
craters at the poles. There, the temperatures are constant at 40 K, or −233°C
(Aulesa et al., 2000). The most moderate temperature conditions, considering
Table 33.2
Temperature Ranges and Variations on the Moon
Permanently
Shadowed Polar
Craters Other Polar Areas Equatorial Zone Mid-Latitudes
Average
Temperature 40 K −233°C 220 K −53°C 255 K −18°C 237.5 K −35.5°C
Thickness of
Regolith
Cover (m) Monthly Variation and Range (°C)
Variation Range Variation Range Variation Range Variation Range
0.0 0 −233 +/−10 −63 to +/−140 −158 to +/−50 −85.5 to
−43 122 14.5
0.5 0 −233 +/−3.9 −56.9 to +/−55.8 −73.8 +/−19.6 −55.1 to
−49.1 to −15.9
37.8
1.0 0 −233 +/−1.2 −54.2 to +/−16.6 −34.6 +/−5.8 −41.3 to
−51.8 to −29.7
−1.4
1.5 0 −233 +/−0.5 −53.5 to +/−7.5 −25.5 +/−2.7 −38.2 to
−52.5 to −32.8
−10.5
2.0 0 −233 +/−0.3 −53.3 to +/−4.3 −22.3 +/−1.5 −37.0 to
−52.7 to −34.0
−13.7
2.5 0 −233 +/−0.2 −53.2 to +/−2.8 −20.8 +/−1.0 −36.5 to
−52.8 to −34.5
−15.2
Derived from Aulesa et al., 2000.
both the range and average temperature, are at the polar areas other than
permanently shadowed craters, where the average is −53°C and varies by
+/−10°C, or the mid-latitudes where the average is warmer at −35.5°C but
varies by +/−50°C (Aulesa et al., 2000) (see Table 33.2).
Also summarized in Table 33.2 are the results of one method of tempera-
ture shielding; that is a regolith cover (Aulesa et al., 2000). Regolith provides
thermal insulation and can be used to shield a habitat from temperature, as
well as radiation and meteoroids. Two metres of regolith shield bring the
ranges in all locations, except at the equator, to a small variation.
Using a regolith shield, however, is only a feasible solution for Phases 2 and
3; in Phase 1, when structures will be used as support for scientific equip-
ment such as telescopes, covering them in regolith is not an option. As well,
while a regolith shield could be used to keep the internal temperature of the
structure more consistent, the structure itself still must be able to withstand
the cold, at least during set-up. Therefore, in all phases, the materials used
in construction must maintain their properties in the temperatures of the
environment without shielding, such as Kevlar®, which does not become

brittle until −196°C (Kennedy et al., 2001, p. 540) and could therefore be used
in all areas of the Moon except the permanently shadowed craters. In Phase 1
this is required for the life of the structure, and in Phases 2 and 3, it is impor-
tant while the structure is being deployed, built, or repaired.
Radiation
The hazardous radiation that reaches the Moon comes primarily from two
sources; they are galactic cosmic rays (GCR) and solar energetic particle (SEP)
events (Parnell et al., 1998). This radiation is considered to be a significant threat
to human life in addition to having a negative impact on equipment. To protect
human life in a habitat, radiation shielding is necessary in Phases 2 and 3. It is
also important in Phase 1; the degree to which it is important depends on the
purpose of the structure (for radiation analysis, see Appendix B).
Phase 1
Because structures in Phase 1 will not be designed to shelter humans, biologi-
cal radiation effects are not a concern; however, radiation also has a negative
impact on equipment. The state of electronic equipment can be altered by an
ion-induced charge from radiation particles, and radiation can create extra
noise for sensors; it also breaks down materials and reduces power output from
solar panels (Parnell et al., 1998). For some of these problems, radiation shield-
ing can be used, and the vulnerable parts can be sheltered by the structure or
by regolith, which would reduce the effects of the radiation, as is suggested for
the Lunar Liquid Mirror Telescope (Angel, 2005). Most shielding in this phase
will be part of the structure, and included in the construction on Earth, rather
than added during set up or deployment. Few structures are likely be buried or
covered in regolith. Other approaches, where shielding is not possible, include
redundant circuits for electronics and larger than required solar panels (Parnell
et al., 1998). Structures in this phase must use materials that are relatively resis-
tant to radiation, or radiation-hardened materials (Parnell et al., 1998).
Radiation Limits for Phases 2 and 3

The average radiation dose on Earth is 0.0036 Sv/yr; however, on the Moon, the
average dose, caused almost entirely by galactic cosmic rays (GCR) and Solar
Energetic Particle (SEP) events, is considerably larger at 0.25 Sv/yr (Lindsey,
2003) or greater (ISU 2000). Further, individual SEP events can deliver up to
1000 Sv (Lindsey, 2003). Humans on the Moon must be protected from this
significant increase in radiation, although how much protection is required
depends on factors such as the length of stay, and a definitive limit is still
undetermined. A maximum dose of 0.5 Sv/yr is recommended by the Space
Studies Board in 1996 (Aulesa, 2000), which is consistent with the National
Council on Radiation Protection’s (NCRP) recommendation in 1989 (Parnell

et al, 1998). However, the career maximum for blood forming organs is 1 to
4 Sv, so even that dose can only be endured for less than two to eight years,
considering other sources of radiation throughout the person’s life. For very
long-term bases, this will not be an acceptable limit. Also, sufficient protec-
tion must be provided from solar flares because all of the maximum radiation
dose should not be received over the few hours of a solar flare. Further, for
nuclear power plant workers, the International Commission of Radiological
Protection recommends an annual limit of 0.05 Sv (Parnell et al, 1998). Because
the nuclear power plant workers will be exposed to the radiation for years,
rather than just a short mission considered by the Space Studies Board, their
recommended dose is lower. This indicates that structures in phase two may
not need significant shielding; however toward the end of the second and
into the third phase, more effective shielding will be required.
Phase 2
Large-scale radiation shielding will be required, beginning in Phase 2, to
protect humans spending time in lunar structures. The most commonly
suggested type of radiation shielding is a regolith cover because it includes
the advantages of in-situ resource utilization, as well as provides meteor-
oid and thermal shielding. A regolith shield increases the amount of mass
through which radiation particles must pass, and with enough shielding,
can stop the particles or slow them to an acceptable energy level. However,
a sufficient layer of shielding must be provided because initial collisions cre-
ate high-energy particles, or brehmsstrahlung radiation, and with just a thin
layer, the inhabitants of the structure will be exposed to these high-energy
particles, increasing the radiation damage that occurs rather than reducing it
(Buhler and Wichmann, 2005). The minimum suggested amount of shielding
varies between sources, from two metres of regolith to over five; the thick-
ness required depends on the radiation limit that is recommended, and the
density of regolith. The Earth’s atmosphere provides 1000 g/cm2 of shielding
at sea level, so equivalent protection on the Moon is ideal (Heiken, 1991, p. 53);
however, 700 g/cm2 is considered acceptable, as inhabitants will not be on the
Moon for extended periods of time (Aulesa et al., 2000). If the lowest density
of regolith is approximately 1.3 g/cm3, the regolith shield will have to be 5.4 m
thick to provide 700 g/cm2 of protection (Aulesa, 2000).
Phase 3
In Phase 3, there are further methods of radiation shielding to consider.
Other than only regolith, an electrostatic radiation shield used with regolith
(Buhler and Wichmann, 2005) is possible, or, if the habitat is constructed in a
lava tube, the ceiling of the lava tube itself may be used. In this phase, radia-
tion shielding is extremely important because an increased amount of time
will be spent on the Moon. The amount of radiation received should be as

low as possible; ideally, it should be as low as that received on Earth to avoid
any increase in the inhabitants’ probability of cancer.
Atmosphere and Pressure

The near zero pressure of 3 nPa on the Moon increases the severity of several
of the environmental conditions that are relevant to lunar construction. The
thin atmosphere of at most 2 × 105 molecules/cm3, which occurs at night,
provides little thermal insulation, contributing to the significant tempera-
ture range and thermal cycling that exist on the Moon. A dense atmosphere
would provide some radiation shielding, reducing the measures required to
protect equipment and humans from it. Finally, a thicker atmosphere would
burn up meteors, and fewer meteoroids would reach the surface.
The thin atmosphere also results in specific structural requirements in the
second and third phases. In these phases, the internal pressure in the struc-
ture must be sufficient to sustain human life, so the structure becomes a
pressure vessel. The internal pressure must be at least 26 (Aulesa, 2000) to
30 kPa (Langlais and Saulnier, 2000) to support human life and avoid altitude
sickness, if it is composed purely of oxygen. Realistically, however, the pres-
sure must be higher to make the living environment comfortable and avoid
such effects as difficulty speaking and ineffective coughing (Eckart 1999,
p. 276), and most importantly to reduce the extreme fire hazard that pure
oxygen would cause.
The internal pressure of the structures in the second and third phases will
create substantial tensile loads on the structure. The regolith piled on the
structure for shielding in Phase 2 will somewhat counter the load on the
top. However due to the reduced gravity, the pressure caused by its weight
will not be greater than the internal pressure. If the regolith shield is 5.4 m
high, gravity is 1.62 m/s2, and the density of regolith is between 1.3 (Aulesa
et al., 2000) and 1.75 g/cm3 (Sadeh et al., 2000), the pressure created by the
regolith will be between 11.4 and 15.9 kPa, which is much less than the mini-
mum required internal pressure for human life, of 26 to 30 kPa (Aulesa, 2000;
Langlais and Saulnier, 2000). As well, there will be horizontal loads on the
structure due to the pressure, which the regolith will not counter.
Meteoroids
Meteoroid bombardment since the formation of the Moon has resulted in the
present lunar topography. Meteors are a threat to structures on the Moon
because there is almost no atmosphere on the Moon to burn them up or even
slow them down. As a result, meteoroids impact the Moon with their full
velocity, which can range from 10 to 72 km/s (Coronado et al. 1987, p.12).
For some structures in Phase 1 such as a lunar telescope, the threat may
simply have to be accepted because creating a shield that would protect
equipment such as a telescope but not interfere with its view may not be pos-
sible. Further, as Gorenstein says in an analysis of a proposed lunar obser-
vatory, “disturbances would be meteoroid impacts but the probability that
an impact would affect the observatory is small” (Gorenstein, 2002, p.46).
Particularly for larger particles, meteoroid flux is very low (see Appendix C).
However, even small particles constitute a threat in Phases 2 and 3; mete-
oroid impact is a more significant concern because a leak in a structure in
one of these phases could be catastrophic if not repaired quickly. Therefore,
meteoroid shielding is required. One solution is a regolith covering, which
would absorb the impact of meteoroids, preventing them from reaching the
structure.
Lindsey analyzes, using the Fish-Summers Penetration Equation, the thick-
ness of the regolith layer required to protect a structure from meteoroids
of diameter 7 cm or smaller, and finds it to be 45.9 cm (Lindsey, 2003). The
flux of a meteoroid this large is 1.76 × 10 –4 impacts/km2/yr and decreases
for larger particles, making a catastrophic impact very unlikely with this
amount of shielding (Lindsey, 2003). Further, using this equation (Hayashida
and Robinson, 1991), the effectiveness of a regolith shield of 5.4 m can be
approximated. This is also the recommended thickness for sufficient radiation
shielding, and would provide protection from meteoroids with a diameter of
52 cm or smaller, reducing the flux of a penetrating impact on the structure
to between 10−8 and 10−7 impacts/km2/yr (see Appendix C) (Lindsey, 2003;
Eckart, 1999, p. 148).
Although meteoroids are an important concern in lunar structural design,
the probability of impact is very low. Because of this, meteoroid shielding
is primarily a concern in the later phases of construction. A regolith shield
that will provide temperature and radiation protection is also sufficient to
provide meteoroid protection; however more advanced solutions may be
investigated for late in Phase 3. For additional meteoroid shielding, a layer of
the structure should provide some protection, as suggested for the TransHab
(Kennedy et al., 2001, p. 545).
Gravity
The effects of the reduced gravity on the Moon compared to the Earth sig-
nificantly alter the loads that must be considered in lunar construction. Self-
weight of the structures is much less of a concern, as the gravity on the Moon
is only approximately 1.62 m/s2 (ISU 2000), or 1/6 of the Earth’s gravity, and
varies very slightly due to mass concentrations. In Figure 33.5, the variations
on the nearside (left) and far side (right) are depicted, with variations in 10 -5
m/s2 (Carroll et al. 2005; Konopliv et al. 1998). In Phase 1, this will primarily
be a benefit in design because the structure will simply have to support less
weight. In Phases 2 and 3, however, lower gravity will not significantly coun-
ter the net vertical tensile loads caused by the internal pressure required to
sustain human life.
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
–50
–100
–150
–200
–250
Figure 33.5
Gravity variations on the nearside (left) and far side (right) with variations in 10 -5 m/s2 (Konopliv
et al. 1998., reprinted with permission from the American Association for the Advancement of
Science).
Length of Lunar Day

One lunar day, the time from one new Moon to the next, is 29.53059 Earth days
(ISU, 2000). This causes some substantial environmental differences between
the Earth and Moon. Primarily, the long lunar day gives the Moon more time
to heat up while exposed to the sun, and then more time to cool during the
night, contributing, along with the lack of atmosphere, to the extreme ther-
mal cycling. This drastic difference from Earth requires some changes in
the way that lunar construction must be approached; lunar structures must
be able to withstand extremely cold temperatures and their sharp variation.
Specifically, the materials used must retain similar properties over the range
of temperatures, and also must not fail easily due to thermal fatigue.
To achieve this, insulation such as lunar regolith will be used; however, the
insulated parts of the structure must still be exposed to the environment while
the structure is being deployed or constructed. Here, the length of the lunar day
is beneficial; it is long enough so that missions to set up structures on the Moon
can be timed such that the structure is set up in relatively mild temperatures,
and thermal shielding can be in place before extreme temperatures occur.
Dust
Dust, while it does not create any specific technical requirements, is a feature
of the lunar surface that complicates construction. The lunar sunrise and
sunset create a photoelectric change in the conductivity of the dust particles,
which causes them to float in the air and allows them to adhere to surfaces
(Eckart, 1999, p. 139). This could interfere with any mechanical parts on the
outside of a structure, the deployment of the structure, or the observations
of scientific equipment. To counter this, abrasion resistant materials must be
used, and any moving parts should not be easily deterred by dust.
Seismicity
Although lunar seismicity is a consideration in the design of lunar struc-
tures, the annual seismic energy released on the Moon is significantly less
than that on Earth; unlike Earthquakes, Moonquakes will have little impact
on lunar structural design.
In the Apollo 15 Preliminary Science Report, it is estimated that the annual
seismic energy release on the Moon is 1011 to 1015 ergs, whereas on Earth it
is approximately 5 × 1024 ergs (NASA 1971b); the seismic energy released on
the Moon is 1/(5 × 109) of that released on Earth. Further, the largest recorded
Moonquake in the Apollo data was 2 to 3 on the Richter scale, and the usual
magnitudes of Moonquakes were only 1 to 2. A further source, Toklu, sup-
ports 1 to 2 magnitude on the Richter scale as the average, but suggests the
one larger quake may have been as much as 4 (Toklu, 2000), although this is
still significantly lower than many of those on Earth.
There were five sites with special seismographs placed on the Moon dur-
ing the landings of Apollo 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17 (NASA 1969, 1971a, 1971b,
1972, 1973). For many millions of years, the Moon has been a dynamically
quiet planetary body with no known plate motions, no active volcanoes, and
no ocean trench systems in place. It was very special to find out that each
lunar seismograph detected 600–3,000 Moonquakes every year, but most of
them were very small; up to about 2 on the Richter scale. The lunar seismic
events could be divided into three distinct groups: deep Moonquakes (with
their foci at depths of 600–900 km in the Moon), shallow Moonquakes (less
frequent), and Moonquakes artificially induced by a meteoroid impact.
Much of the data collected in the Apollo seismic experiments was due to
meteoroid impact, demonstrating that meteoroids will be a much more sig-
nificant concern, [See Figure 33.6 (Latham et al. 1972)]. Also due to the small
magnitude of lunar seismicity, the main structural loads to consider in lunar
construction will be due to the self-weight of the structure and equipment in
Phase 1, and the internal pressure of a habitat in Phases 2 and 3, rather than
Moonquakes.
1 hour
13 14 8 9
13:09 hr, May 23, 1970
8:09 hr, April 8, 1970
X
Meteoroid Impact
X
Moonquake
H-phase
Y Y
Z Z
Figure 33.6
Moonquake and meteoroid seismic activity (Latham et al. 1972, p. 377, Fig. 2, printable license
is given with permission from Springer Science and Business Media).
Materials
The materials used in lunar structures must be resistant to the environmen-
tal conditions and retain their mechanical properties for which they were
chosen. However, as the purpose of the lunar structures evolves, the type
of material that will best serve the purpose will also change, so a variety of
acceptable materials are required. One common factor influencing the mate-
rial choice in all phases is mass and volume during transportation. The mass
and volume that is transported should always be minimized due to the high
cost and amount of fuel required. Although limitations for individual mis-
sions will vary and are not discussed here, minimizing these properties is
expected to remain important for all phases.
Phase 1
In Phase 1, the materials used must be able to function in the temperature
extremes, maintain their properties while exposed to radiation, and be resis-
tant to abrasion. The structure should also be as compact and lightweight as
possible to reduce cost of transportation, and be deployed on the Moon to take
on its final shape. Options in the phase include solid collapsible structures, inflat-
able fabric, plastic, or metal film structures, and rigidizable inflatable structures
(Kennedy et al., 2001; Cadogan and Scarborough, 2001). The best option of these
is rigidizable material because it can have the advantage of small volume and
weight when stored, and can be deployed on the Moon to a larger size. Further,
they do not depend on maintaining internal air pressure to keep their shape,
as other inflatable structures do. Rigidizable materials provide the benefits of
inflatable structures, without the risk of a catastrophic failure if a small puncture
occurs (Cadogan and Scarborough, 2001). This is an important property in this
stage because meteoroid shielding will not be provided.
Phase 2
The internal air pressure of the structure must be maintained in Phase 2 because
it is necessary to sustain human life. For this reason, rigidizable inflatable struc-
tures may still be used, although not all of the advantages that they provide in
Phase 1 apply. However, the structures in this phase may still be inflatable because
they will be transported from the Earth and therefore must be small and light-
weight for travel, but able to expand to provide adequate space. The membranes
of these structures will be multi-layered, including a liner, bladder, restraint layer,
insulating layer, and protective layer for meteoroids (see Figure 33.7) (Kennedy
et al., 2001, pp. 535–548; Langlais and Saulnier, 2000).
Testing has been performed on materials chosen for the TransHab for low
Earth orbit (Kennedy et al., 2001, pp. 548–552), although before a material can
be used, it must be tested to ensure that it retains its properties in the lunar
Multi-layer
insulation (MLI) layer Redundant
bladders Nomex, Kevlar,
Atomic Gortex
oxygen (AO)
cover Seven layers
aluminized mylar
Thermal insulation
Inner Protective sealant
liner Liquid hydrogen
Deployment Micro- Protective sealant
Restraint
system meteoroid/
orbital debris layer
(MMOD) shielding
Figure 33.7
Layers of the inflatable habitats TransHab (left) (Kennedy et al., 2001, p. 535, with permission
of American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics), and the proposed construction dome
(right) (Langlais and Saulnier, 2000).
environment, including extreme temperatures, radiation, and abrasion. The

former two conditions are most important during deployment, as regolith
will later be used for radiation, temperature, and meteoroid shielding; abra-
sion resistance is necessary throughout the life of the structure. In this phase,
lightweight, rigid, collapsible metal or alloy structures could also be used.
Phase 3
In-situ resource utilization will be the main source of the materials used in
Phase 3. In addition to regolith for shielding, lunar resources will be used
to construct the main structure of the habitat. To build the structure, lunar
materials that may be used include lunar concrete (Lin 1987; Lin et al. 1991;
Eckart 1999, p. 656), sulphur-based concrete (Casanova and Aulesa, 2000;
Eckart 1999, p. 656), and cast basalt (Greene, 2004).
Lunar concrete, although it may be possible, presents several difficulties;
it would require water transported from Earth or obtained from the Moon,
which would also evaporate more quickly in the thin atmosphere, resulting
in weaker concrete. To prevent the water from evaporating from the mor-
tar, epoxy binders could be added to the concrete, or the concrete could be
preset in a pressurized environment to prevent evaporation (Eckart, 1999,
p. 657), such as the pressurized construction dome suggested by Langlais
and Saulnier (2000). Lunar concrete presents difficulties, which may be over-
come. An alternative to lunar concrete that would eliminate these problems
is sulphur concrete, which does not require water, needs less energy to man-
ufacture, and can be produced in cold environments (Casanova and Aulesa,
2000).
Finally, because basalt is widely available on the Moon, cast basalt is sug-
gested as a lunar construction material (Greene, 2004). It also does not require
water to cast, but uses heat, which can be obtained from concentrated sun-
light (Greene, 2004).
All of these materials share one major drawback. They are stronger under
compression than tension; the tensile strength of concrete is only approxi-
mately 10% of its compressive strength (Casanova and Aulesa, 2000). However
because of the internal pressure required in a lunar habitat, the net loads on
the structure will be tensile. This means their optimum properties are not
taken advantage of, which must be considered in the structural design. When
phase three is in development, these and other possible materials must be
more closely examined with respect to the specific needs of the habitat.
Shape
In phase one, the shape will be determined primarily by the requirements
of the scientific equipment that will be supported or protected by the struc-
ture. Before phase two, there will be little choice in possible shapes for the
structure. When different shapes are options, there are two important areas
to consider in deciding the shape of a lunar habitat. They are the human
requirements and the structural stresses. The practicality of the space avail-
able necessarily determines what shapes are options, and the stresses that
the shape would have to sustain determine the best choice of these options.
Here, shapes will be considered separately for phase two.
In the second phase, inflatable structures will be used because they are
lightweight and small when compacted, and can provide a large volume when
deployed. Some of the most efficient in mass to final volume are sphere, cylin-
der, and toroid shells; these structures also eliminate sharp corners that would
concentrate shell stresses (see Figure 33.8). Another possibility is an inflatable
dome with an anchored base (Langlais and Saulnier, 2000). Structures that have
R
r(φ)
σ1
σ1 σ1
σ2 o φ
σ2 R σ2
b
a
Cylinder (R/t > 10) Toroid (b/t > 10) Sphere (R/t > 10)
qR qR qb r(θ) + a qb qR
σ1 = σ2 = σ1 = σ2 = σ1 = σ2 =
t 2t 2t r(θ) 2t 2t
Figure 33.8
Directions of stresses in shells of various shapes (Kennedy et al., 2001, p. 537, reprinted with
permission from the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics).
been proposed or built for space or planetary habitats that use these structures
are the TransHab, a combination of a toroid and cylinder (p. 528, Kennedy
et al., 2001), the spherical inflatable habitat proposed by Criswell and Carlson
(see Figure 33.3) (Criswell and Carlson 2004), the Astrophytum, consisting of
four spheres arranged radially around a cylinder (Borin and Fiscelli, 2004), and
a hemispherical inflatable construction dome (Langlais and Saulnier, 2000).
A sphere does not allow a very efficient use of space, although it gives
the most habitable volume for the material used. The space created with the
shape of a cylinder or toroid would be much more efficient, although they
would both create more volume and mass when compacted.
Structures in the third phase will most likely be dome shaped or rounded
because, while they will probably be built from concrete or a similar mate-
rial, they will still include an airtight membrane, so sharp corners should be
avoided.
Location
In Phase 1, the scientific goal of the mission will be the most important
factor in determining the location of the lunar structure. For example, the
south pole (See Figure 33.9), including the South Pole Aitken Basin, is a
geologically interesting location that is the goal of a proposed NASA sam-
ple return mission (Koelle et al., 2005), and is also an important target in
the National Research Council’s Solar System Exploration Strategy (Smith,
2002, Chap 2); it may also become a desired location for scientific experi-
ments requiring structures. For astronomy, a location on the far side of the
Moon may be ideal because it is shielded from radio noise from Earth, or to
investigate the existence of ice water, a polar location would be required.
Scientific areas of interest will still be important in Phase 2, and addition-
ally, locations that have resources will be important to investigate the pos-
sibility of in-situ resource utilization. These resources include 3He, which is
rare on Earth but could be used as fuel in nuclear fusion, oxygen for rocket
fuel, and materials such as concrete for lunar construction.
As the purpose of lunar structures in Phase 3 evolves toward establishing
a human colony on the Moon, locations that make design and construction
easiest and increase the lifetime of the structure will be used. Some of these
locations include the inside of a lava tube, which would provide excellent
environmental protection, or the poles, where peaks of eternal light might
be located. While these locations may not be options in earlier phases due to
the purpose of the mission, the needs of an inhabited, semi-permanent base,
such as reliable shielding and power production, will be more important in
phase three. The choice of location of lunar structures will be greatly influ-
enced by the results of future lunar missions.
Shackleton
100 km
0°
90°W 90°E
50 km
180°
Figure 33.9
The Lunar South Pole, including Shackleton Crater by Clementine (left), and the Arecibo
Observatory in Puerto Rico (Spudis, 1999, p. 127, reprinted with permission of Cambridge
University Press).
Lava Tubes
The idea of locating a lunar base inside a lava tube is decades old. It was
revisited in 1988 by Coombs and Hawke, who stated that lava tubes would
be a good location for a base if their existence and exact location could be
confirmed before the mission was sent (Coombs and Hawke, 1988). Still, as
late as 1999, Eckart says in his lunar base handbook that lava tubes would
be a good location if they were found (Eckart, 1999, p. 118). Although lava
tubes offer relief from several of the severe environmental conditions pres-
ent on the Moon, further research into their exact location and properties is
required; however, because they would not be used until Phase 2 or 3, this
investigation could be done in Phase 1 and 2.
Locating the lunar base in a lava tube would fulfill several of the previ-
ously determined technical requirements that are unique to the Moon. The
ceiling of the tube would provide natural meteoroid and radiation shield-
ing significantly more than the 5.4 m required. The inside of the lava tubes
may also have less dust, minimizing the complications that dust can cause
(Billings et al., 2000), and what dust there is will not be exposed to the sun,
reducing the levitation due to photoelectric change. Most probably, the
temperature inside a lava tube is almost constant at approximately −20°C
(Billings et al., 2000).
Peaks of Eternal Light

Some points on the lunar north pole may receive almost constant low angle sun-
light due to their elevation and the small tilt of the Moon’s axis. Previously, loca-
tions such as Malapert Mountain near the south pole were considered, which
may also receive sunlight for more than half of the lunar day (Kruijff, 2000;
Sharpe and Schrunk, 2002). More recently, locations on the rim of Peary Crater
near the north pole were suggested, which receive constant sunlight during the
summer, although the percent of time during which sunlight is received in the
winter is unknown (Bussey et al., 2005). Peaks of eternal light would be useful
locations for a lunar base because temperature is relatively constant at about
−50°C, +/−10°C (Bussey et al., 2005). Also, solar power would be available for
most of the time, and finally, peaks of eternal light are probably located near
permanently shadowed craters, which may contain ice water. Also after further
investigation, peaks of eternal light might provide excellent lunar base sites.
Recent Findings
There were eight missions since 1976, one of which was not initially dedi-
cated to the Moon. Hiten was the first Japanese orbital lunar mission with
a controlled crash on the Moon’s surface in 1990. There were two American
missions, Clementine (1994) and Lunar Prospector (1998), ESA sponsored mis-
sion, SMART 1 (2003), second Japanese mission SELENE (2007), first Chinese
mission called Chang’e 1 (2007) and first Indian mission, Chandrayaan (2008).
Finally, there was also one unexpected flyby mission when the faulty com-
munication satellite AsiaSat 3/HGS 1 was directed to do two flybys to place it
in geosynchronous orbit. They all contributed at various levels to the current
knowledge of the lunar environmental conditions. Hiten was more focused on
a series of technology demonstrations for future lunar missions. Three other
dedicated lunar missions (two American and one European) concentrated on
two major aspects of lunar studies: remote sensing of the lunar environment
including optical imaging of the lunar surface and lunar mapping activities.
Both are of utmost importance to the future missions and also related to the
derivation of specific technical requirements of lunar structures.
Clementine was launched in 1994 and achieved the mapping of the lunar
surface in the same year. It brought to attention a large variation of topogra-
phy of the lunar poles, especially of the Moon’s south pole and its South Pole-
Aitken basin, and revealed the presence of this extensive depression caused
by the impact of an asteroid or comet (See Figure 33.10). There is also a per-
manent dark area around the pole, which is sufficiently cold to trap water of
cometary origin in the form of ice. The laser altimeter on Clementine gave, for
the first time, comprehensive images of the lunar topography (See Figure 33.10)
(Williams, “Clementine Project,” 2005; Williams, “Clementine,” 2000). The near
side is relatively smooth in comparison to the far side, which has extreme topo-
graphic variation. The large circular feature centred on the southern far side
is the South Pole-Aitken basin, which is 2,600 km in diameter and over 12 km
in depth (Williams, “Clementine Project,” 2005; Williams, “Clementine,” 2000).
In general, there is a similar range of elevation on the Moon’s surface as the
range exhibited by the Earth. Gravity mapping obtained from Clementine also
revealed the crustal thickness, which has an average of 70 km, and varies from
a few tens of kilometres on the mare basins to over 100 km in the highland
Near side Far side

Near side Far side
–8 –4 0 4 8 0 50 100
Topographic Elevation (kilometers) Crustal Thickness (kilometers)
Figure 33.10
Lunar topographic elevation (left) and crustal thickness (right) as determined by Clementine
(Spudis, 1999, p. 135, reprinted with permission from Cambridge University Press).
areas (See Figure 33.10) (Williams, “Clementine Project,” 2005; Williams,

“Clementine,” 2000). The orbiting spacecraft also experienced a slight change
in the velocity passing over mass concentrations called mascons and confirmed
earlier findings of the local irregularities in the Moon’s gravity field. All of these
findings are related to the environmental conditions on the Moon, such as the
distribution of the temperature due to topographic variation of the Moon’s sur-
face and some aspects of the change in gravity field, but also place high impor-
tance on the impact of the location on the structural technical requirements
(Williams, “Clementine Project,” 2005; Williams, “Clementine,” 2000).
Lunar Prospector continued mapping of the lunar surface including low
polar orbit investigation, and made studies associated with potential lunar
resources: minerals, water ice and certain gases. It mapped the Moon’s gravi-
tational field anomalies (first encountered during the Apollo era). However,
the controlled crash of the Lunar Prospector spacecraft into a crater near
the south pole of the Moon on July 31, 1999 did not produce any observable
signature of water based on the astronomical observations made with tele-
scopes (Williams, “Lunar Prospector,” 2005).
SMART 1 (Small Missions for Advanced Research in Technology) con-
tinues efforts of previous missions including the search for water ice at the
south pole using NIR (near-infrared) spectrometry (ISU, 2003). It also made
further advances in the geology, morphology, topography, mineralogy, and
geochemistry of the lunar surface. It measured minerals and chemical ele-
ments using visible light, near-infrared and X-ray spectroscopy. The original
mission of a 6-month lifetime was extended until August 2006 (Williams,
“SMART 1,” 2004).
The second Japanese mission after cancelled Lunar-A mission was named
SELENE. This mission was launched on September 14, 2007 and it brought
more instruments into lunar orbit and was equipped with two additional
small satellites of 50 kg each. Thus, the mission consisted of a main orbiter
(150 kg) called Kaguya, a small relay satellite (for communications), and a
small VLBI (Very Long Baseline Interferometry) satellite (Williams, “Missions
Under Consideration,” 2005). The latter conducted careful investigation on
the position and precession of the Moon’s orbit. The orbiter performed a suite
of experiments, some of which were similar to other scientific experiments
performed by earlier American missions, as well as some that supplemented
other planned efforts (Williams, “Missions Under Consideration,” 2005). The
overall impact of all of these studies from orbit are substantial but not with
respect to technical requirements for future lunar structures, except some
aspects associated with determining prime areas of future in-situ investiga-
tion of the lunar surface. This was the largest Moon mission since the Apollo
program on an H-2A rocket.
The first Chinese mission to the Moon, Chang’e 1, was devoted to test-
ing several technologies for future missions, and it could be treated as
the Chinese reconnaissance mission. It was launched on October 24, 2007
from the Xichang Satellite Launch Center. It is intended to study the lunar
environment through a similar suite of instruments as the Japanese missions,

with one addition of a microwave radiometer to study the thickness of the
lunar regolith. There are also instrumentation to study the solar wind and
near-lunar region, the area just above the lunar surface (Williams, “Missions
Under Consideration,” 2005).
The first Indian lunar mission Chandrayaan-1, sponsored by ISRO, has
an extensive suite of instrumentation, solicited partially through announce-
ments of opportunities. The Chandrayaan-1 mission was launched on
October 22, 2008. Its focus is on studying 3D topography of the Moon and
distribution of the minerals and elemental chemical species. However, the
concentrated effort is directed to high-resolution mineralogical and chemi-
cal imaging of the lunar poles and chemical stratigraphy of the lunar crust.
A unique effort will be devoted to map the height variation of the lunar
surface features (“India’s First Mission,” 2004; Williams, “Chandrayaan-1,”
2005). This will result in better choices of future landing sites. However, it
will carry some value in the future mapping efforts of various lunar features,
as they might affect the construction efforts, especially in phases two and
three.
In summary, achievements of the above listed missions have contributed
substantially to the knowledge of the Moon, although they do not bring
much to the current knowledge with respect to technical requirements for
future lunar structures. However, they have proven that the major impact of
the individual technical requirements depends on the choice of location for
the specific structure, regardless of the construction phase. Further advance-
ments in the assessment of the technical requirements will be achieved
through robotic missions with landing potential on the lunar surface and
establishment of permanent stations to further quantify all parameters for
the future lunar design code.
Planned Missions
The series of planned lunar missions shows some aspects of competition
between various space-faring nations and poses some questions to streamline
different efforts into a unified effort for future Moon utilization and eventual
colonization. Some missions might contribute to extending the knowledge of
the lunar environment and its impact on the future structural requirements.
The leading efforts with respect to the planned lunar missions represent the
United States’ new exploration strategy of planned return to the Moon by
2020 with aggressive planning from the technology side (Berger, 2005), par-
tially known Chinese efforts associated with their human flight program,
and Indian and European ambitious plans concentrating on the scientific
investigations of the Moon’s environmental features. All of these efforts will
contribute to further developing better technical requirements for all three

phases of lunar construction. Some aspects are discussed below based on the
available description of the current missions and their objectives.
The planned and/or approved missions include five American, one pri-
vate (Trailblazer) and four by NASA (Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO),
the Gravity Recovery and Interior Laboratory mission GRAIL, the Lunar
Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer LADEE mission, and the
International Lunar Network (ILN) mission), one Chinese named Chang’e
2 (follow on to Chang’e 1 mission), one Indian named Chandrayaan-2 (fol-
low on to the currently launched mission by ISRO) and one small university
based German mission called Baden-Württemberg 1 (BW1) after the provin-
cial program from this state of Germany and led by the Technical University
of Stuttgart (Williams, “Timeline,” 2005; Laufer and Roeser, 2005). The lunar
exploration can be subject to substantial changes due to the current financial
world crisis and in the political climate in leading space-faring nations.
Major contributions will be possible through the larger missions and those
sponsored or funded by the national agencies, although the new interest from
private or university sectors might be also important based on initial success
from the Trailblazer or BW1 missions. It is also expected that the eventual
series of landing lunar missions in the next decade will start detailed in-situ
investigations of the lunar environment.
The NASA Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) mission is mainly
devoted to identify landing sites for future robotic and human explorers.
LRO is planned to be launched on April 24, 2009. It will also bring a suite of
important instruments (some for the first time) to relatively low 30–50 km
polar circular orbit. A large effort will be placed on studies of the Moon’s radi-
ation environment, lunar topography and scanning of the resources in the
polar regions. Mapping of the composition of the lunar surface will continue
(Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), Williams, 2005). There are three other
planned American missions: the Gravity Recovery and Interior Laboratory
mission GRAIL (2011), the Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment
Explorer LADEE mission (2011) and the International Lunar Network
ILN mission (2013). First two are lunar orbital missions under study by
NASA (Williams, “Chronology of Lunar and Planetary Exploration (Future
Missions),” 2008) and the third one is associated with the robotic portion
of the lunar exploration architecture. This concept called the International
Lunar Network (ILN) aims to provide an organizing scheme for all landed
science missions in the next decade by involving each landed station as a
node in a future lunar geophysical network. Ultimately there will be 8–10
nodes placed on the far side of the Moon. However, this concept requires
a lunar communication relay satellite (NASA International Lunar Network
Concept, 2008). The impact on the technical requirements for lunar struc-
tures from these studies can be foreseen, especially with respect to future
radiation shielding or other arrangements for both human and structural
protection during all construction phases.
Conclusion and Recommendations

This paper introduces a new classification of lunar structures into three
phases. It includes most of the known important lunar environmental condi-
tions and shows their quantitative representations as well as their impact on
different technical requirements associated with each construction phase.
These phases are mainly associated with the lunar structure use, and some-
what with their designed service duration. This review paper is not a fully
comprehensive one as the current new wave of lunar research, in the direc-
tion of the utilization of the Moon or future colonization of the Moon, has
just started. The major portion of the overall knowledge on lunar environ-
mental conditions used for derivation of the technical requirements for lunar
structures is based equally on in-situ investigations from the Apollo era and
from the post-Apollo era of recent orbital missions.
The overall recommendations can be divided into three distinct groups.
The first group is strategic recommendations; it outlines how to develop the
construction code, which encompasses all proposed construction phases,
and lists the data important to lunar construction that should be obtained
through future lunar missions. The second group includes specific recom-
mendations for baseline requirements for individual phases; however, it
must be noted that all technical requirements from the previous phases
should also be included (see the table in Appendix A with importance fac-
tors included for each phase). Finally, additional recommendations are made
for areas that require further research in relation to lunar structures.
Strategic Recommendations
A concentrated international and multidisciplinary effort is proposed to
evolve, based on the current and newly acquired knowledge, the Lunar
Construction Code [as some efforts in this direction have already been
attempted in the literature, The Lunar Sourcebook (Heiken et al. 1991) and The
Lunar Base Handbook (Eckart 1999)]. The Lunar Construction Code will include
a description of the lunar environmental conditions from an engineering
point of view, with their quantification and available mapping. It will also
include guidelines for the development of lunar structures as proposed in
the three construction phases for future Moon utilization and colonization.
This code will be upgraded on an annual basis, taking into account all avail-
able findings from the current missions.
Data in the following areas should be gathered in future lunar missions to
include in the Lunar Construction Code:
• Local lunar soil conditions,

• Additional information about temperatures,
• More accurate and precise meteoroid flux data,

• Radiation fluctuation, depending on location and time,
• Gravity field irregularities, and
• Mapping development for seismic activity of meteoroids and
Moonquakes, topography, and stratigraphy.
These mission objectives should be internationally coordinated for proper

accumulation of all data.
Specific Recommendations for Technical Requirements

The specific recommendations include the technical requirements derived
from the lunar environmental conditions. These requirements, which should
be included in the Lunar Construction Code, are listed in more detail in Appendix
A and summarized below (see Appendix A).
Phase 1
The materials used in phase one must be able to sustain very low tempera-
tures, in some cases as low as –233°C. As well, the materials must be abrasion
resistant against the lunar dust. Redundancy is required in electronics and
solar panels to minimize the damage caused by radiation.
Phase 2
In addition to the requirements of phase one, further shielding is needed
to protect the inhabitants of the structures; at least 700 g/cm2 of regolith is
required for radiation shielding. This regolith is also enough to lower the
internal temperature range in most areas to 2°C or less, and it will provide suf-
ficient meteoroid shielding to lower the risk of penetration to 9 × 10 –8 impacts/
km2/yr. The requirements due to the thin lunar atmosphere are also impor-
tant in this phase. A minimum of 26 kPa of pure oxygen is required to sustain
human life, although the pressure inside the structures will be greater with
a mixed gas atmosphere to reduce the risk of fire. Because of this, the struc-
tures in this and the next phase will be pressure vessels; combined with the
low gravity, these conditions result in large tensile stresses on the structure.
Therefore the shapes of the structures in this phase will be spherical, cylindri-
cal, or toroidal shells to eliminate corners and avoid stress concentrations.
The inflatable structures in this phase will be multi-layered, distributing
some of the requirements such as temperature control, additional meteor-
oid shielding, and pressure containment over several different layers. These
layers must include a bladder, restraint layer, and inner liner, and may also
include a deploying mechanism and thermal insulation.
Phase 3
Most of the conditions from Phase 2 carry over to Phase 3, with a few more
options. More shapes are possible because the structure will be constructed
from in-situ resources. Materials produced in-situ, such as lunar concrete,
must be tested before use to determine their properties; lunar concrete
should also be manufactured in a pressure vessel (such as the construction
dome) to prevent the water from evaporating and weakening the concrete.
Radiation shielding in this phase should provide a minimum of 1,000 g/cm2,
as the Earth’s atmosphere does, due to the longer duration stays on the Moon
in this phase. This may be provided through electromagnetic shielding; if it
is, alternate meteoroid shielding must then be used.
Additional Recommendations
In this category of recommendations, areas of suggested research associ-
ated with future lunar structures are indicated. Advances have already been
made in some of these areas.
• Develop rigidizable pneumatic structures that are highly resistant to

radiation, temperature and abrasion.
• Research vacuum multi-layered pressure vessels (with external vac-
uum conditions).
• Develop new materials that are highly temperature and radiation
resistant.
• Develop a suite of initial in-situ structural experiments with regolith
shielding, to be performed during the first robotic lunar missions.
• Develop a suite of initial in-situ investigations of lunar soil for lunar
civil engineering applications, to be performed during the first
robotic and later manned lunar missions.
• Develop radiation shielding for lunar structures.
• Develop a suite of ground-based experiments including simulations
of lunar conditions.
Acknowledgment
The authors are thankful for comments from Dr. Victoria Hipkin and Dr.
Bjarni Tryggvason of the Canadian Space Agency, and Dr. Harold Ogden of
Saint Mary’s University.
References
Angel, R. (2005). “A Deep Field Infrared Observatory Near the Lunar Pole.” Phase
1 report. [On-line] Available: http://www.niac.usra.edu/files/studies/final_
report/1006Angel.pdf, from NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts, Atlanta,
Georgia. 2005.
Aulesa, V. (2000). “Architecture of Lunar Habitats.” in Proceedings of the Fourth
International Conference on Exploration and Utilization of the Moon, edited by B.H.
Foing and M. Perry, ESA, ILEWG, The Netherlands, 2000, pp. 289–292.
Aulesa, V., Ruiz, F., Casanova, I. (2000). “Structural Requirements for the Construction of
Shelters on Planetary Surfaces,” in Space 2000, edited by K.M. Chua et al., American
Society of Civil Engineers, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 2000, pp. 403–409.
Bell, E.V. (2005). “AsiaSat3.” [On-line] Available: http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/data-
base/MasterCatalog?sc=1997-086A. NASA Goddard Space Flight Center.
Greenbelt, MD 20771. 2005.
Berger, B. (2005). “NASA Rolling Out Lunar Exploration Study Results,” in Space
News, Vol. 16 Issue 26, July 4, 2005, pp. 1,4.
Billings, T.L., Walden, B., York, C.L. “Lunar Lavatube Base Construction,” in Space 2000,
edited by K.M. Chua et al., American Society of Civil Engineers, Albuquerque,
New Mexico, 2000, pp. 631–637.
Borin, A., Fiscelli, M. (2004). “An Inflatable Living Concept.” in Engineering, Construction,
and Operations in Challenging Environments, edited by Maji, A., Malla, R. B., ASCE,
Houston, TX, 2004, pp. 797–804.
Buhler, C.R., Wichmann, L. (2005). “Analysis of a Lunar Base Electrostatic Radiation
Shield Concept.” Phase 1 report. [On-line] Available: http://www.niac.usra.edu/
files/studies/final_report/921Buhler.pdf, from NASA Institute for Advanced
Concepts, Atlanta, GA. 2005.
Bussey, D.B.J., Fristad, K.E., Schenk, P.M., Robinson, M.S., Spudis, P.D. (2005).
“Constant illumination at the lunar north pole,” in Nature, edited by P. Campbell,
Vol. 434, 14 April, 2005, p. 842.
Cadogan, D.P., Scarborough, S.E. (2001). “Rigidizable Materials for use in Gossamer
Space Inflatable Structures.” [On-line] Available: http://www.ilcdover.com/
products/aerospace_defense/supportfiles/AIAA2001-1417.pdf, 42nd AIAA/
ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC, Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials,
Conference & Exhibit, AIAA Gossamer Spacecraft Forum, April 16–19, 2001 /
Seattle, WA. 2001.
Carroll, K.A., Spencer, H., Arkani-Hamad, J., Zee, R.E. (2005). “Lunette: An Affordable
Canadian Lunar Farside Gravity Mapping Mission,” Canadian Space Exploration
Workshop 5, CSA HQ, St-Hubert. 2005.
Casanova, I., Aulesa, V. (2000). “Construction Materials from In-Situ Resources on the
Moon and Mars,” in Space 2000, edited by K.M. Chua et al., American Society of
Civil Engineers, Albuquerque, NM, 2000, pp. 638–644.
Coombs, C.R., Hawke, B.R. (1988). “A Search for Intact Lava Tubes on the Moon: Possible
Lunar Base Habitats.” The Second Conference on Lunar Bases and Space Activities of
the 21st Century. NASA Conference Publication 3166, Vol. 1, Houston, TX. 1988.
Coronado, A. R., Gibbins, M. N., Wright, M. A., and Stern, P. H. (1987). “Space Station
Integrated Wall Design and Penetration Damage Control,” Rep. No. D180-30550-4,
Final Report, Contract NAS8-36426, Boeing Aerospace Company, Seattle.
Criswell, M.E., Carlson, J.S. (2004). “Concepts for the Design and Construction of
a Modular Inflatable Habitat,” in Engineering, Construction, and Operations in
Challenging Environments, edited by Maji, A., Malla, R. B., ASCE, Houston, TX,
2004, pp. 9–16.
Eckart, P. (1999). The Lunar Base Handbook, edited by W.J. Larson, McGraw Hill,
Montreal, 1999.
Eckart, P. (2000). “Lunar Base Development Issues, Technological Requirements,
and Research Needs,” in Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on
Exploration and Utilization of the Moon, edited by B.H. Foing and M. Perry, ESA,
ILEWG, The Netherlands, 2000, pp. 167–171.
Gorenstein, P. (2002). “An Ultra High Throughput X-Ray Astronomy Observatory With
a New Mission Architecture.” [On-line] Available: http://www.niac.usra.edu/
files/studies/final_report/380Gorenstein.pdf, Prepared for NIAC, Smithsonian
Institution Astrophysical Observatory, Cambridge, MA. 2002.
Greene, K. A. (2004). “Design Note on Post-Tensioned Cast Basalt,” in Engineering,
Construction, and Operations in Challenging Environments, edited by Maji, A.,
Malla, R. B., ASCE, Houston, TX, 2004, pp. 45–50.
Hawes, M. (2005). Lunar Strategic Roadmap Status, Briefing to the ISS Strategic Roadmap
Committee. NASA Space Operations, 2005.
Hayashida, K.B., Robinson, J.H. (1991). “Single Wall Penetration Equations.” [On-line]
Available: http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19920007464_
1992007464.pdf. NASA Technical Memorandum 103565. George C. Marshall
Space Flight Center, NASA. 1991.
Heiken, G.H., Vaniman, D.T., French, B.M. (1991). “Lunar Databases and Archives,”
in Lunar Sourcebook. Cambridge University Press, New York. 1991, p. xix.
ISU. Autonomous Lunar Transport Vehicle. International Space University, Design
Project Report. 2000.
Jolliff, B. L., Wieczorek, M. A., Shearer, C. K., and Neal, C. R., eds. (2006), New Views of
the Moon. Reviews in Mineralogy & Geochemistry, Vol. 60, Mineralogical Society of
America, Chantilly, VA.
Kennedy, K.J., Raboin, J., Spexarth, G., Valle, G., “Inflatable Habitats,” in Gossamer
Spacecraft: Membrane and Inflatable Technology for Space Applications, edited by
Jenkins, C.H.M., American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., VA.
2001, pp. 527–552
Koelle, H., Benaroya, H., Laufer, R. “Lunar Development Forum,” Lunar Base Quarterly.
Vol.13, No.2/April 2005 [On-line] Available: http://vulcain.fb12.tu-berlin.de/
koelle/LBQ/LBQ_index.html. 2005.
Konopliv, A. S., Binder, A. B., Hood, L. L., Kucinskas, A. B., Sjogren, W. L., and Williams,
J. G. (1998). “Improved Gravity Field of the Moon from Lunar Prospector,”
Science, 281, pp. 1476–1480.
Kruijff, M. (2000) “The Peaks of Eternal Light on the Lunar South Pole,” in Proceedings
of the Fourth International Conference on Exploration and Utilization of the Moon,
edited by B.H. Foing and M. Perry, ESA, ILEWG, The Netherlands, 2000,
pp. 333–336.
Langlais, D.M., Saulnier, D.P. “Reusable, Pressurized Dome for Lunar Construction,”
in Space 2000, edited by K.M. Chua et al., American Society of Civil Engineers,
Albuquerque, NM, 2000, pp. 791–797.
Latham, G. V., et al. (1972), “Moonquakes and Lunar Tectonism,” Earth, Moon, Planets,
4 (304), 1972, pp. 372–382.
Laufer, R., Roeser, H-P, “An Academic Small Satellite Mission Beyond Low Earth
Orbit—The Lunar Mission BW1 of the University of Stuttgart.” [On-line]
Available: http://www.dlr.de/iaa.symp/archive_5/pdf/0508P_Laufer.pdf.
University of Stuttgart, Institute of Space Systems, Stuttgart, Germany. 2005.
Lin, T. D. (1987). “Concrete for Lunar Base Conctruction,” Concr. Int.: Des. Constr., 9(7),
48–53.
Lin, T. D., et al. (1991), “Stresses in Concrete Panels Exposed to the Sun on the Moon,”
Lunar Concrete, edited by R. A. Kaden, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI
pp. 141–154.
Lindsey, N.J. (2003). “Lunar Station Protection: Lunar Regolith Shielding,” in
Proceedings of the International Lunar Conference 2003/International Lunar Working
Group 5 – ILC2003/ILEWG 5, edited by Durst, S.M., Bohannan, C.T., Thomason,
C.G., Cerney, M.R., Yuen, L., AAS, San Diego, CA, 2003, pp. 143–148.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). (1969). Apollo 11 Preli‑
minary Science Report. Reviewed by West, J.M., Bell, P.R., Calio, A.J., Harris, J.W.,
Schmitt, H.H., Simpkinson, S.H., Stephenson, W.K., Wiseman, D.G. http://www.
history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/as11psr.pdf (July, 2005), NASA, Washington, DC.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). (1970). Apollo 12 Preli‑
minary Science Report. Reviewed by Calio, A.J., Harris, J.W., Langford, J.H.,
Mercer, R., Moon, J.L., Simpkinson, S.H., Stephenson, W.K., Warner, J.L.,
West, J.M. June 1, 1970. http://www.history.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/as12psr.pdf
(July, 2005), NASA, Washington, DC.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). (1971a). Apollo 14
Preliminary Science Report. Reviewed by Chapman, P.K., Duke, M.B., Foley,
H.N., Harris, J., Herbert, F.J., Mercer, B., Simpkinson, S.H., Stull, P.L., Ward, M.
June 1, 1971. http://www.history.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/as14psr.pdf (July, 2005),
NASA, Washington, DC.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). (1971b). Apollo 15
Preliminary Science Report. Reviewed by Allen, J.P., Anderson, K.F., Baldwin,
R.R., Cox, R.L., Foley, H.N., Giesecke, R.L., Koos R.H., Mercer, R., Phinney, W.C.,
Robertson, F.I., Simpkinson, S.H. Dec. 8, 1971. http://www.history.nasa.gov/
alsj/a15/as15psr.pdf (July, 2005), NASA, Washington, DC.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). (1972). Apollo 16
Preliminary Science Report. Reviewed by Brett, A., England, A.W., Calkins, J.E.,
Giesecke, R.L., Holman, D.N., Mercer, R.M., Murphy, M.J., Simpkinson, S.H.
Nov. 10, 1972. http://www.history.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/as16psr.pdf (July, 2005),
NASA, Washington, DC.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). (1973). Apollo 17
Preliminary Science Report. Reviewed by Parker, R.A., Baldwin, R.R., Brett,
R., Fuller, J.R., Giesecke, R.L., Hanley, J.B., Holman, D.N., Mercer, R.M.,
Montgomery, S.N., Murphy, M.J., Simpkinson, S.H. 1973. http://www.history.
nasa.gov/alsj/a17/as17psr.pdf (July , 2005), NASA, Washington, DC.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). (2008) International
Lunar Network (ILN), NASA Science Missions. http://nasascience.nasa.gov/
missions/iln. (2008), NASA, Washington, DC.
Parnell, T.A., Watts, Jr., J.W., Armstrong, T.W. (1998) “Radiation Effects and Protection
for Moon and Mars Missions,” in Space 98 Conference Proceedings, pp. 232–244,
[On-line] Available: http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/space98pdf/
cosmic.pdf. 1998.
Ruess, F., Kuhlmann, U., Benaroya, H. (2004) “Structural Design of a Lunar Base,” in
Engineering, Construction, and Operations in Challenging Environments, edited by
Maji, A., Malla, R. B., ASCE, Houston, TX, 2004, pp. 17–23.
Sadeh, E., Sadeh, W., Criswell, M., Rice, E.E., Abarbanel, J. (2000) “Inflatable Habitats
for Lunar Development,” in Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on
Exploration and Utilization of the Moon, edited by B.H. Foing and M. Perry, ESA,
ILEWG, The Netherlands, 2000, pp. 301–304.
Sharpe, B.L., Schrunk, D.G. (2002) “Malapert Mountain Revisited,” in Space 2002 and
Robotics 2002, edited by Laubscher, B.E., Johnson, S.W., Moskowitz, S.E., Richter,
P., and Klingler, D. American Society of Civil Engineers, Albuquerque, NM,
2002, pp. 129–135.
Smith, D.H. (2002) (study director) “New Frontiers in the Solar System: An Integrated
Exploration Strategy.” [On-line] Available: http://www.aas.org/dps/decadal/.
From the Solar Systems Exploration Survey, Space Studies Board, National Research
Council. National Academy of Sciences. Washington, DC. 2002.
Space Studies Board (2007), “The Scientific Context of the Moon,” Committee
on the Scientific Contect for Exploration of the Moon, Space Studies Board,
National Research Council of the National Academies, The National
Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2007. http://books.nap.edu/openbook.
php?record_id=11954&page=R1
Spudis, P.D. (1999). “The Moon,” in The New Solar System, edited by Beatty, J.K.,
Petersen, C.C., Chaikin, A., Cambridge University Press. 1999, pp.125–140.
Toklu, Y.C. (2000). “Civil Engineering in the Design and Construction of a Lunar Base,”
in Space 2000, edited by K.M. Chua et al., American Society of Civil Engineers,
Albuquerque, NM, 2000, pp. 822–834.
Williams, D.R. (2004, 2008) “Chandrayaan-1 Lunar Orbiter.” http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.
gov/database/MasterCatalog?sc=CHANDRYN1
“Change’e 1” http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/prop_missions.html#change1
“Clementine Project Information.” http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/clemen-
tine.html
“Clementine.” http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/database/MasterCatalog?sc=1994-004A
“Chronology of Lunar and Planetary Exploration (Future Missions).” http://nssdc.
gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/chrono_future.html
“Lunar Exploration Timeline.” http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/lunar-
timeline.html
“Lunar Prospector.” http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunarprosp.html
“Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO).” http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/database/
MasterCatalog?sc=LUNARRO
“Lunar-A.” http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/database/MasterCatalog?sc=LUNAR-A
“Planetary and Lunar Missions Under Consideration.” http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/
planetary/prop_missions.html
“SELenological and ENgineering Explorer (SELENE).” http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/
database/MasterCatalog?sc=SELENE
“SMART 1.” http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/database/MasterCatalog?sc=2003-043C
“The Moon.” http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/planets/Moonpage.html
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. Greenbelt, MD, 2004, 2008, Mission Homepages
and Main Websites:
NASA Moon Homepage http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/planets/Moonpage.
html;
Hiten http://www.isas.ac.jp/e/enterp/missions/complate/hiten.shtml, http://

spaceinfo.jaxa.jp/db/kaihatu/wakusei/wakusei_e/hiten_e.html, http://
spaceinfo.jaxa.jp/db/kaihatu/wakusei/wakusei_e/hagoromo_e.html;
Clementine http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/clementine.html, http://
nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/database/MasterCatalog?sc=1994-004A;
AsiaSat3/HGS-1 http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/database/MasterCatalog?sc= 1997-
086A;
Lunar Prospector http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunarprosp.html;
SMART 1 http://smart.esa.int/science-e/www/area/index.cfm?fareaid=10;
Trailblazer http://www.transorbital.net/TB_mission.html;
Lunar-A http://www.jaxa.jp/missions/projects/sat/exploration/lunar_a/
index_e.html (now cancelled);
SELENE http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/prop_missions.html, http://
nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/database/MasterCatalog?sc=SELENE;
Chang’e 1 http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/prop_missions.html#change1;
Chandrayaan-1 http://www.isro.org/chandrayaan-1/announcement.htm;
Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/database/
MasterCatalog?sc=LUNARRO;
BW1 http://www.dlr.de/iaa.symp/archive_5/pdf/0508P_Laufer.pdf
Appendix A: Technical Requirements
Phase One Phase Two Phase Three

Technical Technical Technical
Condition Quantification Importance Requirements Importance Requirements Importance Requirements
Temperature Temperature range High Material must not be High Conditions from High Conditions from
= 280 K brittle above −233°C in phase one phase one and
permanently shadowed two
craters, −150°C at the
equator, −85.5°C at
mid−latitudes, and
−63°C around the poles.
Additionally,
insulation or
shielding required,
2.5 m or more of
regolith
Radiation Average dose = Medium Electronics and solar High Conditions from High Conditions from
0.25 Sv/yr panels should be phase one phase one
redundant in case of
A Review of Technical Requirements for Lunar Structures
radiation damage
Additionally, 1000 g/cm2
minimum 700 g/ shielding should
cm2 shielding must be provided, or
be provided equivalent
(Approximately electromagnetic
5 m of regolith) shielding
Continued
485
(Continued.)
486
Phase One Phase Two Phase Three

Technical Technical Technical
Condition Quantification Importance Requirements Importance Requirements Importance Requirements
Atmosphere/ 3 nPa (p.15, ISU, Medium Instrumentation must High Conditions from High Conditions from
Pressure 2000) be vacuum tested phase one phase one
Structure must be Concrete must be
pressure vessel manufactured in
with minimum pressure vessel
26 kPa of internal to prevent water
pressure, causing evaporation and
high tensile stresses resultant
on the structure weakening
Meteoroids Micrometeoroids Low Little if any defence is High Meteoroid shielding High Meteoroid
v = 13 to 18 km/s possible must be provided, shielding must be
minimum 0.5 m provided
regolith separately from
radiation
shielding if
electromagnetic
radiation
shielding is used
Dust More than 50% of Medium Material must be Medium Conditions from Medium Conditions from
particles between abrasion resistant, phase one phase one
20 and 100 μm, mechanical parts must
(Toklu, 2000) be sturdy, able to
operate in dusty
conditions
Lunar Settlements
Length of Lunar day = Low Effect depends on Medium Missions should Low
Lunar Day 29.53059 Earth mission objectives arrive at beginning
days of lunar day, make
use of light and
warm temperatures
Gravity g =1.62 m/s2 − Self−weight of structure Low Tensile stresses are Low Conditions from
is less not countered by phase two
gravity
Seismicity Maximum quake − Lower risk than on − Conditions from − Conditions from
recorded 4 on Earth phase one phase one
Richter Scale,
average 1−2
Notes: The location of the lunar base, specific to the mission objectives and phase, will alter the importance of the environmental conditions, changing
the technical requirements of the structure. Particularly in phase two, it must be considered in conjunction with the environmental conditions to
determine the technical requirements of the structure. Some locations that will have a significant impact include the following:
Lavatubes provide natural temperature, radiation, and meteoroid shielding, shifting the focus of environmental conditions to the near vacuum conditions, dust, and
gravity.
Peaks of Eternal Light provide relatively constant temperatures, as well as other benefits. For this location, radiation, pressure and meteoroids become more signifi-
cant considerations.
A Review of Technical Requirements for Lunar Structures
487
Appendix B: Radiation Analysis

The significant biological risk caused by radiation on the Moon demands sub-
stantial structural shielding beginning in Phase 2, when humans begin to spend
time in lunar structures. Currently, there are no specific radiation limits, and sug-
gested doses depend on factors such as length of exposure, area exposed, and
age at the start of exposure. Table A-1 gives suggested limits from the National
Council on Radiation Protection for blood forming organs, eyes, and skin, over
30 days, a year, and a career (See Table A-1).
For missions early in the second phase, these limits can be used; however,
as individuals spend more time on the Moon, more specific annual limits are
required.
The NCRP also gives an equation for the maximum radiation that should
be received, depending on the age at which the dose starts (see equation B-1,
(Parnell et al., 1998)). From this equation, maximum career doses are calcu-
lated (see Table A-2).
Table A-1
NCRP Recommended Ionizing Radiation Exposure Limits for Flight Crewsa
(Parnell et al., 1998)
Blood Forming Organs Eye Skin
Depth (cm) 5.0 0.30 0.01
30 Days (Sv)b 0.25 1.0 1.5
Annual (Sv) 0.50 2.0 3.0
Career (Sv) 1.0 to 4.0 4.0 6.0
a The career depth dose-equivalent is based upon a maximum 3% lifetime risk of cancer mor-
tality. The dose equivalent yielding this risk depends on sex and on age at the start of expo-
sure. The career dose equivalent is nearly equal to 2.0+0.075 (AGE-30) Sv for males and
2.0+0.075 (AGE-38) Sv for females, up to 4.0 Sv. Limits for 10 years exposure duration: “No
specific limits are recommended for personnel involved in exploratory space missions, for
example, to Mars” (NCRP No. 98, 1989, p.163).
b Sievert-Equivalent dose determined by multiplying the absorbed dose at each energy deposi-
tion value (Linear Energy Transfer (LET)) by the corresponding quality factor for each ion
and energy.
TABLE A-2
Allowable Career Dose (in Sieverts) by Age at the Start of Radiation, and Gender
Age at start of
Career Dose 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Male 1.25 2.00 2.75 3.50 4.25 5.00 5.75 6.50
Female 0.65 1.40 2.15 2.90 3.65 4.40 5.15 5.90
Table derived from equation (1), given by NCRP (Parnell et al., 1998)
β = 2.0 + 0.075 × (α − T0 ), (B-1)
T0 = 30 for males, 38 for females, α = Age at start of dose, β = Career dose

maximum
Beginning in phase two, regolith will be the primary method of radiation
shielding, and in phase three, it may be complemented with other methods
such as electromagnetic shielding. By increasing the mass through which
the radiation particles must pass, regolith decreases the energy of the par-
ticles, eventually stopping them and reducing the dose (Parnell et al., 1998).
However, a thin layer of shielding breaks down some particles and creates
high-energy particles, or brehmsstrahlung radiation, which is more harmful
than the initial radiation (Buhler and Wichmann, 2005; Aulesa, 2000). For
this reason, if any shielding is used, it must be sufficiently thick. Figure A-1
shows the changes in dose of GCR and SEP events caused by different thick-
ness of shield. As well, the change in flux of different radiation particles is
seen in Figure A-2. While the dose of GCR with no shielding is slightly lower
than that with 500 g/cm2, shielding is required to reduce the dose caused
by SEP events; therefore, more than 500 g/cm2 of shielding should be used.
Further, the atmosphere on Earth provides 1000 g/cm2 of shielding, so this
level of protection is desired on the Moon as well to reduce the radiation to
Earth levels. For shorter stays on the Moon, particularly in phase two, 700 g/
cm2 is considered adequate (Aulesa et al., 2000). If the density of the regolith
is between 1.3 and 1.5 g/cm3, the regolith shield will have to be between 4.7
and 5.4 m thick.
Presently, there are no set radiation limits for lunar missions; the NCRP
suggestions should be adhered to, although radiation doses should also be
kept as low as possible. To achieve this, a minimum of 5.4 m of regolith is
Radiation Dose vs. Protection

0.16
GCR
0.14 1956 Solar flare
0.12 1960 Solar flare
1972 Solar flare
0.1
Dose (Sv)
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0 200 400 600
Protection (g/cm2)
Figure A-1
Radiation dose as thickness of regolith increases, derived from Aulesa, 2000; Lindsey, 2003.
102
Neutrons
Electrons Gamma-rays
100 Secondary
protons
Flux (particles/cm2 ??s)
Positrons
10–2 Charged
pions
Primary
heavy
10–4 ions Primary
(Z≥2) protons
Muons
10–6
0 2 4 6 8 10
Depth in Lunar Regolith (meters)
Figure A-2
Flux of radiation particles through depths of regolith (Parnell et al., 1998).
suggested for phase two, and in phase three, the shielding should provide
protection equal to that of the Earth’s atmosphere, at 1000 g/cm2.
Appendix C: Meteoroid Analysis

Although the effectiveness of a regolith shield in preventing meteoroid dam-
age is unknown and experimental testing must be done before such a shield
can be assumed to be effective, the Fish-Summers Penetration Equation is
used here to determine the approximate protection that will be provided
with a layer of regolith 5.4 m thick. This thickness is used because it is the
recommended amount for radiation protection, beginning in phase two. The
Fish-Summers Equation is given below (see Equation C-1) (Hayashida and
Robinson, 1991).
tt = kt × mm0.352 × υm0.875 × ρm1/6 (C-1)
t = thickness of target (cm)

k = constant for target material
m = mass (g)
v = velocity (km/s)
ρ = density (g/cm3)
Meteoroid Flux vs. Diameter
1.00E+08 (Lindsey, 2003)

1.00E+07
1.00E+06
1.00E+05 (p.148, Eckart)
1.00E+04
1.00E+03 (p.256, Apollo
Flux (impacts/km^2/yr)
1.00E+02 16, Hawkins)

1.00E+01
1.00E+00 (p.256, Apollo
1.00E–01 16, McCrosky)
1.00E–02
1.00E–03
1.00E–04
1.00E–05
1.00E–06
1.00E–07
1.00E–08
1.00E–09
1.00E–10
1.00E–11
1.00E–12
1.00E–04
1.00E–03
1.00E–02
1.00E–01
1.00E+00
1.00E+01
1.00E+02
8.00E+02
Particle Diameter (cm)
Figure C-1
Meteoroid Flux versus Particle Diameter, derived from Lindsey, 2003; Eckart, 1999; NASA
1972.
The subscript t stands for target, m for meteoroid, Al for aluminum, and re
for regolith
k Al = 0.57
vm = 18 km/s (maximum velocity of probable range (p. 148, Eckart, 1999;
p.15, ISU, 2000) used to increase safety)
ρm = 0.5 g/cm3
ρAl = 2.7 g/cm3
ρre = 1.3 g/cm3 (minimum value (Aulesa, 2000) used to increase safety)
kre = 1.18 (using tAl × ρAl/ρre = tre (Lindsey, 2003))
Assuming a regolith thickness of 5.4 m, the equation shows that a meteor-
oid of maximum mass of 37 kg, or diameter of 52 cm, could impact the shield
and not penetrate through spallation (Hayashida and Robinson, 1991). This
lowers the flux of penetrating meteoroids to between 10-8 and 10-7 impacts/
km2/yr (see Figure C-1) (Lindsey, 2003; p.148, Eckart, 1999). Therefore, 5.4 m
of regolith should be more than sufficient shielding. However, this calcula-
tion can only be used as guide, as the equation is not intended for evaluating
regolith as a shield.
34
Bidu Guiday: Design Concept for
the First Manned Lunar Base
Bidu Guiday – “Beautiful Moon” in Charrua, native

language for Uruguay’s Indians
Giorgio Gaviraghi
Executive Vice President, eDL
Giorgio Gaviraghi, architect, graduated from Milan Polytechnic in 1968.

He is responsible for several advanced designs for aerospace and innovative
products as an architect and designer. Founder with Maria Adela Gimenez
of eDL, an advanced design company in architecture, city planning, and sys-
tem design. He has presented over 20 papers to major space conventions,
including proposals for space construction systems, asteroid deflection,
Martian city and space settlements. As an instructor for high school student
teams, he was the winner of over ten international awards in space settle-
ment and advanced aerospace design. He is author of the science fiction book
First Contact.
Introduction
The first manned lunar base as planned by the latest NASA’s Vision for Space
Exploration requires an all new approach and analysis of all design param-
eters with an advanced and different point of view than in the past. A lunar
base is not another base similar to those existing in Earth’s Poles or in other
extreme conditions. A lunar base must be a terrestrial micro-ecosystem
transplanted to the Moon and it must assure comfortable living conditions
to its crew as well as many other necessary functions. In this paper we will
analyze most requirements that will be illustrated by several design propos-
als that represent state of the art condition.
493
Habitat unit
Figure 34.1
Bidu Guiday, the first lunar base.
Goals of the Proposal

The first manned base has the following requirements:
• safety of operations
• minimum number of missions
• maximum flexibility and expansion capabilities
• ease of assembly
• maximum utilization of local resources.
Bidu Guiday is composed of two basic units entirely built on Earth, the habi-
tat and the cargo module that will be delivered unmanned to the selected
lunar site.
The habitat unit contains a self sufficient three story facility. The lower
level is equipped with an airlock, dust cleaning and lockers areas for EVA
activities, plus a medical facility with lab and facilities for first aid emergen-
cies and a chemical lab.
The intermediate level contains the common facilities and equipment such
as for food preparation, dining, living, meeting, including command control
and communication spaces and for fitness.
Furthermore a special area at a lower level is radiation proofed for emer-
gencies due to high solar flares events. The upper level contains all personal
spaces including maintenance storage and support areas. The cargo unit
contains all outdoors systems and equipment, including the connectors, the
Bidu Guiday: Design Concept for the First Manned Lunar Base 495
airlocks, life support systems, power generator, communications, material

transformation requirements and four domes for different support activities
to be connected in situ with the habitat module. Once unloaded the cargo
module can be reutilized as an additional base or for greenhouse functions.
Design Parameters
In order to optimize the design the following parameters were considered:
• dimensions to fit the latest Ares V version (5.5 m diameter, approx

7 m height)
• minimum number of missions
• manned or robotic simple installation
• transformable space to allow most functions
• expansion possibilities
• maximize transportable space
• minimize in situ assembly activities
• non inflatable components
• minimum risk mission architecture
• total weight 10 tons
• maximize dust control.
Bidu Guiday satisfies all design parameters and consists of a habitat module
for a total of 60 sq m on three levels, 20 m long connectors, and four domes of
5.5 m diameter to house the rover maintenance facilities, the greenhouse and
animal breeding facilities, and a lunar lab plus EVA support.
The cargo module will be successively overhauled and utilized as an addi-
tional operational space for different activities, including food production.
Total base components are carried by two unmanned missions, one for the
habitat and the second one for the cargo. Manned or robotic assembly and
unloading the cargo module are optional and final decisions will be taken
in accordance with the robotic state of the art at the assembly time.
Total assembly time is estimated to be 30 hours while the entire two mis-
sions can be undertaken in a single month schedule.
Recommendations
This is a preliminary architectural design, not based on latest NASA lunar
base specifications and is used as a reference model for further improvements.
Our goal is to build a simulated lunar base, following a redesign to include

all eventual NASA or other parties’ comments, feedback and specifications,
if possible. The simulated base, while movable anywhere if necessary, will
be built in Uruguay and can be utilized as a working mock up for a work-
ing design lab to define and prove each system and subsystem or for scien-
tific tests and simulated lunar missions deemed necessary. At the end of its
useful mission, it will be sent as a permanent addition to the Uruguayan
Antarctic Base.
The Mission and Assembly Sequence

The entire lunar base system is contained in two main components, the habi-
tat and cargo modules, both to be sent unmanned to the selected lunar site
before any manned mission. The assembly sequence will be the following:
1. Habitat module landing in the selected site

2. Cargo module landing at approximately 50 m from habitat module. At
this stage optional robotic or manned installation can be forecasted
3. Rover unloads lower connector
4. Rover installs lower connector
5. Vertical telescoping component exits from lower component
6. Rover installs upper module over lower one
7. Bridge connection to habitat module airlock with telescoping parts
of upper module
8. Rover unloads and installs dome units
9. Telescoping connector preparation
10. Dome floor installation
11. Dome opened
12. Dome connected to final connector module
13. Same procedure for remaining 3 domes.
At this stage the base is all installed. If not installed by manned activities,
then the first manned mission can land near the base. Once the manned
crew is present the cargo module tanks and engines can be disassembled
and carried away. The tanks near the landing pad are to contain lox fuel
that is to be manufactured in situ while the engine can be stored for future
requirements. The cargo module lower part can be closed and the entire
module connected to the base and reutilized as a greenhouse and storage
facility.
Figure 34.2
The assembly.
Habitat Unit
This unit is divided in three circular levels of 5.5 m diameter and 2.1 m height.
Its design is based on a circular module of 6 units per level in order to allow for
standardization of components and dimension flexibility. The entire system is
composed of single, half, and one and a half modules, as per the chart.
Base Components
Habitat Module
The habitat unit is a three story facility to house the crew. The unit is divided
into the following modules:
• Lower level
• airlock, dust cleaning and locker facilities
• medical lab and first aid facility
• general lab
• personal care
• maintenance
• Middle level
• food preparation system
• living/meeting area
• command, control and communications
• fitness center
• emergency toilet
This level is equipped with extra shielding to avoid radiation and can be
utilized during solar flares.
• Upper level
• four personal space modules
• personal care module
• maintenance module
Lower Level
Lower Floor/Dust Control and Interchange System
This module consists of the airlock area and related equipment. For extra
safety reasons a dust collecting area, equipped with laminar flow overhead
and a handheld air shower for boots and other critical parts, and a liquid trap
for dust protected by a metal grille is included.
The overall areas of the base are divided in three parts for contamina-
tion purposes:
• red area, the risk area consisting of the personnel and rover airlocks
• the yellow area, safe but with some contamination risks due to its
functions, all lockers, greenhouses, rover maintenance and laborato-
ries located outside the habitat unit
• green area, the safest in all levels of the habitat unit excluding the
interchange area.
Procedure for incoming EVAs:
• enter airlock
• enter dust control area where crewmembers will blow away all dust
in the suit and helmet, will deposit in lockers all outside suits, boots
and helmet
Maintenance
Personal Indoors
care lockers
Out doors
lockers
General
laboratory Airlock
Medical
area
Figure 34.3
Lower level plan.
• enter lockers area where they will store inner part of suits and
change to normal suits
• additional handheld air shower before leaving the area
All levels’ baseboards will be rounded for easy cleaning and to avoid dust
formation.
Medical Module
This module consists of all requirements for medical assistance. Emergency,
first aid in case of injury or other common diseases can be treated with
this equipment.
The module consists of a bendable bed for patient care, with wall panel
containing monitors and displays showing all the vital information read-
ings. Included in the wall panel is equipment such as oxygen or phleboclysis,
and in the closet most common medical equipment. The medicine cabinet
contains all needed pharmaceuticals and assistance equipment for daily
check ups.
Lower Floor General Lab

This module consists of all utilities, equipment and containers to perform lab
tests on geological specimens as well as general activities as photography,
medical or other activities.
Circulation Stairs and Maintenance

Half of this module is dedicated to the stairway connecting the different
levels of the facility. The remaining half module is dedicated, in accordance
to maintenance in the lower and upper levels and emergency toilet in the
middle level. Maintenance in the upper level consists of a washing machine,
a press and ironing system and containers for bleach as well as other prod-
ucts for washing and ironing. The lower part of this maintenance module
contains a roomba type robot to perform vacuum cleaning and washing of
all floors on a daily basis to assure maximum cleanliness to the facility.
Personal Care
Two personal care modules are present in the facility, one at the lower level
mostly for EVA assistance in case of emergency and the impossibility to raise
an inert body for two levels. The other personal care module is located in the
upper floor as support to the personal space modules.
The main systems of the personal care modules are:
• Shower unit – This unit is designed for maximum safety, without any
edges and all subsystems are recessed. Water flow is controlled by an
electronic wireless device that allows its positioning in an optimal
location from outside and inside the shower pod; the same device
controls the temperature and the nozzle types. Liquid soap or sham-
poo is delivered premixed with water to the interested body parts
and is controlled by the same device. For drying purposes warm air
is blown through the walls to the various body parts interested to
the process avoiding the use of towels or other physical equipment.
Used water is delivered to a treatment system in order to be cleaned
and reutilized in the toilet or irrigation system.
• Toilet unit – This unit is entirely paperless and avoids any contact
between the interested body parts for cleaning purposes. A jet of
warm water is delivered to the interested parts controlled by the
user and recessed in the toilet seat. Such water jet is followed by an
air jet to the same body parts for drying purposes.
• Wash basin unit – This unit has been designed to allow washing
most body parts without the need of the shower and its higher water
consumption. For this purpose the wash basin and its controls are
movable, up and down for about 60 cm, allowing the washing of the
Figure 34.4
Shower/basin unit.
Systems
Floor
Ceiling plan
Toilet
Recessed Hand washing Foot washing
Figure 34.5
Layout.
head as well as the feet with the same basin. Controls are electronic
wireless controlling the water flow, temperature and liquid soap mix,
while an air flow allows the drying of the body parts without the need
of towels and its potential danger for contamination and maintenance
requirement. The basin unit is equipped with most needed items such
as shaving equipment and personal color coded compartments.
• Storage system – Overhead storage container for most used supplies
and two personal color coded containers, one wall mounted behind
the basin unit for small personal items and another bigger one
behind the toilet unit for crewmembers’ utilization.
Middle Level
Middle Level Food Preparation System
Food preparation requires a complex system composed of many specialized
subsystems, each one integrated by independent microsystems. Since food
production will not start immediately but will progress in time, maximum
flexibility is needed to add what may be required in the future with later
missions, which must be easily integrated in the main system. For that rea-
son each microsystem can be added or changed in time since it is based on
a standard 20 × 20 × 20 cm micromodule. Another important factor to be
considered is that most food, at least in the beginning, will be lyophilized or
frozen, coming from Earth, while the food produced in situ will require pro-
cessing not usually required in Earth kitchens, since the entire cycle, from
seeding, harvesting, cleaning and processing, will be involved.
The one and a half food preparation module is composed by the follow-
ing systems:
• storage
• wet preparation
• dry preparation
• cooking
• eating
• maintenance
Systems and Subsystems

The chart shows the different systems and subsystems. Every subsystem is
independent and, before in situ food production could be considered on a
permanent basis and with a variety of food types, most subsystems will not
be installed. They will be installed in their specialized compartments, to be
used and delivered as storage or other functions before fully operational. As
an example of subsystems, we are showing the utensil module and the meal
module. The first one is part of the dry preparation module while the meal
module is stored in the dining module for ease of use.
The utensils module is composed of:
• cutter (no knife for safety and ease of use)

• mixer general server
• divider
• pasta server
All utensils, with the exception of the cutter rotating blade, but without
personal contact, will be in lightweight plastic, color coded if necessary.
Also a slicer and a grater machine are included in the other half of the
micromodule.
Meal Subsystem
This subsystem is composed of a personal color coded meal and snack tray
in lightweight plastic. The bigger meal tray contains a main plate and two
service plates, a glass for beverages and a spork, a combination of fork and
spoon for personal use. The snack tray contains a snack compartment and a
warm beverage cup. All trays are color coded by crewmember and are stored
in the dining module countertop for ease of use. Warm and cold beverage
dispensers are located in the supporting walls of the dining module for
ease of use while the upper part contains the water tanks to feed such
subsystems.
Living and Meeting Area

This area is a transformable one for flexibility of functions. It can be used as a
meeting room with chairs and table or as a living area with soft chairs equipped
with PC screens. Four folded chairs and a table are stored in the wall module
while not in use and the soft chairs are stored under the meeting table.
Fitness Center
This module is composed of a wall recessed cyclette and running belt, plus
shoulder and arm exercise equipment. Due to the limited space, each unit
can be used alone.
Command Control Communications

This module controls and manages the entire lunar base. Two complete work
stations are designed with all controls and screens recessed in the counter-
top or wall.
Meeting/Living
Toilet
Dining Food
preparation
Command
Fitness
Figure 34.6
Middle level plan.
Upper Level
Personal Space
This personal space allows maximum privacy for crewmembers. Three
alternative types are included for test purposes with the same features but a
different layout and organization:
Type A Overhead fixed bed, closet and work station at lower level
Type B Overhead and lateral closet, folded bed under work station
Type C Overhead storage, folded bed under work station
Exterior Components
Connectors
The connectors are outside telescoping structures that allow all connections
between modules. In accordance with their location there are three different
types of connectors:
Type A One vertical modular extension and one horizontal

3-modules extension
Maintenance
Personal
care
Personal
space
Personal
space Personal
space
Personal
space
Figure 34.7
Upper level plan.
Type B Four horizontal directions with two and three modu-

lar extensions
Type C Three horizontal directions with two and three modu-
lar extensions
A rover connector with three modular horizontal extensions is also included.
Domes
This dome system is designated the AstroHab 3; since the first two are simi-
lar and designed by the same group, this represents an evolution compared
to the previous ones since instead of separate modules each unit consists in a
telescoping hemisphere that allows via rotation the closure of the dome.
Interior modules, attached to the walls and successively filled with rego-
lith, for antiradiation purposes, will guarantee their safety and functionality.
Each dome has a different function and in particular:
Type 1 Agricultural greenhouse

Type 2 Rover maintenance and workshop
Figure 34.8
Finished base.
Type 3 Food production

Type 4 Laboratories
Dome Installation Sequence

The sequence of the dome installation is as follows:
1. half floor extension

2. full floor completion
3. dome extension
4. dome completion
5. interior panel installation
6. regolith wall filling
Cargo Unit
This unit, to follow the habitat unit, will deliver all necessary equipment,
hardware and components to complete the lunar base facility. The cargo unit
is divided in three levels:
• Level 1 contains the rover vehicle with mechanical arm for heavy
loads transportation and the personal connectors.
• Level 2 contain two AstroHab 3 domes and the rover connector
• Level 3 contains the additional two AstroHab domes plus all interior
panels and related equipment
Cargo Module Reutilization

Once unloaded, in a following manned mission, the cargo unit could be reuti-
lized, after proper refurbishment for other functions. While the tanks will be
carried to the spaceport fuel facilities for utilization by in situ manufactured
lox, the engine will be stored for potential future utilization. The cargo area will
be reutilized for food production in several levels of the aeroponics facilities.
The upper part could be equipped with a solar mirror for agricultural purposes
transmitted to the various levels by fiber optics that reach the light diffusers.
Finished Base
After the first phase, the finished base will consist of the two connected
habitats and cargo modules, their connectors and four domes for multiple
purposes.
Expansion Possibilities
Any type of expansion can be planned since the connectors allow any type
of directions for future components.
Future Bases and Expansion

AstroHab
After the first base is established completely different approaches and strate-
gies must be followed. While the first base, mostly for safety reasons can be
mostly manufactured on Earth, future expansions can rely on construction
and assembly performed on the Moon utilizing technologies and materials
that maximize local participation.
Our proposal for future expansions is based on the AstroHab system, a modu-
lar construction system utilizing mostly in situ materials. Such systems, in their
variations AstroHab1, 2 and 3 (already used in the first base) allow for modular
construction, in situ assembly and utilization of local regolith to fill the modular
forms to assure radiation protection, stability and insulation to the system.
Schedule of Activities
The schedule of activities can be so summarized:
1. Concept design 3 months

2. NASA’s comments and feedback 2 months
3. Simulated base construction 8 months

4. Preliminary design of final configuration 1 year
5. Prototype manufacturing 3 years
This plan will allow the building of the base through a self financing
scheme based on sponsorships and royalties from new products that can
be derived from the concept design of the lunar base. This is because it con-
tains over fifty patents for new and innovative products that could be sold
on Earth and represents the results of the advanced designs necessary to
satisfy space requirements.
While every supplier will deliver its part as a participating sponsor, design
royalties will pay all expenses and volunteer work will support most per-
sonnel costs since this project is considered a grassroots effort by an entire
country.
The design of Bidu Guiday has been prepared in cooperation with the
architectural faculty of the ORT University and the UTU educational organi-
zation in Montevideo, including several volunteers, technicians and graphic
designers coordinated by the architect Maria Adela Gimenez supported by
eDL, a design company with offices in Milan and Montevideo headed by
the author.
35
Design and Construction of
a Modular Lunar Base
Werner Grandl
Werner Grandl was born in Vienna, Austria. He attended the Technical

University Vienna, where he earned a degree in architecture in 1984; in 1985
he was in the military service of the Austrian Air Force; from 1986 to 1993
he had experience in some engineering offices; from 1994 to 2008 he was a
freelance architect and civil engineer, and since 1986 he has conducted and
published studies on space stations and space colonies.
Abstract Which is the favorable structural design for a Lunar Base? Is

it an inflatable pneumatic structure, covered with lunar material (regolith),
or a simple metal-frame structure with layers for thermal insulation? A
Lunar Base, however, has to provide shelter against cosmic rays, solar
flares, micrometeorites and huge temperature amplitudes. It should be easy
to build and the risks for humans have to be minimized. Human safety
and possible rescue operations imply a stiff construction and structural
redundancy.
This paper compares a proposed double-shell structure for Lunar Base mod-
ules with single-shell designs and inflated structures, focusing on shielding
and thermal protection. As an in situ resource lunar material is used for
shielding. Due to its modular design and to semi-robotic assembling the pro-
posed Lunar Base can be enlarged by stages easily.
The paper is mainly based on the Lunar Base 2015 Stage 1 Preliminary Design
Study, W. Grandl/Acta Astronautica 60(2007) 554–560. [1]
Introduction
Since the beginning of the space age many proposals to construct space sta-
tions have been made, either on planetary surfaces or in the orbits of celes-
tial bodies. In the 1950s Wernher von Braun suggested a pneumatic torus,
509
similar to a tire, which should have been inflated in Earth orbit and finally
be covered with an aluminum shell. In those days von Braun’s station was a
very advanced design, based on a high level of space technology. But scien-
tists then didn’t know very much about the dangerous environment in space,
with meteorite impacts, solar flares and cosmic rays.
In the 1960s NASA preferred modular designs with cylindrical modules,
using especially the payload capacity of the Saturn V launcher.
Later the Russian MIR-orbital station and the present ISS were built mainly
of cylinders and nodes.
Nevertheless some proposals for inflatable structures were made, e.g. by
Vanderbilt et al. (1988), Novak et al. (1990) and others. Chow and Lin (1988,
1989) proposed a lunar base built of double-skin membranes, filled with
structural foam [2].
In 2006 Petra Gruber and Barbara Imhof presented a study on bionic (bio-
mimetic) inflatable structures [3].
Metal Frame Cylinders versus Inflatable Structures

Any space station in orbit or on lunar and Martian surfaces is pen-
etrated constantly by high-velocity micrometeorites and hit by cosmic
rays. The 11-year cycle of solar flare eruptions can cause lethal danger for
astronauts.
To construct a Lunar Base does not only mean to build a habitat but also to
provide a shelter for humans. The first stage of a Lunar Base should be easy
to build using just small robotic machinery. Any risks for humans should be
minimized. This implies structural redundancy, shelter and easy rescue in
case of damage.
The building of inflatable (pneumatic) structures will cause many risks.
During inflation the construction may easily be damaged by small meteor-
ites and cosmic rays. Because of extremely high or low temperatures brittle
fractures may occur in the pneumatic skin before it is covered with regolith.
To cover inflatables with a 1m thick layer of regolith on top of the structure
much lunar material and a big crane is necessary. In case of meteorite impact
the whole bubble will deflate immediately. Humans inside the habitat would
have no realistic chance to survive and a repair of the damage is nearly
impossible. Last but not least equipment and furniture can just be put into
the habitat through the airlocks.
In contrast to this metal-frame modules have many advantages:
The semi-robotic assembling of the modules on the lunar surface will

take a short time and no big machinery, mining or industrial facili-
ties are necessary.
Design and Construction of a Modular Lunar Base 511
The first two or three modules can be used immediately as a shelter for
astronauts during construction. After assembling, every module is
divided from each other by airlocks or fire doors, which is essential
for safety and rescue operations.
Double-Shell Structures
As a conclusion of the above considerations we propose to build the first
Lunar Base by the use of cylindrical modules, each one approximately
17m long and 6m in diameter, according to the current payloads of the
European launcher Ariane 5 ESC-B or similar US, Russian or Chinese launch-
ers. Each module is made of thin aluminum-sheets and trapezoidal alumi-
num sheeting, and has a weight of approximately 10.2 tons, including the
interior equipment and furnishing. (Figure 35.1)
The outer wall of the cylinders is built as a double shell system, stiffened by
radial bulkheads. This construction ensures stability and structural redun-
dancy during transportation, landing and assembling on the lunar surface.
(Figures 35.2, 35.3)
To protect the astronauts from micrometeorites, radiation and for thermal
protection, the space between the two shells is filled with a 0.65m thick layer
of regolith in situ by a small teleoperated digger vehicle (Figure 35.4). Thus
the amount of regolith can be minimized. To cover a single-shell cylinder of,
e.g., 15m length and 4m in diameter with regolith we need approximately
310m3 of material and a big crane.
Figure 35.1
Lunar base for 60 inhabitants.
Regolith shielding 0.63 m
Foamglass heat insulation 0.25 m

Outer shell
Inner hull
2.7 m
1.9 m
3m
Floor
Bulkheads Life systems

Outriggers
1m 4m 1m
6m
Figure 35.2
Outer shell:
Aluminum sheet 2 mm
Aluminum trapezoid sheeting 80 mm
Aluminum sheet 0.8 mm
Regolith shielding 0.63 m
Foamglass
Heat insulation 0.25 m

1m
Inner hull:
Aluminum trapezoidal sheeting 36 mm
Figure 35.3
Teleoperated digger vehicle,

filling the caves with regolith
Figure 35.4
Using the proposed double-shell structure the amount of regolith can be

reduced to 130m3 for each cylinder.
Thermal Protection
We assume an average lunar surface temperature of −170°C during the lunar
night, which lasts 14 days, and 21°C and 60% humidity of air inside the
habitat.
Referring to K. Gösele and W. Schüle [4] we assume:
as heat radiation dose of outer surface 4.0 W/m2K (Aluminum)

5.0 W/m2K (Regolith)
ai heat transmission coefficient 8.13 W/m2K
T temperature (°C)
Ti internal temperature +21 °C
Te external temperature −170 °C
dT 191 °K
Tsi internal surface temperature (°C)
li thermal conductivity of proposed (W/m2K)
layers of material
di thickness of proposed layers (m)
C thermal conductivity of the entire (W/m2K)
construction
temperature difference of layers: dTi = 191 × C × (di/li)
The condensation of water on the inner shell surface depends on temper-

ature and humidity inside the habitat. At an inner surface temperature
of +13°C or less and 60% humidity of air condensed water will occur.
(Figures 35.5, 35.6)
Double-shell structure
Material di(m) a,li(W/m2K) 1/a,d/l dTi(°K) T(°C)
−170
Space as 4.0 0.25 4.50
−165.5
Aluminum 0.002 - - -
Foamglass 0.08 0.035 2.29 41.19
−124.3
Aluminum 0.0008 - - -
Regolith 0.65 2.0 0.315 5.67
−118.6
Foamglass 0.25 0.035 7.143 128.47
+9.83
Aluminum 0.0008 - - -
Air 0.036 0.07 0.514 9.24
Aluminum 0.0008 - - -
Tsi + 19.2
ai 8.13 0.123 2.21
+21.3
C = 0.0942 W/m2K 1/C = 10.62 m2K/W
Single-shell structure with 0.7 m regolith covering

Material di(m) a,li(W/m2K) 1/a,d/l dTi(°K) T(°C)
−170
Space as 5.0 0.20 12.9
−157.1
Regolith 0.7 2.0 0.35 22.56
−134.54
Foamglass 0.08 0.035 2.29 147.61
+13.0
Tsi + 13.0
ai 8.13 0.123 7.93
+20.93
C = 0.3375 W/m2K 1/C = 2.963 m2K/W
Inflated structure with 1m regolith covering

Material di(m) a,li(W/m2K) 1/a,1/l dT(°K) T(°C)
−170
Space as 5.0 0.20 45.05
−124.95
Regolith 1.0 2.0 0.50 112.62
−12.33
Pneumatic skin 0.005 0.20 0.025 5.63
Tsi − 6.70
Ai 8.13 0.123 27.70
+21.0
C = 1.18 W/m K 1/C = 0.848 m K/W
2 2
On the inner surface of the pneumatic skin condensed water will occur
and freeze.
The calculations demonstrate the conclusive advantage of the proposed
double-shell structure, which provides a comfortable climate inside the habi-
tat during the lunar night. The temperature difference between the inner
surface and the internal air is about 2°K – similar to a terrestrial building.
A single-shell hull with 0.08m foamglass insulation, covered with 0.7 m
regolith will cause condensed water on the inner surface at 60% humidity of
air. In this case the temperature difference between the inner surface and the
internal air will be approx. 8°K – uncomfortable for humans.
On the inner surface of an inflated structure covered by a 1m layer of rego-
lith, condensed water will freeze. The temperature difference between inner
surface and internal air is approx. 27°K.
Regolith shielding
0.65 m Internal temperature +21°C
0 +10 δT = 2°C
Inner surface
Foamglass 8 cm temperature
+19°C
Foamglass 25 cm No Condensed Water
–118
Lunar Surface
Temperature –124
Double Shell Structure
–170°C
Thermal Conductivity c = 0.094 W/m2K
Temperature Distribution
Figure 35.5
No condensed water at 60% humidity of air.
0.7 m
Regolith shielding
0.70 m Internal Temperature +21°C
0 δT = 8°C
Inner surface
temperature +13°C
Foamglass 8 cm
Condensation at
60% humidity of air
Lunar Surface –134

Temperature
–170°C Single Shell Structure
–157
Thermal Conductivity c = 0.338 W/m2K
Temperature Distribution
Figure 35.6
Condensed water on the inner surface at 60% humidity of air.
Conclusions
To minimize risks for humans and to reduce the time of construction on
the lunar surface we propose the use of double-shell cylindrical modules to
build an initial lunar outpost. Thus the building site on the moon just needs
to be roughly prepared and the use of regolith can be limited.
Figure 35.7
Due to its modular design, the station can be enlarged by stages, finally
becoming an “urban structure” for dozens of astronauts, scientists and space
tourists (Figure 35.7).
The proposed modular design can also be used to build bases on other
celestial bodies of similar size – like the moons of Jupiter. In a “second step”
of lunar settlement after some years of accommodation and the establishment
of mining and industrial facilities, advanced structural concepts like bionic
inflatables, concrete structures or the use of lava tubes will be reasonable.
References
1. W. Grandl, Lunar Base 2015 Preliminary Design Study, Acta Astronautica 60,
2007, 554–560.
2. H. Benaroya, L. Bernold and K.M. Chua, Engineering, Design and Construction
of Lunar Bases, Journal of Aerospace Engineering 2002, 33–45.
3. P. Gruber and B. Imhof, Transformation: Structure/space studies in bionics and
space design, Acta Astronautica 60, 2007, 561–570.
4. K. Gösele, W. Schüle, Schall.Wärme.Feuchtigkeit, Bauverlag Wiesbaden-Berlin
1973.
Further Reading
5. AIAA-Space Manufacturing 9, The High Frontier: Accession, Development and
Utilization, 11th Princeton Conference, May 12–15, 1993; A. Germano and W.
Grandl, Astropolis-Space Colonization in the 21st Century.
36
Advanced Systems Concept for
Autonomous Construction and Self-Repair
of Lunar Surface ISRU Structures
Haym Benaroya
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
Rutgers University
Haym Benaroya is Professor of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering

at Rutgers University. He is also founder and director of the Center for
Structures in Extreme Environments, a center focusing on the conceptualiza-
tion and analysis of structures placed in challenging environments. We have
considered offshore drilling structures, aircraft structures and luggage con-
tainers subjected to explosions, nanostructures and lunar surface structures
for manned habitation. Professor Benaroya earned his BE degree from The
Cooper Union in New York, and his MS and PhD (1981) from the University
of Pennsylvania.
Abstract Manned exploration calls for a return to the Moon, requiring

the construction of structures for habitation, challenging the engineer and
the astronauts that must erect the structure.
Most concepts depict second and third generation facilities. It is more
important to be able to erect the FIRST lunar structure. Given the costs
associated with bringing material to the Moon, what is the best way to con-
struct habitable structures on the lunar surface? The “grand vision” pre-
sented here is the design of a layered manufacturing machine that operates
under solar power and will construct the structure in advance of astronaut
arrival.
This paper is a reduced version of a proposed study submitted in 2006 to
NIAC (NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts), which no longer exists.
We are working on these ideas presently. The parts of this paper that
discuss the specific “igloo” structure is almost completed based on the
work reported in Ruess, Schänzlin and Benaroya [30] and in full detail in
Ruess [29].
519
Advanced Concept Description

The next step for manned exploration and settlement is a return to the Moon.
Such a return requires the construction of structures for habitation as well as
for manufacturing, farming, maintenance and science. The most challeng-
ing of these is the construction of structures that can be used for habitation,
although other challenges exist for the design engineer and, until now, the
astronaut construction team that must erect the structures.
The proposed study focuses on an engineering evaluation of freeform fab-
rication technologies as the basis for building autonomous, solar-powered,
mini-robots that can, as a team (or eventually swarm), build a first lunar
structure for habitation, using primarily in-situ resources over a six to twelve
month period prior to the arrival of astronauts.
Structures for manned habitation must be designed to protect against the
extreme lunar surface environment. Some argue that manned structures be
buried – and they may be one day as the infrastructure is created on the
Moon – but initial forays to the Moon will be as modest as our capabilities to
build on such a hostile environment.
Many grand and exciting visions have been created for how cities on the Moon
will look like, but they invariably depict second and third generation facilities. As
wonderful as it is to behold these creations, it is more important to be able to for-
mulate a framework for the erection of the FIRST lunar structure for habitation.
The question is the following: Given the costs associated with bringing
material to the Moon (assuming no Space Elevator exists before man returns
to the Moon), how do we design and construct habitable structures on the
lunar surface in a way that is feasible from mass and energy constraints and
minimizes astronaut construction time? What is needed is a small “machine”
that can be brought to the Moon that can build structures utilizing primarily
in-situ resources and can operate via solar power.
The “grand vision” is the design of freeform fabrication machines that
operate almost completely under solar power. Of course, this creates limita-
tions due to the reliance on in-situ resources and the relatively low power
availability from solar power.
The proposed study will be comprised of the following aspects:
1. Select a benchmark lunar structure for analysis and which is to be

built using the autonomous technologies proposed.
2. Establish structural strength of “blocks” built from in-situ/regolith
material (what can be expected from such a process ideally and real-
istically, knowing the kind of efficiencies one can obtain on Earth).
3. Determine energy/power requirements and feasibility (can current and
anticipated solar energy conversion technology provide the needed
power to drive such a machine, and if not, what are our other options).
Advanced Systems Concept for Autonomous Construction 521
4. Rate of construction as function of above (how fast can the most likely
such robot build a facility that can then be organized for human
habitation).
5. Examine limitations on the possible complexity of such a structure
(if then it is possible to build a habitable surface lunar structure, how
complicated can it be made—can the fabrication process also include
holes for pipes and power lines, for example).
6. Examine the transferability of the technology to the Martian surface.
While others have suggested sintering regolith, utilizing microwaves, and

some form of automated habitation construction, technical issues have been
left vague if not completely omitted. We are proposing a framework based on
verifiable processes and procedures. It is also anticipated that the rate at which
such an autonomous system can operate is low. It may take many months for
a team of autonomous systems to erect a simple igloo-like structure.
In order to prove our concept, we need a realistic lunar structure upon which
to apply our ideas. Thus, what we propose has two distinct components:
1. Conceptual and actual design of a lunar structure—a benchmark

lunar surface structure.
2. Assessing the issues that need to be resolved for the design of auton-
omous construction mini-robots, as described herein.
A Benchmark Lunar Surface Structure

for Autonomous Construction
Key environmental factors affecting lunar structural design and construc-
tion are: 1/6 g, the need for internal air pressurization of habitation-rated
structures, the requirement for shielding against radiation and micromete-
orites, the hard vacuum and its effects on some exotic materials, a significant
dust mitigation problem for machines and airlocks, severe temperatures and
temperature gradients, and numerous loading conditions—anticipated and
accidental. The structure on the Moon must be maintainable, functional, com-
patible, easily constructed, and made of as much local materials as possible.
Cast regolith has been suggested as a building material for the Moon. The
use of cast regolith (basalt) is very similar to terrestrial cast basalt. The terms
have been used interchangeably in the literature to refer to the same mate-
rial. It has been suggested that cast regolith can be readily manufactured
on the Moon by melting regolith and cooling it slowly so that the material
crystallizes instead of turning into glass. Virtually no material preparation
is needed. The casting operation is simple requiring only a furnace, ladle
and molds. Vacuum melting and casting should enhance the quality of the
end product. More importantly, there is terrestrial experience producing the
material; but it has not been used for construction purposes yet.
Cast basalt [30] has extremely high compressive and moderate tensile
strength. It can easily be cast into structural elements for ready use in pre-
fabricated construction. Feasible shapes include most of the basic structural
elements like beams, columns, slabs, shells, arch segments, blocks and cylin-
ders. Note that the ultimate compressive and tensile strengths are each about
ten times greater than those of concrete.
Cast basalt also has the disadvantage that it is a brittle material. Tensile
loads that are a significant fraction of the ultimate tensile strength need to be
avoided. The fracture and fatigue properties need further research. One pos-
sibility is to reinforce it with high tensile strength elements such as carbon
nanotubes. Another is to use it in prestressed applications.
Since it is extremely hard, cast regolith has high abrasion resistance. This
is an advantage for use in the dusty lunar environment. It may be the ideal
material for paving lunar rocket launch sites and constructing debris shields
surrounding landing pads. The hardness of cast basalt combined with its
brittle nature makes it a difficult material to cut, drill or machine. Such oper-
ations should be avoided on the Moon.
Production of cast regolith is energy intensive because of its high melting
point. The estimated energy consumption is 360 kWh/MT. Regarding its use
in automated ISR construction of the type suggested here, it may be possible to
slow the construction process sufficiently so that energy constraints can be met.
The structure in Figure 36.1 below is an update of an earlier concept in a
set of papers by Benaroya [2, 3], and Ettouney and Benaroya [14, 15]. Such a
structure has been recently analyzed and designed by Ruess, Schänzlin and
Benaroya [30], but using more standard structural materials. All the figures
in this paper are by Ruess from the reference Ruess et al. [29, 30].
Figure 36.1
Rendering of a lunar habitat module.
Our goal is to do a preliminary analysis and design of an autonomous

system that is capable of constructing such a structure on the surface of the
Moon. This structure will be ready for the first astronaut team that arrives on
the Moon to fit it with systems necessary for human habitation. In essence,
this structure is envisioned to be a “shell” into which pipes, wiring, windows
(if any), and equipment can be installed by the astronaut team. The appropri-
ate volumes will be already in the structure. A preliminary analysis of this
structure is provided and this will form the basis for evaluating the autono-
mous construction method proposed.
The structure will be human-rated, meaning that it will be shielded and can
be pressurized upon a human presence. The presence of a structural shell on
the Moon, awaiting human arrival, has enormous implications on the logisti-
cal planning of man’s return to the Moon. All the volume that would normally
be allocated for bringing structural materials to the Moon can now be replaced
with other items. This leads to an enormous saving in time and money.
Determining the dimensions of a lunar base habitat is a very complex task.
Numerous factors like crew size, mission duration and function of the base as
an industrial or scientific outpost influence the necessary habitat size. Hence,
a global approach considering the necessary habitable volume per person
will be pursued. Habitable volume is interpreted as free volume, excluding
volume occupied by equipment or stowage.
As per [29], the Gemini missions, which were of relatively short duration mis-
sions of up to two weeks, were endured by a person restrained to a chair most
of the time. The habitable volume per crewmember in Gemini was 0.57 m3.
Currently, the NASA Man Systems Integration Standards (NASA STD 3000)
recommend a minimum habitable volume at which performance can be main-
tained for mission durations of four months or longer of about 20 m3. Despite
this recommendation, a design volume (living and working areas) of 120 m3
per person for a lunar habitat has been recommended, based on research of
long-term habitation and confined spaces. This value is about equivalent to the
volume per crewmember onboard the International Space Station.
The next question is to find an optimum floor height. Proposed floor
heights for lunar habitats range from 2.44 m to 4.0 m. People moving in low
gravity will certainly require more vertical space than on Earth. They will
lift off the floor higher while walking and especially when trying to run.
Table 36.1
Typical Properties for Cast Regolith
Property Units Value
Tensional Strength N/mm 2 34.5
Compressive Strength N/mm2 538
Young’s Modulus kN/mm2 100
Density g/cm3 3
Temperature Coefficient 10−6/K 7.5−8.5
Table 36.2
Total Needed Floor Area with Respect to Crew Size
Crew size 6 8 10 12
Habitable area [m2] 206 275 343 412
+20% for equipment and stowage [m2] 41 55 69 82
Total area (rounded up) [m2] 250 320 415 500
Therefore, a floor height of 4.0 m seems most suitable and will therefore be
used henceforth.
However, floor height is not equal to clear height. Support systems like light-
ing and ventilation will use 0.5 m up to 1.0 m of this space. This leaves in most
cases about 3.5 m for the actual habitable volume. With these numbers fixed,
one ends up with 34.4 m2 floor area per person. The total floor area depends
not only on crew size but also on the amount of equipment and stowage space
that is needed. A summary for different crew sizes is given in Table 36.2.
Now, having determined the total floor area, one can begin to size the
structure. Depending on the chosen structural system, one has to find the
most efficient span of the main structure and, depending on the structural
system chosen, the spacing between primary structural elements. The neces-
sary clear floor height can for some concepts, e.g., arches, govern the span.
The layout of the habitat is also very important at this point.
Regolith, upon which the lunar structure is built, needs to be understood
from a foundation engineering view. The bulk density of regolith ranges
from 0.9 to 1.1 g/cm3 near the surface and reaches a maximum of 1.9 g/cm3
below 20 cm. The average is at 1.7 g/cm3.
• The porosity of the regolith surface is about 45.

• Cohesion of undisturbed regolith is c = 0.1 to 1.0 kN/m2.
• The friction angle is about 30o to 50o.
• The regolith’s modulus of subgrade reaction is typically 1000 kN/m2/m.
• The compressibility ranges from Cc = 0.3 (loose regolith) to 0.05
(dense regolith).
• Interparticle adhesion in the regolith is high. It clumps together like
damp beach sand.
This work idealizes the lunar soil using the modulus of subgrade reaction.
All structural analysis calculations are thus done with the soil simulated by
springs of stiffness Cc = 1000 kN/m2/m. It is a simplified method and a more
detailed study of the regolith mechanics might be needed in the future.
The arch structure in Ruess et al. [30] is chosen for this preliminary study
on automated ISR construction. First, the shape and rise of the arch were
determined. From that study, a single floor layout is preferred to avoid
0.5 m
Space for support systems,
storage and equipment
3.5 m
Habitable Space
Figure 36.2
Space use within the proposed structure.
additional structural mass for internal flooring and reduce the size of the
main structural members at the same time. Therefore, a rise of 5 m was cho-
sen for the arch. Figure 36.2 shows how the space within the arch will be
divided into the different functional areas.
On the Moon, since the governing load is not gravitational, but rather internal
pressurization, the circular arch is the more suitable structure because no bend-
ing moments are introduced in the arch. An in-plane two-dimensional analysis
is found to be sufficient; no major three-dimensional effects are expected since
the structure runs continuously in the third direction only. Internal forces,
member stresses and deflections are calculated using finite element software.
The bending moment in the tie is a result of soil structure interaction, as
shown in Figure 36.3. It depends on the ratio of foundation to soil stiffness. The
final bending moment in the tie can only be determined iteratively because
every change in tie stiffness results in a change in bending moment that in
turn may require a different tie cross-section. Thus, the final bending moment
distribution will only be available after the structural design is finished.
p = 69 kPa
Figure 36.3
Bending moments for the circular arch.
q = 8.3 kPa
K = 1000 kPa/m
Figure 36.4
Regolith cover load.
On the Moon the designer has to be careful when applying gravitational

loads calculated using the lunar gravitational acceleration. The resulting
loads will be only about 1/6 of similar ones on Earth. For the static analysis
of the structure, the main load cases identified in addition to the structure’s
self weight are:
1. Internal pressure p = 69 kPa

2. Regolith covering the whole structure q = 8.3 kPa.
The loads for the regolith cover, as shown in Figure 36.4, assume the rego-
lith can be placed uniformly on the structure. If instead loose soil is simply
heaped upon the top of the structure, the resulting load will be trapezoidal,
not uniform.
Most of the loads described above may act at the same time. There are also
a number of different scenarios that the designer needs to account for: start-
ing with construction stages, the structure being initially pressurized with
the regolith not yet on top of it, next the regular operational mode with all
loads acting, and finally a planned or accidental decompression. The maxi-
mum effect on the structure has to be found using load combinations. For
each scenario only the loads that increase the stresses in the structure are to
be included. Self-weight is always present. Four combinations were used to
find the maximum stresses in the members:
1. Internal pressure plus floor loads

2. Regolith cover plus installation loads
Figure 36.5
Front view of the general tie shape
3. All loads
4. Half the regolith cover (during construction)
Two main conclusions result from the preliminary structural analysis [29, 30].
First, the arch segments can have a uniform cross-section. It is possible but
not necessary to adjust the arch cross-section to the distribution of internal
forces since these are almost uniform. Second, in order to get an efficient
cross-section for the tie it has to be adjusted to the distribution of internal
forces. The bending moment has the shape of a parabola, so it was decided
to give the tie a similar shape. Figure 5 shows the principal shape of the tie/
floor/foundation.
The regolith foundation will need to be sintered before the structure is
fabricated and will result in a higher modulus of subgrade reaction and
therefore lower deflections of the tie. It does not affect the arch deflections.
Calculations show that the modulus of subgrade reaction would have to be
increased about tenfold to get in the range of desired deflections. This is very
likely not possible to be achieved by sintering the regolith. Some additional
reinforcing is needed. More research data is needed for this topic.
Advanced Concept Development Work Plan

The study under way focuses on an engineering evaluation of the use of
freeform fabrication technologies as the basis for building autonomous mini-
robots that can, as a team, build a first lunar structure for habitation, using in-
situ resources and primarily solar power, over a six to twelve month period
prior to the arrival of astronauts. The proposed study will be comprised of
the following aspects:
1. An examination of the structural strength of “blocks” built from

in-situ/regolith material (what can be expected from such a process
ideally and realistically, knowing the kind of efficiencies one can
obtain on Earth)
2. An examination of the energy/power requirements and feasibility
(can current and anticipated solar energy conversion technology
provide the needed power to drive such machines, and if not, what
are other options for power)
3. Establish the rate of construction as function of above (how fast can

the most likely ensemble of such robots build a facility that can then
be organized for human habitation)
4. What is the appropriate mix of mini-robots, that is, how many differ-
ent functions are needed and what is an optimal ensemble
5. How complicated a lunar structure can be erected (how difficult is it
for the fabrication process to include holes for pipes and power lines,
for example)
6. Address briefly the transferability of this technology to the Martian
surface.
Imagine this: Several mini-robots (size of a lawn mower) are landed on the
Moon, perhaps six to twelve months before the arrival of humans. Their
purpose is to prepare the site and erect a simple structure that the arriving
astronauts can then fit for habitation. This means installing (in a modular
and easy way) life support and maintenance equipment.
Once the mini-robots land, they begin to prepare the regolith, first smooth-
ing out the site, some sintering with attention to reinforcement (perhaps
using carbon nanotubes). Once the site is prepared, the mini-robots begin
to build the lunar structure in layers, a structure that has been designed a
priori, leaving open volumes for mechanical and electronic equipment that
is to be placed subsequently by astronauts. Of course, there would be a large
volume, as shown in the previous figures, for habitation.
Studies will determine what kind of reinforcing the ISRU-based structure
requires, possibilities being a glass fiber-reinforced or a nano-composite
matrix. Some studies have shown that such a layered manufacturing process
can be achieved in a number of ways. One promising approach is based on
microwave sintering. Much of the reinforcing material can be found in the
regolith.
Some suggestions have been made for autonomous construction on the
Moon, but no study exists for autonomous construction using freeform man-
ufacturing technologies utilizing in-situ resources, or for the erection of the
first habitable structure on the Moon via such technologies.
Our vision is a suite of freeform/rapid prototyping manufacturing robots,
each with its advantages, since the lunar habitat is not going to be a homoge-
neous structure. This has been discussed above in our preliminary design.
Rapid prototyping processes are a relatively recent development. The first
machine was released onto the market in late 1987. While rapid prototyping
is the term commonly applied to these technologies the terminology is now a
little dated, reflecting the purpose to which the early machines were applied.
A more accurate description would be layered manufacturing processes. An
alternative term is freeform fabrication processes. These processes work
by building up a component layer by layer, with one thin layer of material
bonded to the previous thin layer. There are several different processes. The
main ones are:
• stereolithography;
• laser or microwave sintering;
• fused deposition modeling;
• solid ground curing; and
• laminated object manufacturing.
In addition there are a number of newer processes, such as ballistic particle

manufacturing and three-dimensional printing, which have appeared on
the market. Some ballistic particle manufacturing technology use piezo-
electric pumps that operate when an electric charge is applied, generating a
shock wave that propels particles. All these processes essentially start with
nothing and end with a completed part. Rapid prototyping processes are
driven by instructions that are derived from three-dimensional computer-
aided design (CAD) models. CAD technologies are therefore an essential
enabling system for rapid prototyping. (Other enabling technologies are for
mini-rovers, energy beams, solar power systems, and structural reliability/
durability.)
The processes use different physical principles, but essentially they work
either by using lasers or microwaves to cut, cure or sinter material into a
layer, or involve ejecting material from a nozzle to create a layer. Many dif-
ferent materials are used, depending upon the particular process. Materials
include thermopolymers, photopolymers, other plastics, paper, wax, or metal-
lic powder, for example. The processes can be used to create models, tooling,
prototypes, and even in some cases to directly produce metal components.
As such, one may view these capabilities and laying the groundwork for self-
repairing systems.
Our vision is that an optimally grouped set of mini-robots will work as
a team to autonomously erect a habitable volume for finishing by the first
astronaut team on the Moon. Issues that will be resolved in a preliminary
study are the appropriate mix of robots by function, energy/power demands
as a function of rate of construction, and redundancy needs for reliability.
A point of study will be to examine whether solar and other radiation that
hits the lunar surface can be factored into the “curing” process. Also, can the
hard vacuum on the Moon be used to some advantage?
The appropriate mix of robots refers to the fact that different free-form
manufacturing processes will be needed. We know that different parts of
the structure require different construction approaches. For example, bal-
listic particle manufacturing may be appropriate for creating the foundation
layer. For such ejection-type systems, a filtering process is needed so that rel-
atively uniform sequences of regolith particles are fed. After a preliminary
layer is prepared, some additional sintering may be required, perhaps via

microwave as has been suggested in the literature.
In the end, we envision a team of such freeform manufacturing mini-robots
that will work as a team, with the group comprising the skill set of capabilities
needed to construct all the parts of the structure. As an example, the ballistic
particle manufacturing robot can be placed on a ridge or be able to elevate
itself to project particles to the higher locations of the lunar structure.
Concluding Summary
This paper proposes an outline of an approach to erecting a structure on
the lunar surface autonomously using in-situ resources and layered manu-
facturing technologies. A simple structure is proposed as a prototype. Only
the essential structure would be manufactured in this way, leaving open
spaces and volumes where the astronauts would complete the construction
by inserting HVAC, doors and internal equipment.
References
Benaroya, H. and Ettouney, M., (1992a) “Framework for Evaluation of Lunar Base
Concepts,” Journal of Aerospace Engineering, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 187–198.
Benaroya, H. and Ettouney, M., (1992b) “Design and Construction Considerations for a
Lunar Outpost,” Journal of Aerospace Engineering, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 261–273.
Ettouney, M. and Benaroya, H., (1992a) “Regolith mechanics, dynamics and founda-
tions,” Journal of Aerospace Engineering, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 214–229.
Ettouney, M., Benaroya, H., and Agassi, N., (1992b) “Cable structures and lunar envi-
ronment,” Journal of Aerospace Engineering, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 297–310.
Ruess, F., (2004) Structural Analysis of a Lunar Base, Master’s thesis, Universität
Stuttgart/Rutgers University, May.
Ruess, F., Schänzlin, J. and Benaroya, H., “Structural Design of a Lunar Habitat,”
J Aerospace Engineering, Vol. 19, No. 3, July 2006, 133–157.
Bibliography
Alexander, P., and Dutta, D., (2000) “Layered manufacturing of surfaces with open con-
tours using localized wall thicknesses,” Computer-Aided Design 32, pp. 175–189.
Benaroya, H., (1994) “Reliability of structures for the Moon,” Structural Safety, Vol.
15, pp. 67–84.
Benaroya, H., (1998) “Economic and technical issues for lunar development,” Journal
of Aerospace Engineering, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 111–118.
Benaroya, H., Bernold, L., and Chua, K. M., (2002) “Engineering, design and construc-
tion of Lunar Bases,” Journal of Aerospace Engineering, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 33–45.
Benaroya, H., (2002) “An overview of Lunar Base structures: past and future,” AIAA
Space Architecture Symposium, AIAA, Houston, Texas, pp. 1–12.
Braun, B., (2003) “Faserverbundkunststoffe (FVK) als tragende Struktur,” Tech. rep.,
University of Stuttgart, Institute of Structural Design (KE).
Cohen, M. M., (2002) “Selected precepts in lunar architecture,” Tech. rep., 53rd
International Astronautical Congress, The World Space Congress.
Criswell, M. E., Sadeh, W. Z., and Abarbanel, J. E., (1996) “Design and performance
criteria for inflatable structures in space,” SPACE 96, ASCE, pp. 1045–1051.
Duke, M. B. and Benaroya, H., (1993) “Applied mechanics of lunar exploration and
development,” Applied Mechanics Review, Vol. 46, No. 6, pp. 272–277.
Eckhart, P., (1999) The Lunar Base Handbook, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Eichold, A., (2000) “Conceptual design of a crater Lunar Base,” Proceedings of Return
to the Moon II, AIAA, pp. 126–136.
Graf, J. C., (1988) “Construction operations for an early Lunar Base,” SPACE 88,
ASCE, pp. 190–201.
Happel, J. A., (1992a) The design of lunar structures using indigenous construction
materials, Master of Science in Civil Engineering, University of Colorado.
Happel, J. A., (1992b) “Prototype Lunar Base construction using indigenous materi-
als,” SPACE 92, ASCE, pp. 112–122.
Happel, J. A., (1993) “Indigenous materials for lunar construction,” Applied Mechanics
Reviews, Vol. 46, No. 6, pp. 313–325.
Huntsman, “Huntsman Advanced Materials, Verslaan 45, B3078 Everberg, Belgium,
http://www.huntsman.com,” 2004.
Johnson, S. W., Chua, K. M., and Carrier III, W. D., (1995) “Lunar soil mechanics,”
Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, Vol. 48, No. 1, pp. 43–48.
Karalekas, D., and Antoniou, K., (2004) “Composite rapid prototyping: overcoming
the drawback of poor mechanical properties,” J. Mat. Proc. Tech. pp. 526–530.
Kennedy, K. J., (1992) “A horizontal inflatable habitat for SEI,” SPACE 92, ASCE,
pp. 135–146.
Kennedy, K. J. and Adams, C. M., (2000) “ISS TransHab: An Inflatable Habitat,”
SPACE 2000, ASCE.
Kennedy, K. J., (2002) “The vernacular of space architecture,” Tech. rep., Space archi-
tecture symposium, October.
Kirihara, S. et al. (2005), “Strong localization of microwave in photonic fractals with
Menger-sponge structure,” Journal of the European Ceramics Society, in press.
Reynolds, K. H., (1988) “Preliminary design study of lunar housing configurations,”
NASA conference publication 3166, NASA, pp. 255–259.
Roberts, M., (1988) “Inflatable Habitation for the Lunar Base,” NASA Conference
Publication 3166, NASA, April.
Spudis, P. D., (2003) “Harvest the Moon,” Astronomy, Vol. 6, pp. 42–47.
Taylor, L. A. and Meek, T. T., (2005) “Microwave Sintering of Lunar Soil: Properties,
Theory and Practice,” Journal of Aerospace Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 18, No. 3,
pp. 188−196.
Zippert, H., (2004) “Zimmer mit Erdblick,” GEO special Der Mond, Vol. 6, pp. 90–99.
37
A Reliability-Based Design
Concept for Lunar Habitats
Benjamin Braun
HE2 - Habitats for Extreme Environments
Stuttgart, Germany
Florian Ruess
HE2 - Habitats for Extreme Environments
Bremen, Germany
Florian Ruess, Dipl.-Ing, University of Stuttgart and University of Calgary

civil engineering (1988–2004); research on lunar bases at Rutgers University
as part of the master thesis (2004); structural engineer with BDE engineer-
ing in Stuttgart with focus on bridge design and engineering (2004–2006),
and since 2006 structural engineer at Airbus Bremen, Wing High Lift Design
HE2–Habitats for Extreme Environments.
Abstract The key objective of every structural design on the Moon is

to develop a structural system which is able to fulfill its functional require-
ments in a highly economical way due to initial transportation issues. Many
known conceptual lunar designs use global or partial safety factors to ensure
the reliability of the structural members. However, a suitable approach for
traditional design on Earth is not necessarily considered appropriate for
novel and unique structures such as lunar habitats. Uncertainties exist in
lunar base design that can be addressed only on the basis of a structural reli-
ability analysis in order to assess safety in a quantitative manner. As a result,
an optimized structure can be designed from a holistic point of view, which
is beyond that comparable to other designs also in terms of safety. Based
on an existing structural design of a lunar habitat, this paper describes not
only the fundamental requirements and benefits if a reliability-based design
approach is chosen, but it also highlights the difficulties that are inevitably
encountered.
533
Introduction
The erection of an outpost on the Moon is not only a question of how to
choose the most suitable structure for a lunar habitat as summarized and
presented in Ruess et al. (2006). The risk and safety of such structures need
also to be assessed in an appropriate manner. For the design on Earth, stan-
dards and codes e.g., the family of American Standards or Eurocodes, exist
that help the designer to analyze and design a safe structure. However, spe-
cial uncertainties exist in lunar base design that can be assessed as a first
step only on the basis of a decision analysis, namely a structural reliability
analysis. It offers a way to allocate the available resources both most effi-
ciently and in a sufficiently safe manner. Fundamentally, uncertainties can
arise from an inherent randomness in loads and resistances, or inadequate
knowledge, e.g., influence of radiation on material properties and statistical
uncertainty due to sparse information. Such uncertainties imply the need
to use statistical and probabilistic tools in the analysis and design process.
The basic principles of structural reliability analysis (Thoft-Christensen and
Baker 1982) (Ditlevsen and Madsen 1996) are applied here with special regard
to the design of second generation lunar habitats. Based on an existing struc-
tural design of a lunar habitat, not only the fundamental requirements and
benefits of a reliability-based design approach are described, but also the
difficulties that are inevitably encountered are highlighted.
Structural Reliability
General
The assessment of the reliability of electrical systems used in battleships became
a central issue during the 1940s (Faber 2006) and it can be seen as the starting
point for reliability analysis methods. Thus, classical reliability analysis deals
with technical components which are available in large numbers of the same
type and which have usually only a single failure mode. The aim is to determine
the failure rate in order to derive an estimation of the time until failure for each
component. However, the characteristics of structural reliability analysis, which
evolved from classical reliability analysis, is fundamentally different because
normally a structural system is built up of unique components which have dif-
ferent failure modes. Here, failure occurs due to extreme events and the objective
is to provide a measure of safety in order to prevent failure with a sufficiently
small value of probability. Therefore, the estimation of failure probabilities of
structural components requires a probabilistic modeling of both loads and resis-
tances from which a reliability index β indicating the safety can be derived.
A Reliability-Based Design Concept for Lunar Habitats 535
In the following, the reliability implemented in design concepts will

be recalled shortly. On the basis of familiar code-based design concepts the
theoretical background will be introduced which inherently leads to the
reliability-based concepts.
Probability of Failure and Reliability Index

First of all, the uncertain resistance R and varying load S are expressed by
probabilistic models. Then the probability of failure is the probability that
the resistance R becomes smaller than the load S, which can be expressed in
terms of a safety margin M (see Equation (37.1)).
M = R−S≤0 (37.1)
In order to determine the probability of failure, the probability density

function of the safety margin M is evaluated for all possible realizations of
the uncertain variables. Such a distribution of the safety margin M is shown
in Figure 37.1. The number of standard deviations by which the mean value
of the safety margin M exceeds zero defines the reliability index β and it
gives also a good geometrical interpretation.
Thus, the higher the reliability index β is, the smaller is the probability of
failure. The link between them is given by use of the standard normal distri-
bution function in Equation (37.2):
 0 − µM 
PF = Φ  = Φ( −β) (37.2)
 σ M 
fM (m)
Failure Safe
σM σM
m
β σM
µM
Figure 37.1
Reliability index β (Faber 2006).
However, in the general case resistances and loads may consist of several
variables that altogether make up the limit state function. Depending on the
problem, the limit state function can be linear in very simple cases or nonlin-
ear in the general case.
Limit State Functions

The state of a structural component can be generally described in terms of
a functional relationship g(x) in which the resistances R are related to the
loads S as introduced in Equation (37.1). This function g(x) is denoted the limit
state function because the determination of the result indicates the state of
the structural component. For realizations of the basic random variables X,
the component is in a safe state if g(x) > 0 and for g(x) ≤ 0 the component is in
a failure state, where x is a realization of X. The limit state function reads:
g( x) = R − S ≤ 0 (37.3)
With the definition of the failure state, the probability of failure can be
determined by the integral

PF =
∫
g ( x )≤ 0
f x (X ) dx
(37.4)
in which fx(X) is the probability density function of the random variable X.

From the evaluation of Equation (37.3) the reliability index can be derived
which is directly connected to the probability of failure as shown above. In
the following, first order reliability methods (FORM) will be used. These
are widely used due to their efficiency in solving this equation. Generally it
can be distinguished between linear and nonlinear limit state functions. It is
assumed that the random variables are normally distributed in the consider-
ations hereafter. In order to evaluate the reliability index these random vari-
ables have to be normalized into standardized normally distributed random
variables according to Equation (37.4) so that the random variables have zero
mean values and unit standard deviations,
X i − µ Xi
Ui = (37.5)
σ Xi
The limit state function then becomes:
g(x) → g(u)
Linear Limit State Function

A linear limit state function is very simple and illustrative. It can be written as:
n
g ( x ) = a0 + ∑a x
i =1
i i (37.7)
The mean value and standard deviation can be determined according to

Equations (37.8) and (37.9):
n
µ M = a0 + ∑aµ
i =1
i Xi
(37.8)
n n n
σ 2M = ∑
i =1
ai2 σ X2 +
i ∑ ∑ ρ aaσσ
i = 1 j = 1, j ≠ i
ij i j i j (37.9)
The reliability index β is calculated then according to Equation (37.10):
µM
β= (37.10)
σM
In Figure 37.2 a geometrical interpretation of the normalized linear limit

state function g(u) and the reliability index β is given for the simple case with
u2
12
10
6
g (u) = 0
R
2
0 u1
–2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
β –4 S
–6
Figure 37.2
Characteristics of a linear limit state function (Faber 2006).
two basic random variables. The u1u2 plane represents all realizations of the
random variables. This plane is divided by the limit state function into a safe
and a failure domain. As shown before, the reliability index is a measure of
the distance between the mean value of the safe domain and the boundary
of the failure domain. Of course, the smallest distance to the boundary has
to be found which then defines the design point.
Nonlinear Limit State Function

In case the limit state function becomes nonlinear—which is the common
case—the evaluation is not as easy as with a linear limit state function. In
order to determine the reliability index, a linearization of the limit state
function at the design point has been proposed by Hasofer and Lind (1974)
for the normalized space. This is shown in Figure 37.3.
With this linearization the design point can be found. The result yields
not only the distance β but also the direction is given by the normal vector α
pointing into the failure domain. Due to the nonlinearity of the limit state
u2
12
10
g´ (u) = 0
4
2
0
u1
–2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
β –4 g (u) = 0
α
–6
u*
Figure 37.3
Characteristics of a linearized nonlinear limit state function (Faber 2006).
function the design point is not known in advance and needs to be deter-
mined by Equation (37.11):
n
β = min
uε { g ( u)= 0 } ∑u
i=1
2
i
(37.11)
In case the limit state function is differentiable the α. - vector explained

above can be determined by Equation (37.12):
∂g
− (β ⋅ α)
∂ui
αi = , i = 1, 2 , ...n
2 (37.12)
n  ∂g 
∑ (β ⋅ α)
i = 1  ∂ui 
so that the limit state function,
g( β ⋅ α , β ⋅ α ,... β ⋅ α ) = 0 (37.13)
1 2 n
can be solved as follows. First a design point has to be arbitrarily chosen and
beginning with the evaluation of Equation (37.12) the solution can be itera-
tively found by calculating a new normal vector α and a new β value.
Reliability Implemented in Design Concepts

Modern design concepts use the partial safety factor concept in order to
ensure the safety of a structure. The underlying idea is to define character-
istic values of loads and resistances, which are combined with partial safety
factors that take into account the different uncertainties of the loads and
resistances. Due to this differentiation a more constant level of safety can be
provided. This is the reason why the partial safety factor concept has outper-
formed the global safety factor concept, which have been used since the very
beginning of the development of design standards.
Nowadays, in code-based design concepts such as the family of American
standards or the Eurocodes, design equations are given for the verification
of the resistance of structural members against a limit state, e.g., failure
or excessive deformations. In general terms this design equation reads as
follows:
Rk
− γ F ⋅ Ek ≤ 0 (37.14)
γM
fR(r), fs(s)
S
R
r, s
s r
γQ = sd γm = r c
c Sc Rc d
Sd, Rd
Figure 37.4
Code-based design concept with partial safety factors (Faber 2006).
where Rk = characteristic value of the resistance

γM = partial safety factor for the resistance
Ek = characteristic value of the load
γF = partial safety factor for the load
In the codes, various values of partial safety factors exist that are attrib-
uted to different materials and load types. Together with the partial safety
factors, the characteristic values of loads and resistances are introduced so
that the partial safety factors ensure a specified minimum level of reliability
for a structural design according to the code. Figure 37.4 illustrates the code-
based design concept with partial safety factors.
The background of the safety factors used in the codes comes from an under-
lying reliability analysis from which the safety factors are derived. A calibration
of the design equation can be made if a large number of buildings of similar
type can be evaluated. However, this is only the case if the history of structures
can be followed. In the case of a lunar habitat, it is a novel and unique structure
with all new boundary conditions that have never been built before, so that
applying design standards from Earth may seem to be one step too far. The first
level in terms of a reliability analysis will be introduced hereafter.
Target Reliability
The building codes we are using on Earth are based on design criteria com-
ing from reliability considerations. The safety levels of these standards have
been well calibrated against target reliabilities, which have been derived from
Table 37.1
Society perception of hazards according to Keese and Barton (1982)
Probability Acceptance in Society
of Failure PF
10−3 This level is unacceptable to everyone. When probability

approaches this level, immediate action should be taken to
reduce the hazard.
10−4 People are willing to spend public money to control hazards
at this level. Safety slogans popularized for accidents in
this category show an element of fear.
10−5 Though rare, people still recognize these hazards, warn
children (e.g., drowning, poisoning). Some accept
inconvenience to avoid such hazards (e.g., avoid air
travel).
10−6 Not of great concern to the average person. People are
aware of these hazards, but feel it can never happen to
them—a sense of resignation if they do (e.g., an act of
God).
the history of operated structures over many decades. However, novel and
unique structures for extreme environments, such as a lunar habitat, clearly
exceed the scope of the existing standards and the most prominent ques-
tion remains: how safe is safe enough? As introduced before, a reliability-
based design concept seems best suited to fit the fundamental requirements
of addressing this issue. Obviously it seems not reasonable to use the same
target reliabilities as on Earth because the consequences of failure are much
higher. This concerns not only loss of lives but also monetary reasons.
In Table 37.1 the perception of hazards by society is associated with
a number for the probability of failure. Of course, more sophisticated
approaches exist to define the target reliability but Table 37.1 can be easily
understood by all readers. In the following, a target reliability of β = 4.77
corresponding to the probability of failure of 10−6 is chosen for component
failure. This is well beyond the common target reliabilities used, e.g., in the
Eurocodes β = 3.70.
Implications for Lunar Habitat Design

Without a large statistical base, design codes cannot be established and
are therefore non-existent for lunar design. For the time being reliability
analysis seems to be the best choice to design reliable and economical lunar
structures. In the past global safety factor approaches have been used for
preliminary lunar design. The main advantage of such approaches is a sim-
pler structural analysis but, as was mentioned before, it is very difficult to
judge how economical and safe a structure really is because the actual reli-
ability remains unknown.
Structural Design Concepts of Lunar Habitats

Lunar habitat structures will have to satisfy very unique requirements. The envi-
ronment on the Moon poses new challenges to the designer with respect to:
• Gravity: only 1/6 the gravity on Earth.

• Radiation/Shielding: Solar and cosmic radiation as well as microme-
teoroid impacts endanger the inhabitants of a lunar base. Shielding
is necessary.
• Vacuum/Internal Pressurization: The lunar structure must contain
pressure and be failsafe against decompression. Material issues with
exposure to vacuum.
• Dust: Highly abrasive and toxic.
• Temperature extremes: Issues for construction and insulation of the
completed structure.
Therefore, structures have to be designed for:
• Structural adequacy: Optimized structures in terms of structural

material use.
• Material properties: Stable mechanical properties like high strength,
ductility, durability, stiffness, and tear and puncture resistance.
Maintenance: Minimum maintenance requirements
• Compatibility: With the life support systems.

• Transportation/Ease of erection: Minimum mass and volume, easy
to assemble.
• Excavation/Foundations: Minimize requirements.
• Functionality: Low habitat volume to floor area ratios increase
efficiency.
• Local materials: long-term goal to use as much indigenous material
as possible.
A lunar base will go through evolutionary development, starting with lim-

ited capacity and expanding over time. Lunar development will stage in
three main phases. In each of these phases a different generation of habitats
will necessarily evolve (Benaroya 2002; Cohen 2002):
Generation I: Prefabricated and pre-outfitted hard shell modules

Generation II: Assembly of components fabricated on Earth with
some assembly required
Figure 37.5
Proposed structural design of a lunar habitat.
Generation III: Large-scale building structures comprised substan-

tially of indigenous material
Second generation lunar habitats can be further divided into four main
structural types:
1. Inflatable structures
2. Cable structures
3. Rigid structures
4. Underground construction
Many conceptual designs based on one or the other of these structural types
exist today. It is evident that all the developed designs have different strengths
and weaknesses. One way to determine if a design is generally suitable is the
evaluation method described in Ruess (2004) and Ruess et al. (2006).
A number of existing designs passed this evaluation very well. Among them
is a tied circular arch aluminum hard shell modular structure (Figure 37.5)
(Ruess et al. 2006). This design is simple, robust and takes into account the
lunar issues like temperature extremes, radiation, micrometeorites and con-
struction on the lunar surface already mentioned above.
Structural analysis of this concept is straightforward in general. But safety
issues are absolutely critical in lunar base design. First the different random
variables (mainly loads and resistances) influencing structural design have to be
known to the most exact level of detail possible. The more accurate the assump-
tions for the variables, the better the confidence in the safety level of the struc-
ture will be. There is definitely a need for further research in this area.
The eminent question is how safe is safe enough while being highly eco-
nomical at the same time? As mentioned above, a global safety factor or a
code-based design concept for lunar habitats cannot address safety neither in
an appropriate nor quantitative manner for the time being. Thus, a structural
reliability analysis is the best choice. But this analysis is again very sensitive to
input values for the random variables. For the arch structure of the presented
habitat design an example reliability analysis is shown in the following.
Example Calculation
In order to illustrate the principles described in the previous sections a step-
by-step example calculation is described. The lunar habitat structure devel-
oped in Ruess (2004) is used in terms of structural system, geometry and
material selection for the subsequent analysis and comparison.
Analysis Model
The tied circular arch structural system described in Ruess (2004) and Ruess et al.
(2006) and shown in Figure 37.6 is the basis for all calculations. Only the arch sec-
tion is analyzed here but the analysis and design of other structural members
like the floor beam, end walls or connections can be performed accordingly.
Assumptions for Random Variables

Material Strength
A high strength aluminum alloy with a characteristic yield strength of f y,k =
50 MPa is chosen. According to (JCSS 2001) the yield strength mean value
can be calculated by Equation (37.15):
f y ,mean = 50 ⋅ e(1.645 ⋅ 0.07 ) − 2 = 54.102 MPa (37.15)
with the standard deviation according to Equation (16):
σ M = COV ⋅ f y ,mean = 0.07 ⋅ 54.102 = 3.787 MPa (37.16)
For this example it was decided to reduce the mean value by 25% to account
for unknown material effects such as radiation exposure, welding in vacuum,
p = 69 kPa
K = 1000 kPa/m
Figure 37.6
Analysis model.
etc. From the structural analysis performed in Ruess (2004) it is also known
that the end wall loading of the structure introduces an additional transverse
stress of 2.167 MPa into the arch section (for simplification assumed constant
and directly superimposed). The mean value is then found to be:
f y ,mean = 0.75 ⋅ 54.102 − 2.167 = 38.410 MPa (37.17)
Loads
For the purpose of this example, only the two main loading conditions -
internal pressure and regolith shielding loads - are considered.
Internal Pressure: an optimum for a mean value for lunar habitats is
believed to be p = 69 kPa (Ruess 2004). Although technically the life sup-
port system will be able to guarantee this value with close tolerances, the
maximum pressure value is assumed to reach 101 kPa (normal atmospheric
pressure), resulting in a coefficient of variance (COV) of 0.3. The input for the
limit state function as described in the above sections is needed in terms of
axial force and bending moment of the structural member. The internal pres-
sure only results in axial forces in the arch member and can be computed as
follows (Ruess 2004):
N = 1.25 ⋅ p (37.18)
Regolith weight: An assumed regolith cover of 3 m to protect from micro-

meteorites, radiation and provide thermal insulation results in a load of q =
8.3 kPa on the structure. The COV is assumed to be similar to the one for
wood, a rather uncertain Earth material (in terms of weight). So the COV is
taken to be 0.12. The regolith loading results in bending moment of the arch
member only which is computed according to Ruess (2004):
M = 82.5 ⋅ q (37.19)
For the more complex example of a non-linear limit state function the
cross section area and the section modulus are also introduced as random
variables.
Cross section area: directly proportional to the flange thickness of the arch:
A = 6 + 5 ⋅ t [cm2 ] (37.20)
The COV is taken from (JCSS 2001, Faber 2006) to be 0.032.

Section modulus:
W = 7.5 ⋅ A − 45 [cm3 ] (37.21)
The COV is taken from (JCSS 2001, Faber 2006) to be 0.04.

Linear Limit State Function

The linear limit state function and its standard deviation with 3 random
variables is straightforward:
N M
g( x) = fy − − ≤ 0 (37.22)
A W
N2 M2 (37.23)
dev = (cov fy )2 − cov − cov
A W
With a flange thickness of only 1.62 mm the direct solution is:
Mean value: g( x) = 38.41 − 6.11 − 11.26 = 21.04

Standard deviation:
σ M = (0.07 ⋅ 38.41)2 + (0.3 ⋅ 6.11)2 + (0.12 ⋅ 11.26)2 = 4.42
The resulting reliability index is
21.04
β= = 4.76 (37.24)
4.42
and the corresponding probability of failure
Pf = 9.69 E−7 ≈ 1 E−6 (37.25)
Nonlinear Limit State Function

If the cross sectional area and the section modulus are also assumed random,
the limit state function becomes nonlinear. Its solution is then only possible
by iterative methods as shown above. In order to get the same probability
of failure as in the case above, the necessary flange thickness increases to
1.64 mm. Although the difference in this example is only small, one can see
that with increasing degrees of uncertainty the dimensions of the structure
inevitably increase, too.
Comparison of Different Design Approaches

The structural analysis performed in Ruess (2004) compared results with
global safety factors of 4 and 5 respectively. A comparison of these design
results with the results of the example reliability analysis above and an
Earth-based design can be found in Figure 37.7 and Table 37.2.
2.5
2.0
Normalised Area of the Arch [-]
1.5
1.0
0.5
β = 3.50 β = 4.76 SF4 SF5

0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0
Reliability Index β [-]
Figure 37.7
Arch area vs. reliability index.
Savings in Structural Mass

Obviously, a smaller flange thickness for the arch cross-section saves struc-
tural mass. Compared to the global safety factor design with a safety factor
of 5, the reliability based approach saves 60% structural mass while provid-
ing a quantitative measure of the safety of the structure and still being more
conservative than the Earth-based design approach.
With the cross-sectional areas of the global safety factor design it is pos-
sible to calculate the equivalent reliability index and corresponding prob-
ability of failure inversely. These values show that global safety factor design
approaches result in a safety-level that is far beyond the desired (Keese and
Barton 1982).
Table 37.2
Lunar structure design results for different design approaches and safety levels
global SF = 5 global SF = 4 β (Earth) = 3.5 β (Moon) = 4.76
Flange thickness
tf [mm] 4.03 2.96 1.24 1.64
A [cm2] 26.15 20.78 12.20 14.20
W [cm3] 151.10 110.82 46.52 61.49
(A-ASF5)/ASF5 [%] 0.00 −45.70 −53.33 −20.54
(W-WSF5)/WSF5 [%] 0.00 −26.65 −69.21 −59.31
²/_[-] 7.72 6.90 3.50 4.76
γglob [-] 5 4 2.09 2.58
Structural mass [%] 100 73 30 40
Summary
So far, most of the known structural design proposals for lunar habitats
have confined themselves to a conceptual design stage. With ongoing efforts
to return to the Moon, these proposals have to face an assessment of their
structural reliability with regard to lunar boundary conditions. This paper
shows that common approaches from Earth using global or partial safety
factors are not sufficient for lunar construction. Thus, the basic principles of
structural reliability analysis were summarized firstly and applied here with
special regard to the design of second generation lunar habitats. Based on an
existing structural design of a lunar habitat, it was found that the reliability-
based approach provides not only a quantitative measure of safety but also
a highly efficient structure e.g., in terms of weight. This insight was only
possible because reliability-based design criteria make it possible to compare
different designs on a common basis. However, the accuracy of every reli-
ability analysis increases with more statistical data about the characteristics
of the basic variables.
For future lunar designs, it is of utmost importance to create a database
of the mechanical properties of materials as well as the loading conditions
on the lunar surface. As the design example shows, at the moment only
engineering-type assumptions make the analysis possible at all resulting in
an increased mass of the lunar habitat due to missing knowledge. But with
enough construction experience and a large statistical database it will even
be possible to develop a reliability-based “Lunar Building Design Code”
similar to the Earth Design Codes, which standardizes and facilitates lunar
structural analysis in the future.
Notation
M: Safety margin
R: Resistance
S, E: Load
β: Reliability index
PF : Probability of failure
μ M : Mean value
σM : Standard deviation
g(x): Limit state function
fx(X): Probability density function
α: vector
γM : Partial safety factor for resistances
γF : Partial safety factor for loads
COV: Coefficient of variance

fy: Yield strength
p: Internal pressure
N: Axial force
M: Bending moment
A: Cross section area
q: Distributed (regolith cover) loads
t: Flange thickness
W: Section modulus
γglob: Global safety factor
References
Benaroya, H. (1994). “Reliability of structures for the Moon.” Structural Safety, 15,
67–84.
Faber, M.H. (2006). Risk and Safety in Civil, Surveying and Environmental
Engineering, Lecture Notes, Institute of Structural Engineering, Swiss Federal
Institute of Technology, Zürich.
Ruess, F.; Schaenzlin, J.; Benaroya, H. “Structural Design of a Lunar Habitat.” Journal
of Aerospace Engineering 19 (2006), No. 3, pp. 133–157.
Ruess, F.: Structural Design of a Lunar Habitat. Diploma Thesis, University of Stuttgart
& Rutgers University (2004).
Thoft-Christensen, P.; Baker, M.J.: Structural Reliability and its Applications. Springer
Verlag, Berlin (1982).
Ditlevsen, O.; Madsen, H.O.: Structural Reliability Methods. John Wiley & Sons,
Chichester (1996).
Benaroya, H.: An Overview of Lunar Base Structures: past and future, AIAA Space
Architecture Symposium (2002).
Cohen, M.: Selected precepts in lunar architecture, 53rd International Astronautical
Congress, The World Space Congress (2002).
Joint Committee on Structural Safety (JCSS): Probabilistic Model Code, 12th draft
(2001).
Hasofer, A.M.; Lind, N.C.: An exact and invariant First Order Reliability Format.
ASCE Proceedings, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, pp. 111–121 (1974).
Keese, D.L.; Barton, W.R.: Risk assessment and its application to flight safety analysis.
Sandia National Laboratories (1982).
38
Cratering and Blowing Soil by Rocket
Engines during Lunar Landings
Philip T. Metzger
NASA, KT-D3
John E. Lane
ASRC Aerospace
Christopher D. Immer
ASRC Aerospace
Sandra Clements
ASRC Aerospace
Kennedy Space Center, Florida
Philip T. Metzger is a research physicist and the founder of the Granular

Materials and Regolith Operations Laboratory at NASA’s Kennedy Space
Center, where he has worked since 1985. He was a part of the Space Shuttle
launch team and later with the International Space Station program.
He is now performing research for lunar and Martian exploration and is
leading the effort to understand how rocket exhaust interacts with soil.
Dr. Metzger earned his doctoral degree in physics from the University
of Central Florida and a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering from
Auburn University. He grew up in Titusville, Florida and on Westport
Island, Maine. He and his wife Gigi have four children and live in Orlando,
Florida.
John E. Lane, PhD, received from the University of Central Florida, where
his dissertation research supported NASA’s Tropical Rainfall Measurement
Mission (TRMM) ground validation. He received his BS and MS in phys-
ics from Florida Atlantic University. Currently an applications scientist with
ASRC Aerospace, Kennedy Space Center, his function is to support applied
technology activities, such as modeling and analysis of hydrometeors, devel-
opment of photogrammetric algorithms to track birds using multiple cam-
eras, modeling and analysis of high-speed jet-propelled lunar soil and dust
particles, and development of software for simulation of electrostatic shield-
ing of charged particle radiation.
551
Abstract This paper is a summary compilation of work accomplished

over the past decade at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center to understand the
interactions between rocket exhaust gases and the soil of the Moon or Mars.
This research is applied to a case study of the Apollo 12 landing, in which the
blowing soil peppered the nearby Surveyor III spacecraft producing mea-
surable surface damage, and to the Apollo 15 landing, in which the Lunar
Module tilted backwards after landing in a crater that was obscured from
sight by the blowing dust. The modeling coupled with empirical observa-
tions is generally adequate to predict the order of magnitude of effects in
future lunar missions and to formulate a rough concept for mitigating the
spray around a lunar base. However, there are many significant gaps in our
understanding of the physics and more effort is needed to understand the
problem of blowing soil so that specific technologies can be developed to
support the lunar outpost.
Introduction
Without proper controls, the high temperature, supersonic jet of gas that is
exhausted from a rocket engine is capable of damaging both the rocket itself
and hardware in the surrounding environment. For about seven decades,
NASA has invested significant effort into understanding and controlling
these effects at the terrestrial launch pads [Schmalzer et al., 1998], and while
the efforts have been largely successful, some damage to surrounding hard-
ware still occurs on a routine basis. These challenges also exist when launch-
ing or landing rockets on other planetary bodies, such as the Moon, Mars,
or asteroids. The exhaust gases of the landing or launching spacecraft could
kick up rocks, gravel, soil, and dust. This can cause damage to the landing
spacecraft or to other hardware that has already been landed in the vicinity.
It can also spoof the sensors of the landing spacecraft and block visibility
of natural terrain hazards, resulting in significant risk of an unsuccessful
landing.
To date, humans have completed only 22 successful retro-rocket landings
on other bodies. The United States landings included five robotic missions
on the Moon in the Surveyor program, six human-piloted missions on the
Moon in the Apollo program, two robotic missions on Mars in the Viking
program, and one robotic mission on the asteroid Eros. At the time that
this paper was written, the Phoenix mission was en-route for a retro-rocket
landing on Mars. The successful Russian landings with retro-rockets have
included seven robotic missions on the Moon in the Luna program and
one robotic mission in the Mars program. Closely related to these, there
were twelve terrestrial launches and landings of the DC-X rocket on the
packed gypsum-powder surface of White Sands, New Mexico. The last
Cratering and Blowing Soil by Rocket Engines during Lunar Landings 553
of these missions resulted in the loss of the vehicle at landing, but not
because of exhaust plume interactions. (The U.S. program has also landed
three spacecraft on Mars using airbags rather than rockets at touchdown;
the Russian program has landed ten spacecraft on Venus using parachutes
and aerobraking; and the European program has landed one spacecraft on
Saturn’s moon Titan using a parachute.) There have been quite a few unsuc-
cessful attempts to land with retro-rockets on other bodies, but so far none
of these failures have been attributed to the exhaust plume’s interaction
with the surface
In the upcoming U.S. return to the Moon, there will be a greater con-
cern with plume/soil interactions than in prior missions. That is because
the landers will be larger with more thrust and because spacecraft will
land and launch repeatedly in the vicinity of the lunar outpost, subject-
ing the hardware assets on the Moon to repeated high-velocity spraying of
dust, soil, and possibly larger ejecta. Fortunately, there have been several
cases of prior landings that provide significant insight into the possible
effects of this spraying material. This paper analyzes the Apollo 12 and
Apollo 15 landings as case studies in comparison with recent experiments
and analysis.
The Problem
The Apollo 12 Lunar Module (LM) landed less than 200 meters away from
the Surveyor III spacecraft as shown in Fig. 38.1. At the time, this distance
was thought to be sufficient to minimize the effects that blowing soil might
have upon the Surveyor spacecraft. The astronauts walked to the Surveyor,
inspected it and removed portions for analysis on Earth in order to learn
how the materials had been affected by the space environment (cosmic rays,
micrometeoroids, vacuum, etc.). An interesting feature of the Surveyor hard-
ware is that it had been sandblasted by a high-speed shower of sand and
dust particles during the LM’s landing [Jaffe, 1972]. The sandblasting cast
permanent “shadows” onto the materials and these shadows were math-
ematically triangulated to a location on the lunar surface directly beneath
the engine of the landed LM. Judging by the sharpness of the shadows and
the lack of curvature allowable for the particles to fit the trajectory, inves-
tigators concluded that the particles must have been moving in excess of
100 m/s. Additional to this general scouring of the surface, there were dis-
crete micro-crates or divots peppering its surface. Presumably the overall
scouring was due to the large number of dust particles while the divots
were due to the much smaller number of larger soil particles. Brownlee et al.
[1972] studied the morphology of the resulting microscopic divots on the
Surveyor’s camera glass and estimated the particles were traveling between
Figure 38.1
Pete Conrad at Surveyor III with Apollo 12 LM.
300 and 2000 m/s. The authors have roughly estimated from the published
reports and from the several boxes of engineering logbooks and documents
at the lunar curation building at NASA’s Johnson Space Center that there
were on the order of 1.4 divots/cm2 on the side of the Surveyor camera cover
facing the LM. Also, the Surveyor hardware had been injected by dust and
sand particles that were blown into the tiny crevices and openings [Benson
et al., 1972].
During the Apollo 15 landing, the crew reported that the blowing dust
was visible from 46 m altitude and that from 18 m down the blanket of dust
blowing across the field of view became so opaque that the landing had to
be accomplished with zero visibility of the surface [Mitchell et al., 1972a].
On the other Apollo landings the visibility was not as bad [Mitchell et al.,
1972b, Mitchell et al., 1973]. At footpad contact the LM rocked backward
approximately 11 degrees from vertical before coming to rest [McDivitt
et al., 1971], as shown in Fig. 38.2. One of the astronauts exclaimed “bam”
over the radio coincident with the second contact event that terminated
the backward rocking motion. It turns out that the LM had landed on the
rim of a broad, shallow crater with two of its legs suspended in space over
the crater and the other two legs resting on the soil outside the crater. It
rocked backwards and to the left into the crater until three of the four
legs were making contact with the soil, with the remaining leg of the LM
Figure 38.2
Apollo 15 LM tilted backwards 11 degrees into a shallow crater.
(the front leg, which was outside the crater) bearing no weight. The crater
had not been visible to the astronauts during landing in part because it
was shallow and hence inadequately shadowed in the center, and in part
because the dense blanket of dust that was blowing over obscured it as
illustrated by Fig. 38.3. As a result, the crew was not able to steer the LM
past the crater to avoid the landing hazard. The resulting tilt angle of the
LM was not so severe that it prevented successful completion of the mis-
sion, but it illustrates the potential problem of terrain features hidden by
the dust.
The Apollo 12 experience illustrates that blowing material can damage
nearby hardware. The Apollo 15 experience illustrates that it can pose a haz-
ard to the lander, itself. In the context of the very successful Apollo program,
these two situations were minor considerations to the respective missions
and should not be exaggerated. In the context of returning to the Moon with
Figure 38.3
View from Apollo 15 LM descent imager camera, with distorted shadow of LM leg, footpad
and soil contact probe draped across the blowing dust cloud (from the top center of the figure
and pointing downward). Surface terrain features are not visible beneath the blowing dust.
multiple landings in the vicinity of a lunar outpost, they serve very usefully
as case studies of the plume-soil interactions. From these measured effects, it
is possible to calibrate a model of blowing soil and to gauge how much dam-
age will be caused by future rockets as they launch and land in the vicinity
of other hardware on the Moon.
To quantify the damage that may occur to surrounding hardware, it is
crucial to quantify the erosion rate and total quantity of ejected soil. The esti-
mates from the Apollo program did not agree with one another. One method
to estimate the erosion rate was to first perform small scale experiments in
vacuum chambers and measure the erosion rate [Clark and Land, 1963; Land
and Clark, 1965; Land and Conner, 1967; Land and Scholl, 1969]. Then, Mason
and Nordmeyer [1969] derived an empirical law for the erosion rate based
upon these experiments, but calibrating the unknown effects of the lunar
environment by the volume of the putative crater formed under the nozzle
of vernier engine number three on the Surveyor V spacecraft, as seen in pho-
tographic images taken by that spacecraft. Mason [1970] used this erosion
rate with the actual descent trajectory of the Apollo 11 spacecraft to calcu-
late the expected soil erosion beneath the LM, and estimated that the crater
depth would be in the range 1.3–2.0 cm (reported as 0.5–0.8 in.) and that the
eroded volume would be in the range 36–57 liters (reported as 2200–3500 cu
in.). A vastly higher erosion volume was estimated by R. F. Scott [1975] for
Apollo 12 based on the number of particles required per square centime-
ter to scrub permanent shadows into the surface of the Surveyor III. Based
on several assumptions, Scott estimated a removed soil depth of 18–25 cm
(reported as 7–10 in.) over a radius of 2.3 m (reported as a diameter of 15 feet).
The details of the calculation are not provided, but if he had assumed a
conical crater shape, then this would represent a total eroded volume of
973–1390 liters, and if a cylindrical crater shape then this would represent
1460–2080 liters. A sphere-section crater shape would be intermediate to the
cone and cylinder. Scott’s smallest possible estimate of total erosion volume
was 57 times greater than Mason’s largest estimate. This cannot be attributed
merely to differences in the landing zone soils or the trajectories of the two
missions, so we must conclude that one or both estimates are not accurate.
In both cases, the depth of soil removal was small compared to the natural
terrain variations so that it would not be possible to identify a broadly taper-
ing crater superimposed upon that terrain. Thus, it is not possible to directly
measure its volume for any particular mission. Another comparison comes
from Apollo 14 where a distinct, localized erosion crater was found near the
nozzle of the landed LM, but it was probably due to a localized enhancement
of the erosion rate where the LM’s soil contact probe had penetrated and bro-
ken up the hard-packed surface. The volume of that localized crater was esti-
mated to be 440 liters [Katzan and Edwards, 1991], and does not include any
eroded soil over the broader region around the LM, so it does not provide an
estimate of the natural erosion rate apart from the mechanical disturbance of
the contact probe in this one case.
Another critical parameter to quantify is the ejection angle of the soil, because
this will determine whether the soil will miss the surrounding hardware by
flying over it or whether the soil can be blocked with a modest berm built by
piling lunar soil around the landing zone. There was no clear consensus in
the prior literature as to what determines the ejection angle. Roberts [1963a;
1963b; 1964; 1966] had assumed that aerodynamic forces do not significantly
affect the ejection angle, so that the soil is ejected at the same angle as the
local terrain slope, which acts as a ballistic ramp. Thus, the large and small
particles will all be ejected into the same angle. However, we have observed
in the Apollo videos that the dust blowing out from meter-scale impact craters
on the lunar surface are ejected at an angle that modulates up or down coinci-
dent with the LM increasing and decreasing its thrust, and this indicates that
the aerodynamics are a controlling factor and cannot be neglected. The scaled
experiments discussed above did not measure ejection angles. A report on the
conceptual design of a lunar base [Phillips et al., 1988; Phillips et al., 1992] used
a plume flowfield calculated for free space [Alred, 1983], ignoring the presence
of the lunar surface. This method ignores the all-important horizontal flow
that develops across the lunar surface beneath the standoff shockwave and
therefore cannot produce correct results.
This brief review indicates that neither the mass erosion rate nor the ejec-
tion angles have been adequately determined. The following sections of this
paper describe additional methods to constrain these parameters.
Theoretical Background
Prior to each of the Surveyor, Apollo and Viking programs, NASA under-
took a series of investigations to understand and quantify some of these
physical phenomena to help ensure mission success. These studies discov-
ered that the gas-soil erosion processes under a supersonic jet can be a com-
plex set of solid/fluid interactions, depending upon the specific conditions
of the jet and soil. To this day parts of the physics have not been accurately
described or explained. Even a very basic, qualitative physical explanation
has been lacking until recently for some aspects of a jet-induced cratering
event. During the Apollo and Viking missions it was not necessary to fully
understand these phenomena because the spacecraft engines were designed
to prevent the most energetic of these processes from occurring. That is, the
pressure developed upon the Lunar or Martian regoliths in the stagnation
region of the impinging jets was kept sufficiently low to prevent the bear-
ing capacity failure of the soil which otherwise may have occurred. This
was possible in the lunar landings because the small mass of the LMs and
the weak lunar gravity made it possible to use a lower thrust and because
the unweathered lunar soil is very compacted with extremely high shear
strength and very low gas permeability [Carrier et al., 1991]. However, the
lunar regolith has a very loose layer of surface material (dust and sand-sized
particles), just a few centimeters thick, and so the surface erosion of this loose
material appears to be the primary effect in these landings.
Roberts [1963a; 1963b; 1964; 1966] developed a theory of this viscous erosion
(VE) mechanism for lunar dust. His method was adopted by J. S. Dohnanyi
[1966] to apply to the design of the LM engines. Roberts derived a set of equa-
tions which calculate the shear stresses on a flat, dust-covered surface, and
calculated the quantity of material which would be entrained into the gas
flow as a function of radial distance from the center of the plume. The region
of maximum shear stress turned out to be a ring some distance out from the
center of the exhaust because the gas velocity (v) increases radially while
its density (ρ) decreases into the lunar vacuum and thus the dynamic pres-
sure (ρv2/2) is a maximum at some finite radius. Hutton [1968] compared the
theory to the small-scale experiments in vacuum chambers by Clark et al.,
cited above, and found only limited correlation. We believe that this is partly
because of the simplifications in Roberts’ theory, but also partly because the
experiments did not adequately simulate the lunar conditions. For example,
Roberts’ erosion rate equation omits the effect of particles eroded upstream in
the flow upon the erosion rate of soil downstream in the flow. This is a good
approximation only when the erosion processes occur over a small distance
relative to the length scale of the flow field, but in the small scale experi-
ments the flow field is very small and so this approximation is not appropri-
ate. Furthermore, the volumetric erosion rate was so high in the experiments
compared to the lunar case that the shape of the surface changed dramati-
cally during the test, whereas Roberts assumed a flat surface.
Few studies have been done on the other exhaust cratering mechanisms
besides VE. One such experimental study was performed by Alexander
et al. [1966]. This study discussed VE but focused primarily upon bearing
capacity failure (BCF) as a cratering mechanism, in that the stagnation pres-
sure of gas directly beneath a jet may exceed the bearing capacity of the soil
and mechanically push it downward, forming a crater under the jet. Cold
gas jets and hot engine firings were used to create craters in sand and clay,
and the resulting craters were measured for various dimensions. The data
were compared to identify significant parameters and scaling relationships.
The authors developed several methods to predict the approximate crater
dimensions, including (1) an analogy to the classic cone penetrator test, (2) a
refinement of the cone penetration model in which the diffusion of gas into
the soil is assumed to have reached steady state to weaken the soil accord-
ing to Terzaghi’s effective stress hypothesis, (3) a purely elastic model of
the sand to provide an order-of-magnitude estimate of the width of sand
that would fail and be removed in the initial crater formation, and (4) a
yield-strength analysis using the equations of soil mechanics to calculate
the stresses as a function of distance beneath a point load to estimate crater
depth. The experimental methods did not provide a direct view beneath the
surface during or after the BCF event, so the major features of these models
were untested.
Another study in this Apollo era by Scott and Ko [1968] identified the dif-
fused gas eruption (DGE) mechanism. Whereas Alexander et al. were con-
cerned only with how gas diffusion enhanced the BCF mechanism, Scott
and Ko treated the gas diffusion as a distinct soil-moving mechanism in
its own right. They fired rocket motors into soil and observed the results
with a high-speed video camera. They discovered that radial diffusion of
pressure could eventually blow out a toroidal region around the exhaust jet.
This occurred because the high pressure gas diffusing into the soil beneath
the engine would diffuse radially outwardly from the jet until the pressure
of gas beneath the surface at some radial distance was sufficient to lift the
overlying column of soil. They also found that when the rocket was shut off a
spike of soil could blow up the center of the rocket nozzle as the gases quickly
diffused back out from the soil. The investigators modeled these effects with
a numerical, finite-difference algorithm. The model successfully predicted
the DGE in the toroidal region during jet firing and also in the central region
after jet cutoff. Hon-Yim Ko [1971] provided an improved analysis of how gas
diffusion enhances BCF. That paper is presently inaccessible to the authors.
Apparently, it describes a finite element program to analyze both gas diffu-
sion and BCF, but the program did not produce sufficiently accurate results
due to the limited computing capabilities available at the time.
During the lead-up to the Viking landings on Mars, a series of papers were
authored with the interest in avoiding BCF altogether and keeping DGE to
levels that could be safely ignored. In contrast to the lunar case, the thin
Martian atmosphere will collimate rocket exhausts [Foreman, 1967] and
focus the stagnation pressure onto a small portion of the regolith. Roberts’
model therefore needed to be modified before it could be applied to Mars.
Clark [1970] tested a scaled Viking lander in a 60-foot vacuum sphere, paying
special attention to the cant angle of the nozzles on the multi-engine lander.
Another Viking study [Romine et al. 1973] addressed exhaust cratering both
theoretically and experimentally, showing that a conventional bell nozzle
would affect the surface too much beneath the lander and making a num-
ber of significant contributions to our understanding of the physics. Finally,
Hutton et al. [1980] described the observed disturbances that were actually
caused by the Viking retro-rockets landing on Mars. These Mars studies pro-
vide some physical intuition of the physics for the lunar case, but cannot be
directly applied to it due to the environmental differences.
To summarize, the investigations supporting the Apollo and Viking pro-
grams determined that there are several physical mechanisms of interaction
between gas jets and soil. The identified mechanisms were viscous erosion
(VE), diffused gas eruption (DGE), and bearing capacity failure (BCF). These
will occur in varying proportions depending upon the particular conditions
of the soil and the jet. Roberts’ theory assumed implicitly that VE is the only
mechanism capable of moving soil during the lunar landing. Experience
Figure 38.4
Area under Apollo 12 LM engine nozzle showing how surface has been “swept clean” of loose
material. The narrow trench in the upper left part of picture was dug by the soil contact probe
as it dragged beneath the descending LM.
shows that bearing capacity failure did not occur under the exhaust plumes
in the Apollo program. Probably the bearing capacity of the lunar soil was
sufficient to resist cratering because of its very high internal friction and its
relatively low gas permeability. The area under the nozzle in each mission
had a “swept clean” appearance as shown in Fig. 38.4, missing the loose layer
of un-compacted soil and dust that was characteristic everywhere else on
the Moon.
Because the soil around the nozzle was so undisturbed, it is unlikely
that any DGE occurred after engine cutoff. On the landing videos, a thin,
dusty mist is visible for a few seconds after engine cutoff, and this probably
represents the entrainment of only very tiny dust particles as the regolith
depressurizes. In light of these things, it would seem that the looser surface
soil was swept away from beneath the nozzle but the deeper, more compacted
layers remained in place. Nevertheless, it is problematic to explain this by
Roberts’ theory, because the shear stress of the gas is zero at the stagnation
point under the center of the nozzle, and very low for a significant radius
around that point until at higher distances the gas velocity becomes suffi-
ciently high to move the soil. So what sweeps the soil away from the center-
line of a jet? Similarly, in loose sand, why is a jet-induced crater deepest in the
center where the gas velocity is zero? A simple test can show that a jet easily
forms a crater even when its dynamic pressure is far below the pressure that
the sand can support, and so BCF must not be the general explanation for the
motion of sand directly under a jet. This is relevant to predicting the erosion
rate of the Apollo missions since the combination of mechanisms that move
the soil may predict a different rate than Roberts’ theory, which assumes the
mechanism to be VE, alone.
Experiments of Cratering Mechanisms

To gain more insight into the physics, tests were performed at ambient pres-
sure with sand impinged normally by jets composed of different gases
(nitrogen, carbon dioxide, argon and helium) to provide variations in gas
density. The tests were performed with different exit velocities, different
nozzle heights above the sand, and with different sized sand grains. The tests
used two methods to identify soil behavior beneath the surface. In the first
method, a sandbox was prepared with horizontal layers of different colored
sand. A vertical jet was impinged upon the sandbox forming a vertical burst
of sand that left a shallow, residual crater on the surface. This was filled in
with black sand so that the crater would not slump while filling with epoxy
and to provide color contrast as a record of the crater shape. Optically clear
epoxy was diffused into the pore spaces of the sand and thermally cured so
that it could be cut in half to reveal the deformation of the layers beneath the
surface. The prediction from the model of Alexander, et al. was that the lay-
ers would be bent downward beneath the crater as they would be due to cone
penetration. However, we found that the sand was pulled upward along the
crater axis as shown in Fig. 38.5, quite the opposite of what we expected.
To explain this subsurface flow, the second test method performed the cra-
tering on the edge of the sandbox with a clear window to see into the subsur-
face during the test. The top edge of the box was beveled outwardly to bisect
the jet with minimal disturbance of the flow inside the sand, as shown in
Figure 38.6. Two regimes of gas-sand interaction were observed as a function
of jet velocity. For the higher velocity (but still subsonic) regime, the cratering
was seen to consist of a very deep, very narrow, cylindrical hole that bur-
rowed quickly to some (repeatable) depth and then abruptly stopped. While
the jet remained, the hole maintained its steep sides and sand was being
pulled up along the sides to deform the horizontal, colored layers of sand
upward along both sides of the hole. When the jet was extinguished, the nar-
row hole collapsed leaving only a broad, shallow crater at the surface with
slopes at the angle of repose. That dynamic is why the sand appeared to be
pulled upwards toward the center of the shallow crater when examining
the layers of sand after the test. The hole prior to collapse was much deeper
Figure 38.5
Cutaway view of sand layers (originally horizontal) as they were deformed beneath the surface
of a crater.
and narrower than previously recognized. The crater dimensions measured

by Alexander at al. [1966] were the conical, residual craters remaining at the
surface and did not describe the hole prior to termination of the jet. While
the jet was present, the motion of the sand exiting from the upper part of
this hole may be properly characterized as turbulent aggregative fluidization
Figure 38.6
Test apparatus with window at front of sandbox. The curved shape above the sand is the bev-
eled cutout in the window, intended to reduce the interference of the window with the gas jet
while yet blocking sand from falling in front of the box and thus obscuring the view.
[Grace and Bi, 1997]. Near the bottom of the hole no sand was entrained and
growth of the hold was entirely by motion of the bulk sand beneath the sur-
face of the crater. From the video images, we tracked individual particles in
the bulk to obtain the sand’s velocity field beneath its surface. The analysis
is described in detail by Metzger et al [2008a]. We found that sand flows in
a thick band that is tangential to the surface of the crater, dragging it away
from the tip of the hole so that the hole continues growing downward, and
then dragging it up the sides of the hole creating the upward deformation
of sand layers described above. This flow of sand is driven by the drag force
of the gas diffusing through the sand, which creates a sufficient body-force
distributed throughout the sand to setup a stress state that exceeds the soil’s
shear strength and initiates shearing. This mechanism of sand-gas interac-
tions had not been previously described in the literature and we are calling
it diffusion-driven shearing, or DDS. DDS differs from BCF because the sand
moves tangentially to the free surface of the crater, not perpendicularly away
from the surface as predicted by the BCF mechanism. DDS differs from VE
because, although both mechanisms move the particles tangentially to the
surface, DDS occurs in a thick band beneath the surface due to diffusive gas
flow, whereas VE occurs only along the top layer of grains due to the free
fluid flow in the boundary layer above the sand.
In the second regime of testing with slower jets of gas, the crater formed
in a broad, conical shape as shown in Figure 38.6. With sufficient dynamic
pressure of the gas the crater would also form a paraboloidal “inner” crater
at the bottom of the conical crater as shown in Figure 38.7. The inner crater
Figure 38.7
Crater formation with inner paraboloidal crater and outer conical crater.
was formed by the direct action of the jet whereas the outer conical crater
was the result of slope failure, avalanching sand down into the inner crater
and forming the outer slope at the angle of repose. The inner crater can be
understood as a transitional form of the cylindrical hole that would occur in
the faster-regime of cratering, described above. Diffusion-driven shearing
was observed to occur just in the very tip of the inner crater, whereas viscous
erosion was the predominant mechanism throughout the remainder of the
inner crater, rolling grains uphill until they reached the inner crater’s lip
where they went airborne. A software algorithm was developed to automati-
cally analyze the videos frame-by-frame throughout the duration of the tests
to extract crater shape and related parameters and to perform volume inte-
grals to calculate quantities of ejected sand. The analysis was complicated by
the fact that sand recirculates in the crater multiple times: the crater widens
and re-ingests sand deposits that had previously fallen around its perimeter;
and some of the sand falls directly back into the crater from the air. The wid-
ening crater captures and recirculates an increasing fraction of the ejected
sand, and this slows down the net growth rate. Compensating for this effect,
we find that the ejection of sand is actually at a constant rate throughout the
test [Metzger et al., 2008a]. Furthermore, it shows that erosion rate scales lin-
early with the dynamic pressure of the jet (ρv2/2), which is consistent with
the assumptions of Roberts’ theory. In these tests, erosion occurred at the
upper lip of the inner crater by VE. DDS only operated to deliver sand from
the bottom of the crater up to the sides where the gas velocity was nonzero.
The grains then rolled uphill under the increasing velocity of the jet to the
point where VE was occurring right at the lip of the inner crater. Similarly, in
a lunar landing, DDS may occur beneath the nozzle to assist in moving the
loose top layer of soil outwardly, and then grains may roll along the surface
to the regions of greater shear stress where lofting finally occurs. So VE may
not be the only mechanism involved in the process, but ultimately it will still
be VE that controls the rate of entrainment.
A fifth type of interaction between gas and soil has also been identified,
occurring only when a rocket engine is ignited over soil so that the imping-
ing gas sends a shockwave into the soil prior to the formation of the standoff
shock. This shockwave modifies the soil’s compaction as it passes through, as
well as possibly breaking cohesive bonds. This has been observed in recent
tests with solid rocket motors firing into a meter-deep sandbox [Metzger et
al., 2007]. In these tests it appears that orders-of-magnitude greater surface
erosion occurs during the transient impingement of the shockwave on the
sand. A similar effect occurs at the Space Shuttle launch pad when concrete
is excavated and blown out from the flame trench by the impinging shock
[Lane, 2004]. These shock effects did not occur in the Apollo lunar landings
because the stagnation pressure on the soil developed more gradually during
descent. This effect must be considered in the future if we launch spacecraft
directly from the lunar surface, unlike in Apollo where the descent stage was
left behind, shielding the soil.
Dust Ejection Angles in Apollo Landing Videos

During the Apollo landings, the descent imager camera was a film camera
mounted in the right-side window looking downward and forward from the
LM. The videos show not only the cloud of blowing dust but also the shadow
of the LM draped across that cloud as shown in Figure 38.3. From the dis-
tortion of the LM’s shadow it is possible to measure the shape of the cloud
and extract information about the ejection angle. To perform this analysis,
we worked with a computer model of the LM developed by Sullivan [2004].
We also took physical measurements of an LM remaining from the Apollo
program, located at the Kennedy Space Center. The three-dimensional mea-
surements were accomplished using a photogrammetry system developed
for the Space Shuttle Columbia investigation [Lane and Cox, 2007] in which a
photogrammetry cube with reference markings is placed in the field of view
and photographs are taken of the total scene from multiple perspectives.
Software developed for this system is used to interpret the set of images
three dimensionally and obtain measurements between pairs of points
throughout the scene. Based on these LM dimensions, a geometric analysis
of the shadows [Immer et al., 2008] indicates that the visible part of the dust
cloud is usually leaving the vicinity of the LM at an ejection angle less than
3 degrees, as shown in Table 38.1. Several measurements were obtainable for
most missions, depending on the number of usable images and the number
of points where the LM altitude was audibly announced by the crew dur-
ing the descent. For Apollo 12 the sun angle was too low to make measure-
ments. For Apollo 15 the dust angles were remarkably higher. Examining the
Table 38.1
Dust Ejection Angles Measured from LM Shadows
Mission Sun Angle Ejection Angle
11 10.8 2.3
2.3
12 5.1 —
14 10.3 2.5
2.7
15 12.2 7.8
7.2
11.8
16 11.9 1.0
1.4
1.4
17 13.0 2.0
1.6
landing terrain shows that the shallow crater beneath the cloud was prob-
ably responsible for this discrepancy, and in fact the high angle probably
represents the real ejection angle of the dust leaving from the sloped forward
bank of the crater. Since we lack a sufficient understanding of the erosion
physics to model the ejection angle from first principles, we have used these
empirical values for the subsequent modeling.
It should also be noted that in Apollo 15 the motion of the shadows in the
final seconds of landing indicate that a “blowout” event occurred in which
a high volume blast of soil was ejected at a much higher elevation angle.
Unfortunately, it is impossible to measure this steeper ejection angle since
the shadows are driven outside the field of view. Our best estimate, extrapo-
lating the velocity of the shadows beyond the field of view, indicates the soil
ejection angle was probably greater than 22 degrees for that brief moment.
We believe that landing on a leveled and/or artificially stabilized surface
may be required in the future if it is necessary to entirely eliminate these
blowout events in the vicinity of the lunar outpost.
Modified Roberts’ Model

To estimate the quantity and trajectories of soil and dust blown at the
Surveyor III spacecraft, we have modified Roberts’ model in the following
ways [Metzger et al., 2008b]. First, we have integrated the equations over a
realistic particle size distribution of lunar soil. To obtain an analytical form
for this distribution we have measured a quantity of the lunar soil simulant
JSC-1A using a Sci-Tec Fine Particle Analyzer to obtain very smooth statis-
tics of the particle count distribution as shown in Fig. 38.8. An exponential
decay fits the JSC-1A data sufficiently over the entire range above 10 microns.
It is uncertain whether JSC-1A is representative of real lunar soil below
10 microns, so we believe that this functional form is, for the present, an
adequate approximation over the entire range. The limits of integration over
this size distribution were obtained using Roberts’ equations. This predicts
that the eroded particle sizes will be between 1 μm and 1 mm, with smaller
particles being inseparable due to cohesion and larger particles being iner-
odible due to excessive mass relative to the aerodynamic forces. We have
evidence in the Apollo landing videos that much larger particles than 1 mm
are actually being eroded, and we suspect that Roberts’ model is incorrect
in this regard because it inadequately represents the aerodynamics forces
in the boundary layer along the lunar surface. Nevertheless, this will not
affect the estimate of the damage to the Surveyor because such large par-
ticles are relatively few and unless a remarkably large piece of gravel were
to strike the Surveyor they would represent only a minor fraction of the total
damage.
Number of Particles vs. ??

1000000
100000
10000
Particle Count
1000
100
10
1
0.00
0.04
0.08
0.12
0.16
0.20
0.24
0.28
0.32
0.36
0.39
0.43
Size (mm)
Figure 38.8
Number count distribution for JSC-1A particle sizes.
Second, we have replaced Roberts’ estimate of ejection angle (based on the

evolving crater shape of the soil) with a narrow distribution of angles clus-
tered around the empirically-determined values. Third, we have integrated
the resulting equations over the Apollo 12 LM descent trajectory as esti-
mated from voice callouts of altitude by the astronauts during the landing,
as shown in Fig. 38.9. An example of the soil flowfield predicted by the model
is shown in Fig. 38.10. The model predicts the velocity of the eroded particles
as a function of their size and of the LM altitude, as shown in Fig. 38.11.
The highest velocities (for the smallest particles) are close to lunar escape
velocity, 2.38 km/s. For example, a 10 μm particle may be blown at 1.9 km/s
when the LM is near touchdown, and at that velocity and with a 3 degree
ejection angle the trajectory will be as shown in Figure 38.12. This range
of velocities agrees with the observation of Apollo 11 mission commander
Neil Armstrong that the horizon became obscured by a tan haze [Armstrong
et al., 1969]. This indicates that dust had sufficient velocity that the ballistics
(with our empirically-measured 3 degree ejection angle) could take it beyond
the horizon. At 24 m, the altitude when dust blowing began, the ballistics
require a minimum velocity of 487 m/s. This is in the range of predicted
velocities for the dust. The model also predicts that there would have been
3.1 divots/cm2 on the Surveyor due to the landing LM. This compares to the
same order of magnitude as the estimated 1.4 divots/cm2 actually observed.
In fact, considering the many large sources of error in the modeling at pres-
ent, it must be admitted as coincidence that the comparison came out so well.
Nevertheless, we take it as evidence that the model is good to the correct
order of magnitude. The model also predicts that the total volume of soil
20
15
Height Above Surface (m)
10
0
40 30 20 10 0
Time Before Touch-down (s)
Figure 38.9
Apollo 12 LM descent trajectory.
Figure 38.10
Example of type of output presented by modified Roberts’ model, showing mass flux of blow-
ing soil in a 3D map.
2
h = 6 (m)
h = 2 (m)
1 h = 10 (m)
h = 14 (m)
Particle Velocity (km/s)
h = 18 (m)
0.1
0 100 200 300 400 500

D (µm)
Figure 38.11
Predicted particle velocities as a function of diameter for several LM altitudes.
Figure 38.12
(Thin Solid Line) Circumference of Moon. (Dashed) Altitude of orbiting Command Module,
for reference. (Arrow) landing site of LM. (Thick Solid Line) Trajectories of particles blown
forward and backward from LM at 3 degree ejection angle and 1.9 km/s velocity.
removed in the Apollo 12 landing was 787 liters, intermediate to the values
of Mason (36–57 liters) and Scott (1460–2080 liters, assuming Scott had used a
cylindrical crater shape). The model predicts the maximum radius of erosion
to be 7.57 m. Crudely estimating the erosion depth by assuming a conical
crater shape, we predict only 1.3 cm at the center. Our model predicts a much
wider erosion radius than the value used by Mason, and so despite the much
larger erosion volume our predicted depth comes out comparable to the val-
ues of Mason (1.3–2.0 cm).
Optical Density in Apollo Landing Videos

It is also possible to measure the optical density of the dust cloud in the land-
ing videos to extract information about the number of particles entrained in
the gas. The calculation was performed by measuring the brightness of the
image on a sunlit face of a rock and in its adjacent shadow, both when the
dust cloud is present and when there is a momentary clearing of the cloud
[Immer et al. 2008]. These four data points enable a calculation of the mass
density from Mie scattering,
− mg Ib ,2 ,λ (measured) − I s ,2 ,λ (measured)
ρ= ln (38.1)
πa 2Qλ s Ib ,1,λ (measured) − I s ,1,λ (measured)
where ρ is the mass density of the cloud, mg is the average mass of the dust
grains, πa2 is the average cross sectional area of the particles, s is the path-
length of the light passing from the sun through the cloud to the ground
and then back to the camera, Qλ is the extinction coefficient of the mineral,
assumed here to be unity for sufficiently large dust grains, and the four val-
ues of Iλ are the measured intensity of the image for the four cases, with the
additional subscripts b or s representing “bright” and “shade” and 1 or 2 rep-
resenting “without” or “with” the dust cloud, respectively. This calculation
estimates that there are on order of 108 particles/m3 entrained in the cloud.
This compares poorly with the modified Roberts’ model describe above,
which predicts only 106 particles/m3, an error of two orders of magnitude.
The underestimation of the Roberts’ model is not hard to understand.
The optical density is controlled primarily by the smallest erodible particle
size, because the most surface area in the cloud is due to the smallest par-
ticles, which are more numerous and have the greatest area-to-mass ratio.
The cohesion of lunar soil is still one of its least understood characteristics,
and so Roberts’ model made crude assumptions about the cohesive forces
that would prevent the smallest particles from separating. A small error in
that assumption produces a large error in optical density without greatly
affecting the predicted number of divots (caused by the larger particles) or

the total mass of eroded soil. In his final paper on the topic, Roberts [1964]
wrote,
…there is negligible loss of visibility until the vehicle descends to this

altitude [i.e., 20 feet, or 6m]; below 20 feet [6m], downward visibility may
be reduced but lateral visibility will not be affected.
In contrast, the Apollo 12 mission report and crew debriefing say the
following:
On Apollo 12 the landing was essentially blind for approximately the
last 40 feet. [McDivitt, 1970]
...the dust went as far as I [Pete Conrad] could see in any direction and
completely obliterated craters and anything else. All I knew was there
was ground underneath that dust. I had no problem with the dust, deter-
mining horizontal or lateral velocities, but I couldn’t tell what was under-
neath me. I knew I was in a generally good area and I was just going to
have to bite the bullet and land, because I couldn’t tell whether there
was a crater down there or not.... [After landing] it turned out there were
more craters around there than we realized, either because we didn’t
look before the dust started or because the dust obscured them. [Conrad
et al., 1969]
So it is not surprising that the measurement of optical density is a few orders

of magnitude different than Roberts’ predictions that were made with inad-
equate information on the cohesive forces.
Discussion
To-date, the best method for predicting the erosion rate of soil is still based
on Roberts’ method. Scott’s calculation based on the total surface scouring of
the Surveyor (rather than its divot count) assumed particles much larger than
the dust fraction present in the soil, and thus overestimated the erosion rate.
Mason’s estimate was an order of magnitude smaller than ours and there-
fore does not agree well with the divot count on Surveyor III. We suggest
that the use of small-scale testing in Mason’s estimate may have contributed
some error to the prediction. Much progress has been made in understand-
ing granular media in the past several decades, and it is generally under-
stood that granular phenomena are often unscalable. That is because, unlike
ordinary fluids where the size of the molecules is irrelevant, the size of the
sand grains is an important length-scale in the physics and so keeping all
the important non-dimensional parameters constant requires the testing to
be done only at full scale. For example, in the testing by Clark et al. discussed
above, the Knudsen number was not kept constant, although it is important
in determining the drag forces on the sand and thus the erosion rate. Also,
the length scale of the diffused gas pressure field (e.g., the pressure divided
by its own gradient) was not addressed in the small scale tests, although it is
important in DDS to determine whether the soil will shear and form a deep
crater (as seen in the small scale testing but not in the Apollo landings).
Roberts’ method works from first-principles, assuming that the shear stress
in the gas is exactly consumed by the change in momentum of the eroding
soil, so that the erosion rate self-adjusts to the shear stress. To be more accu-
rate, future modeling will need to account for the increasing shear strength
of the soil with depth due to increasing soil compaction with depth [Mitchell
et al., 1974]. It should account for the physical processes directly under the
nozzle that push soil out to the annular region where VE occurs, since this
soil will be uncompacted in contrast to the undisturbed soil in that region. It
should also improve the model of aerodynamic forces on the particles. They
are not well-understood in part because the structure of the boundary layer
has not been characterized well for this supersonic, highly rarefied flow, and
because the lift and drag coefficients around a tiny particle under the same
conditions have not been studied in detail. Furthermore, the nature of turbu-
lence and its effects in dispersing particles upward through this boundary
layer are not well-known. Finally, the role of particle collisions in dispersing
the dust cloud vertically and in transferring momentum between smaller
and larger particles has not been determined. Preliminary modeling has
been performed with Lagrangian calculation of the individual particle tra-
jectories decoupled from an Eulerian calculation of the gas flow field [Lane
et al. 2008, Lumpkin et al. 2007]. The results suggest that particle dispersion
by turbulence and/or particle collisions is probably important because lift
and drag alone are inadequate to explain the particle dynamics observed
in the landing videos. For these reasons, we cannot yet predict the erosion
rate with an expectation of accuracy, and neither can we predict the ejection
angles as a function of particle size from first principles. It is quite likely that
larger and smaller particles will be segregated into different ejection angles
in this process (as suggested by preliminary modeling). Unfortunately, the
measurement of ejection angles from the landing videos only tells us about
the finest particles that have the greatest optical density. We do not know if
the larger particles, say 100 microns and larger, go into a higher trajectory
(as some preliminary simulations suggest). This is important because it was
the larger particles that caused the divots in the Surveyor III, while the finer
particles were responsible for scrubbing permanent shadows into its finish.
Despite these uncertainties, the work to-date suggests that a berm built out
of lunar soil around the landing site may be highly effective at mitigating
the damage to surrounding hardware. The berm could easily be built high
enough to stop a 3 degree ejection angle of fine particles, and the large par-
ticles will be going sufficiently fast that even if they fly over the berm then
they should pass right over the outpost, as well. The only concern would be
the largest particles, such as gravel or small rocks, which might fly with suf-
ficiently low velocities that they could be lofted over the berm and then arc
downward to strike the outpost that is behind it. Further work is required to
determine the maximum size particle that can be lofted, which is still uncer-
tain as long as the aerodynamic forces are uncertain.
In order to support future lunar operations, a physics-based numerical
model is being developed to incorporate all the known mechanisms of gas-
soil interactions. If the unknown aspects of the physics are sufficiently char-
acterized, and if the model is properly coded, then it will seamlessly predict
all the mechanisms that may occur for the larger and multi-engine landers
that may be used in the future, as a function of the propulsion system, trajec-
tory, and soil characteristics.

Our present understanding of lunar plume effects is based on a synthesis of
the astronaut observations, measured Surveyor III effects, analysis of Apollo
videos and photographs, terrestrial experiments, and simulations of the
physics. This synthesis demonstrates rough consistency between the various
sources of knowledge. Some of the older methods developed to predict this
problem (some of which were not reviewed here) are not adequate because
they over- or under-predict the quantity of blown soil and predict incorrect
ejection angles. More work is needed to be able to predict these things entirely
from first principles. Left unchecked, the spray of soil will cause unaccept-
able effects upon the hardware and materials in the vicinity of the lunar out-
post. The particles travel at such high velocity that it is not possible to get
far enough away from the spray to prevent these effects. Because of the low
ejection angle for most of this spray, it seems feasible to use a berm or other
physical obstruction to block most of the material.
References
Alexander, J. D., W. M. Roberds, and R. F. Scott [1966], “Soil Erosion by Landing
Rockets,” Contract NAS9-4825, Hayes International Corp., Birmingham, AL.
Alred, J. W. [1983], “Flowfield Description for the Reaction Control System of the
Space Shuttle Orbiter,” AIAA-83-1548, Proc. of AIAA 18th Thermophysics
Conference, Montreal, Quebec.
Armstrong, N.A., M. Collins, and E.E. Aldrin [1969], “Apollo 11 Technical Crew
Debriefing,” Vol. 1, NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX, pp. 9.27 1 9.29.
Benson, R. E., et al. [1970]. “Preliminary Results from Surveyor 3 Analysis” in Apollo
12 Preliminary Science Report, NASA, Washington, DC, p. 219.
Brownlee, D., W. Bucher, and P. Hodge [1972], “Part A. Primary and secondary
micrometeoroid impact rate on the lunar surface: a direct measurement,” in
Analysis of Surveyor 3 material and photographs returned by Apollo 12, NASA,
Washington, DC, pp 143–150.
Carrier, W.D., III, G.R. Olhoeft and W. Mendell [1991], “Physical Properties of the
Lunar Surface,” in Lunar Sourcebook, A User’s Guide to the Moon (G. H.
Heiken, D.T. Vaniman and B.M. French, eds.), Cambridge University Press,
Melbourne, Australia, pp. 475–594.
Clark, L.V. and N.S. Land [1963], “Dynamic Penetration and Erosion of Dust-Like
Materials in a Vacuum Environment,” A Compilation of Recent Research
Related to the Apollo Mission, NASA Langley Research Center , Hampton, VA,
pp. 145–154.
Clark, L.V. [1970], “Effect of Retrorocket Cant Angle on Ground Erosion–a Scaled
Viking Study,” TM X-2075, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA.
Conrad, C., R.F. Gordon, Jr., and A.L. Bean [1969], Apollo 12 Technical Crew Debriefing,
NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX, Vol. 1, pp. 9.11–9.12.
Dohnanyi, J. S. [1966], “Remark on the Rocket Plume–Lunar Surface Erosion Problem,”
TM-66-1011-2, Bellcomm, Washington, DC.
Foreman, K. M. [1967], “The Interaction of a Retro-Rocket Exhaust Plume with the
Martian Environment,” Grumman Res. Dept. Memorandum RM-354, Grumman
Aircraft Engineering Corp., Bethpage, NY.
Grace, J.R. and H. Bi [1997], ”Introduction to circulating fluidized beds,” in Circulating
Fluidized Beds (J.R. Grace, A.A. Avidan, and T.M. Knowlton, eds.), Blackie
Academic and Professional, New York, NY.
Hutton, R.E. [1968], “Comparison of Soil Erosion Theory with Scaled LM Jet Erosion
Tests,” NASA-CR-66704, TRW Systems Group, Redondo Beach, CA.
Hutton, R.E., H.J. Moore, R.F. Scott, R.W. Shorthill, and C.R. Spitzer [1980], “Surface
Erosion Caused on Mars from Viking Descent Engine Plume,” The Moon and
the Planets, Vol. 23, pp. 293–305.
Immer, C.D., P.T. Metzger, and J.E. Lane [2008], “Apollo Video Photogrammetry
Estimation of Plume Impingement Effects,” Earth and Space 2008, 11th
Biennial ASCE Aerospace Division International Conference on Engineering,
Construction and Operations in Challenging Environments, Long Beach, CA.
Jaffe, L. D. [1972], “Part I. Blowing of Lunar Soil by Apollo 12: Surveyor 3 Evidence,”
in Analysis of Surveyor 3 material and photographs returned by Apollo 12,
SP-284, NASA, Washington DC, pp 94-96.
Katzan, C.M. and J.L. Edwards [1991], “Lunar Dust Transport and Potential
Interactions With Power System Components,” NASA Contractor Report 4404,
Sverdrup Technology, Brook Park, OH, pp. 8–22.
Ko, H.-Y. [1971]: “Soil Properties Study,” Viking Project Report VER-181, Martin
Marietta Corp, Denver, CO.
Land, N.S. and L.V. Clark [1965], “Experimental Investigation of Jet Impingement
on Surfaces of Fine Particles in a Vacuum Environment,” TN-D-2633, NASA
Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA.
Land, N.S. and W. Conner [1967]. “Laboratory Simulation of Lunar Surface Erosion
by Rockets,” Institute of Environmental Sciences 13th Annual Technical Meeting
Proceedings, Vol. 1, Washington, DC.
Land, N.S., and H.F. Scholl [1966], “Scaled Lunar Module Jet Erosion Experiments,”
TN-D-5051, NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA.
Lane, J.E. [2004], “Ground Camera Photogrammetry 3D Debris Trajectory Analysis,”
ASRC Aerospace, Kennedy Space Center, FL.
Lane, J.E. and R.B. Cox [2007], “Digital Image Inspection for Spacecraft Processing,”
ASRC Aerospace, Kennedy Space Center, FL.
Lane, J.E., P.T. Metzger, and C.D. Immer [2008], “Lagrangian trajectory modeling
of lunar dust particles,” Earth and Space 2008, 11th Biennial ASCE Aerospace
Division International Conference on Engineering, Construction and Operations
in Challenging Environments, Long Beach, CA.
Lumpkin, F., J. Marichalar, A. Piplica (2007), “Plume Impingement to the Lunar
Surface: A Challenging Problem for DSMC,” in Direct Simulation Monte Carlo
Theory, Methods & Applications, Santa Fe, NM.
Mason, C.C. [1970], “Comparison of Actual versus Predicted Lunar Surface Erosion
Caused by Apollo 11 Descent Engine,” Geological Society of America Bulletin,
Vol. 81, pp. 1807–1812.
Mason, C.C. and E.F. Nordmeyer [1969], “An empirically derived erosion law and its
application to lunar module landing,” Geological Society of America Bulletin,
Vol. 80, pp. 1783–1788.
McDivitt, J.A., et al [1970], “Apollo 12 Mission Report”, MSC-01855, NASA Johnson
Space Center, Houston, TX, sect. 6.1.3.
McDivitt, J.A., et al [1971], “Apollo 15 Mission Report”, MSC-05161, NASA Johnson
Space Center, Houston, TX, pp. 62–63.
Metzger, P.T., B.T. Vu, D.E. Taylor, M.J. Kromann, M. Fuchs, B. Yurko, A. Dokos,
C.D. Immer, J.E. Lane, M.B. Dunkel, C.M. Donahue, and R.C. Latta, III, [2007],
“Cratering of Soil by Impinging Jets of Gas, with Application to Landing
Rockets on Planetary Surfaces,” Proceedings of the 18th Engineering Mechanics
Division Conference, Blacksburg, VA.
Metzger, P.T., C.D. Immer, C.M. Donahue, B.T. Vu, R.C. Latta, III, M. Deyo-Svendsen,
[2008a], “Jet-induced cratering of a granular surface with application to lunar
spaceports,” J. Aerospace Engineering (accepted for publication).
Metzger, P.T., J.E. Lane, and C.D. Immer [2008b], “Modification of Roberts’ theory
for rocket exhaust plumes eroding lunar soil,” Earth and Space 2008, 11th
Biennial ASCE Aerospace Division International Conference on Engineering,
Construction and Operations in Challenging Environments, Long Beach, CA.
Mitchell, J.K., L.G. Bromwell, W.D. Carrier, III, N.C. Costes, W.N. Houston, R. F. Scott,
H.J. Hovland [1972a], “Soil mechanics experiment”, in Apollo 15 Preliminary
Science Report, NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX.
Mitchell, J.K., W.D. Carrier, III, W.N. Houston, R. F. Scott, L.G. Bromwell, H.T.
Durgunoglu, H.J. Hovland, D.D. Treadwell, and N.C. Costes [1972b], “Soil
mechanics experiment”, in Apollo 16 Preliminary Science Report, NASA
Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX.
Mitchell, J.K., W.D. Carrier, III, N.C. Costes, W.N. Houston, R. F. Scott, H.J. Hovland
[1973], “Soil mechanics; characteristics of lunar soil from Apollo 17 flight lunar
landing site”, in Apollo 17 Preliminary Science Report, NASA Johnson Space
Center, Houston, TX.
Mitchell, J.K., W.N. Houston, W.D. Carrier, III, N.C. Costes [1974], “Apollo Soil
Mechanics Experiment S-200,” NASA contract NAS9-11266, Space Sciences
Laboratory Series 15, No. 7, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
Phillips, P.G., et al [1988], “Lunar Base Launch and Landing Facility Conceptual Design,”
NASA contract NAS9-17878, EEI Report 88-178, Eagle Engineering, Webster, TX.
Phillips, P.G., Charles H. Simonds, and William R. Stump [1992], “Lunar Base Launch
and Landing Facilities Conceptual Design,” in The Second Conference on Lunar
Bases and Space Activities of the 21st Century (W.W. Mendell, ed.), NASA
Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX, Vol. 1, pp. 139–151.
Roberts, L. [1963a], “The Action of a Hypersonic Jet on a Dust Layer,” IAS Paper No.
63-50, Institute of Aerospace Sciences 31st Annual Meeting, New York, NY.
Roberts, L. [1963b], “Visibility and Dust Erosion During the Lunar Landing,” in A
Compilation of Recent Research Related to the Apollo Mission, NASA Langley
Research Center, Hampton, VA, pp. 155–170.
Roberts, L. [1964], “Exhaust Jet—Dust Layer Interaction During a Lunar Landing,”
XIIIth International Astronautical Congress Varna 1962 Proceedings, Springer-
Verlag, New York, NY, pp. 21–37.
Roberts, L. [1966], “The Interaction of a Rocket Exhaust with the Lunar Surface,”
in The Fluid Dynamic Aspects of Space Flight, Gordon and Breach Science
Publishers, New York, NY, Vol. 2, pp. 269–290.
Romine, G.L., T.D. Reisert, and J. Gliozzi [1973]. “Site Alteration Effects from Rocket
Exhaust Impingement During a Simulated Viking Mars Landing. Part I–Nozzle
Development and Physical Site Alteration,” NASA CR-2252, Martin Marietta
Corporation, Denver CO.
Schmalzer, P.A., S.R. Boyle, P. Hall, D.M. Oddy, M.A. Hensley, E.D. Stolen, and B.W.
Duncan [1998], “Monitoring Direct Effects of Delta, Atlas, and Titan Launches
from Cape Canaveral Air Station,” NASA TM-1998-207912.
Scott, R.F. [1975], “Apollo Program Soil Mechanics Experiment: Final Report”, NASA
CR-1444335, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA.
Scott, R.F., and H.-Y. Ko [1968], “Transient Rocket-Engine Gas Flow in Soil,” AIAA
Journal, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 258–264.
Sullivan, S. P. [2004]. Virtual LM: a pictorial essay of the engineering and construc-
tion of the Apollo lunar module, the historic spacecraft that landed man on the
moon. Apogee Books, Burlington, Ontario.
39
Lunar Habitats Protection Against
Meteoroid Impact Damage
William P. Schonberg
Civil, Architectural, and Environmental
Engineering Department
Missouri University of Science and Technology
Rolla, Missouri
R. Putzar
Fraunhofer Institute for High-Speed Dynamics
Ernt Mach Institute
Freiburg, Germany
F. Schäfer
Fraunhofer Institute for High-Speed Dynamics
Ernt Mach Institute
Freiburg, Germany
William P. Schonberg, PE, is professor and chair of the Civil, Architectural,

and Environmental Engineering Department at the Missouri University of
Science and Technology (formerly known as the University of Missouri-
Rolla). Dr. Schonberg has over 20 years teaching and research experience in
the areas of shock physics, spacecraft protection, hypervelocity impact, and
penetration mechanics. He received his BSCE from Princeton University in
1981, and his MS and PhD degrees from Northwestern University in 1982
and 1986, respectively. The results of his research have been applied to a wide
variety of engineering problems, including the development of orbital debris
protection systems for spacecraft in low Earth orbit, kinetic energy weapons,
the collapse of buildings under explosive loads, insensitive munitions, and
aging aircraft. Since 1986, Dr. Schonberg has published over 60 papers in ref-
ereed journals on these topics, and has presented nearly 60 papers at a broad
spectrum of international scientific and professional meetings, including
several invited papers. In 1995 Dr. Schonberg received the AIAA’s Lawrence
Sperry Award for his work on the design of spacecraft protection systems.
In 1998, Dr. Schonberg was promoted to the membership rank of Associate
Fellow in the AIAA and in 2000 was selected to receive the Charles Beecher
Prize for one of his recent papers on orbital debris protection systems from
577
the Aerospace Sciences Division of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers in

England. In 2004 and 2005 he was promoted to the member rank of Fellow
of the American Society of Civil Engineers and the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers, respectively. In 2009 he was asked to join another
NASA Independent V&V Committee to review the MMOD risk assess-
ment process for NASA’s new Constellation program. In 2007 Dr. Schonberg
received a Friedrich Wilhelm Bessel Research Award from the Humboldt
Foundation in Germany. This award enabled him to spend 7 months at the
Fraunhofer Ernst Mach Institute in Freiburg, Germany working on advanced
MMOD protection systems for satellites and developing preliminary designs
for safe lunar habitats using in-situ materials for protection against meteor-
oid impacts.
Abstract The establishment of human habitats on the Moon and on

Mars will require protecting them from the hazards of near-Earth and
interplanetary space. In addition to solar radiation, another hazard to be
faced by these habitats is the damage that can result from the high speed
impact of a meteoroid on a critical structural component. Therefore, lunar
habitats and their accompanying support facilities need to be designed
with adequate levels of protection that will allow them to also withstand
the damage that can result from a meteoroid impact. In this paper we dis-
cuss some approaches to shielding for lunar habitats, focusing on shielding
that is intended primarily to provide protection against meteoroid impacts
and on shielding approaches that use resources mined or extracted from
the Moon. The Moon’s mineralogy is discussed, and suggestions are pre-
sented for materials and material combinations that can be used to develop
shielding for lunar habitats and which are comprised primarily or entirely
of lunar materials. Several shielding mechanisms are also presented that
could be effective against impacts by meteoroid particles having diameters
on the order of that which are likely to strike a fairly large lunar habitat at
least one or two times per year. The paper concludes with recommendations
for continuing work in optimizing the design of meteoroid shielding for
lunar habitats.
Introduction
The space-faring nations of the Earth are embarking on programs of space
travel that we believe will ultimately lead to colonization of the Moon, Mars,
and places beyond. The establishment of human habitats on such locations
will require protecting them from the hazards of near-Earth and interplan-
etary space. In addition to the significant hazard of solar radiation, another
Lunar Habitats Protection Against Meteoroid Impact Damage 579
hazard to be faced by these habitats is the damage that can be caused by the
impact of a meteoroid on a critical habitat structure or structural component.
Meteoroids can travel at speeds upwards of 20 km/s in the near-Earth region
of space (see, e.g., [1, 2]), and at such high velocities can penetrate crew quar-
ters, life support system facilities, for example. This can result in the shut-
down of habitat operations, even loss of life. As such, lunar habitats and their
accompanying support facilities need to be designed with adequate levels of
protection that will allow them to also withstand the damage that can result
from a meteoroid impact.
A common approach that solves both the radiation and the meteoroid
impact problem is to bury the proposed lunar habitat beneath a substantial
thickness of the lunar regolith (see, e.g., [3]). The use of the lunar regolith
has the advantage of cost-effectiveness since this is a material that does not
need to be transported to the Moon. In addition, because of its numerous
layers, lunar regolith possesses a multi-shock capability. This property has
been shown to enhance the destruction of impacting particles at very high
impact velocities, thereby lowering their potential to inflict damage on the
protected sub-structure.
However, initial estimates have shown that a regolith layer thickness of
1 m or more would be required to adequately protect inhabitants against
the radiation emanating from a solar flare [4]. This is a very significant
amount of mass, and brings to bear some significant quality of life issues.
While initial occupants of such habitats may not object to living in such
cave-like conditions, follow-on occupants, who might intend to be long-
term residents or who would be part of a colonization effort, are likely to
prefer less austere living conditions. As such, novel shielding concepts are
required that will address radiation and meteoroid protection issues, and
which will also provide a living environment that can be enjoyed by most
people.
A recent effort aimed at assessing the meteoroid risk of lunar habitats
demonstrated “the importance of a meteoroid threat analysis for any fixed
surface base on the Moon” and concluded that there exists “the need to
design the structure with this threat in mind.” [5] In this paper we discuss
some approaches to shielding for lunar habitats, focusing on shielding that
is intended primarily to provide protection against meteoroid impacts and
on shielding approaches that use resources mined or extracted from the
Moon. The Moon’s mineralogy is discussed, and suggestions are presented
for materials and material combinations that can be used to develop shield-
ing for lunar habitats and which are comprised primarily or entirely of lunar
materials. Several shielding mechanisms are also presented that could be
effective against impacts by meteoroid particles having diameters on the
order of that which are likely to strike a fairly large lunar habitat at least
one or two times per year. The paper concludes with recommendations for
continuing work in optimizing the design of meteoroid shielding for lunar
habitats.
Initial Considerations
Several possibilities exist for where to get the materials required for the
construction of protective shielding for lunar habitats. Of course, one can build
shields on the Earth using Earth-based materials and then ship them to the
lunar destination. The primary advantage of this approach is that proven tech-
nologies can be used in shielding development and construction. Perforation
resistant shielding is currently used on the International Space Station (see e.g.,
[6]), and can be said to be the culmination of over forty years of testing, design,
analysis, and development work. This vast storehouse of information can cer-
tainly be brought to bear in the development, design, and construction of a
shield that would be appropriate for the Moon and the meteoroid environment
it encounters. However, the primary disadvantage of such an approach is the
huge cost associated with transporting ready-made shields to their destination.
The cost of transporting a pound or a kilogram of mass into low Earth orbit is
already very expensive (approximately $10,000 per pound on the shuttle [7]),
and so shipping a ready-made shield is prohibitively expensive.
The other alternative is to build the shields at the destination site using nat-
urally-occurring resources. The advantage, of course, is that transportation
costs will be significantly reduced. However, in this case extraction, refine-
ment, and manufacturing issues come into play (see, e.g., [8, 9]). Significant
energy sources would also be required to power these operations, although
perhaps solar energy can be employed for these purposes. In addition, it may
not be possible to refine/treat/mix the materials needed for shield construc-
tion to the same level of purity or temper as done on Earth. Quite simply, it
just may not be possible to have all the processing equipment available at
the destination site. However, it may not be necessary to do this. Perhaps
the materials in their unprocessed or “more raw” condition are just as or
nearly just as effective in providing protection against meteoroid impacts
as their refined and processed counterparts. Most likely, a possible lesser
grade can be compensated by a design tailored towards the specific material
properties. Since such shields are comparatively low-cost, the easiest way to
compensate lesser capabilities would be to use additional material to achieve
the required level of protection. This issue will need to be addressed if this
approach is to be considered as a viable alternative. Finally, simulant mate-
rials for Earth-based test programs to validate shields made of destination
materials will need to be developed and made available in large quantities
for test article manufacturing and testing.
Another alternative is, of course, some combination of the two above pos-
sibilities. In such a case, the best and worst aspects of the two options would
be combined. An example is glass/epoxy, where the glass would come from
heated lunar regolith while the epoxy would be brought to the destination
from Earth (see, e.g., [10]). Final mixing, curing, and preparations would take
place on the Moon in facilities that would need to be constructed for that
Figure 39.1a, b
Possible hybrid meteoroid shielding mechanisms.
purpose. One can also conceivably build an exo-skeleton for habitat using
primarily Moon or Mars-based materials, then add an internal (perhaps
inflatable) bladder brought from Earth (see Figure 39.1a). Or one can erect a
two-layer structure made of Earth-based materials, and then insert regolith
materials in between the two layers for shielding purposes (see Figure 39.1b).
The use of “sand bags,” with the sand placed inside some flexible “cloth”
container, is also a viable alternative. These sand bags can be either placed one
on top of another, beginning on the lunar surface and continuing up to the
top of a habitat or module, or draped down to the lunar surface from the top
of a module or habitat in some inter-connected fashion (see Figures 39.2a,b).
Regardless of how and where the shield is built, it must have certain proper-
ties and characteristics to be useful against the meteoroid threat. These prop-
erties include impact resistance, durability, air tightness (a bladder of some sort
will likely be needed), sustainability (shield construction and repair materials
should be chosen on the basis of local lunar availability), reparability, com-
monality (it would be helpful if similar designs and materials could be used
on the Moon as well as on Mars), and, if shipped from Earth, lightweight.
Sustainability is a key consideration in the design and establishment of
human habitats on the Moon (and on Mars as well). The continued existence
and operation of the habitat is dependent on the sustainability of its shield-
ing. That is, the shielding must be easily maintained, repaired, and, if nec-
essary, replaced whether it is using Earth-made materials and devices, or
materials naturally occurring on the Moon. It can be significantly less expen-
sive to repair, upgrade, and maintain existing facilities and shielding than to
build or install new ones if existing structures or components are no longer
usable. This benefit can be readily attained if the shielding is manufactured
using materials found in-situ.
One disadvantage of using in-situ lunar resources for shield construction,
however, is that construction and/or mining facilities need to be built for extrac-
tion and processing of in-situ resources, and these initial facilities will initially
Figure 39.2a, b
Possible use of sandbags for meteoroid protection.
not be protected. However, assuming that such mining, manufacturing, and

construction facilities can be developed, the next question is what materials on
the Moon or Mars can be used for meteoroid shielding purposes?
Use of Lunar Materials for Meteoroid Shielding

In order to determine what materials that are present on the Moon can be used to
develop meteoroid shielding, it is first necessary to know what materials are in
fact present on the Moon, and in what relative quantities. While lunar soil com-
position varies from location to location, composition studies performed using
soil samples returned by various Apollo missions (see [11,12]) have revealed that
the most common compound is SiO2 (typically approximately 45% by weight).
The compounds Al2O3, FeO, CaO, MgO, and TiO2 are also fairly abundant: Al2O3,
FeO, and CaO approx 15% by weight; MgO and TiO2 approx. 8% by weight. To
determine which of these compounds can be used for developing meteoroid
shielding materials, either in existing form, or after being broken down and
key elements have been extracted, we next look at the chemical composition of
materials commonly used in meteoroid impact protection for spacecraft.
Although a wide array of materials choices exist for spacecraft shielding,
the most common ones used are some sort of aluminum alloy or a composite
material like Kevlar, Nextel, Glass, or Spectra (as woven fibers with or with-
out epoxy). Tables 39.1 through 39.4 show the chemical composition of these
various materials.
Comparing the information in Table 39.1 through 39.4 with the availability of
compounds found in the lunar regolith, the following points become evident. First,
regarding composite materials composition with respect to lunar mineralogy:
• C, H, and N are generally not found in lunar mineralogy.

• Nextel 550, 610, and 720 fibers are made of the two most common
minerals found on the Moon.
• Fused silica and soda lime glasses are made of minerals commonly
found on the Moon. However, soda lime glass requires a fair amount
of Na, which is not that abundant on the Moon.
Table 39.1
Chemical Composition of Kevlar, Spectra, and Epoxy
Element Kevlar Spectra Epoxy
C ✓ ✓ ✓
H ✓ ✓ ✓
N ✓
O ✓ ✓
Table 39.2
Chemical Composition of Various Nextel Fibers (% by wt) [13]
Compound Nextel Nextel Nextel Nextel Nextel Nextel
312 440 550 610 650 720
Al2O3 62 70 73 > 99 89 85
SiO2 22 28 27 <1 0 15
B2O3 14 2 0 0 0 0
ZrO2 0 0 0 0 10 0
Y2O3 0 0 0 0 1 0
From these observations, it becomes clear that it may not be possible to

“easily” manufacture Kevlar, Spectra, and Epoxy on the Moon. However, it
should be noted that some of these elements do exist in the methane ice caps
at the South Pole. It may also be possible to extract C, H from the refuse of
preceding lunar missions (e.g., cellophane wrappers) [16]. It is also evident
that Nextel fibers can be made entirely of materials already present in the
lunar regolith. These fibers can be woven together to form blankets, which
have already been shown to be highly effective orbital debris shields [17].
We can also conclude that fused silica will most likely be the glass manufac-
tured from lunar regolith materials. Fibers made of fused silica, much like
Nextel fibers, can also be woven together to form blankets.
However, the impact and damage resistant properties of glass fiber blan-
kets have yet to be determined, and should be evaluated before this approach
is taken. Of course, if a stiffer composite material is required, then epoxy
will need to be imported from the Earth and mixed with the glass or Nextel
fibers made from lunar material. However, it may be possible to manufacture
an epoxy-like substance using materials found on the Moon so as to avoid
importing Earth-made epoxy. On Earth we use the resin systems we have
available and with which we are familiar. But on the Moon, perhaps a differ-
ent solution might be possible and feasible.
Table 39.3
Chemical Composition of Various Glasses (% by wt) [14]
Compound Fused Silica Soda Lime Borosilicate Alumo-Silicate Lead Borate
SiO2 100 73 81 62 56
Al2O3 0 1 2 17 2
CaO 0 5 0 8 0
MgO 0 4 0 7 0
Na2O 0 17 4 1 4
K2O 0 0 0 0 9
B2O3 0 0 13 5 0
PbO 0 0 0 0 29
Table 39.4
Composition of Common Aluminum Alloys [15]. * Trace amount of these
elements allowed.
Element 2017 2024 2219 3003 5056 6061 7075
Al 92–96% 91–95% 91–94% 97–99% 93–95% 96–99% 87–91%

Si < 1% * * * * < 1% *
Fe * * * * * * *
Mg < 1% 1–2% * 5–6% 1–2% 2–3%
Ti * * * * *
Mn < 1% < 1% < 0.5% 1–2% < 0.2% * *
Cr * * < 0.2% < 0.4% < 0.3%
Cu 3–5% 4–5% 6–7% < 0.2% * < 0.4% 1–2%
Zn * * * * * * 5–6%
V < 0.2%
Zr < 0.3%
Second, regarding the composition of various aluminum alloys with

respect to lunar mineralogy, the elements Cu, Zn, V and Zr are not naturally
found on the Moon at all, while the elements Cr and Mn are found only in
trace amounts. Because of these considerations, it appears that it will be very
difficult to manufacture the aluminum alloys that are known to be effec-
tive as shield materials using just the materials found in the lunar regolith.
However, of all the aluminum alloys considered, Al5056 appears to be the
best choice because it requires the least number of additional materials that
would need to be imported from Earth for its manufacture.
Using the Lunar Regolith as a Meteoroid Shield

An approach that would solve both the radiation and the meteoroid impact
problem is to bury a proposed lunar habitat under a substantial thickness of
the lunar regolith. Since this is a material that does not need to be transported
to the Moon, the use of the lunar regolith in this fashion has the advantage of
cost-effectiveness. In addition, because of its numerous layers, lunar regolith
possesses a multi-shock capability. This property has been shown to enhance
the destruction of impacting particles at very high impact velocities, thereby
lowering their potential to inflict damage on the protected sub-structure [18].
However, initial estimates have shown that a regolith layer thickness
of 1 m or more would be required to adequately protect human inhabit-
ants against the radiation emanating from a solar flare [4]. This is a very
significant amount of mass, and brings to bear some significant quality of
life issues. While initial occupants of such habitats may not object to liv-
ing in such cave-like conditions, follow-on occupants, who might intend
to be long-term residents and are part of a colonization effort, are likely to

prefer less austere living conditions. It would appear that some additional
inquiry aimed at assessing the human-factors lessons learned from other
long-duration habitations in remote and extreme environments would be
appropriate to address this issue [19].
In addition to psychological reasons, windows are needed to provide
direct sunlight to enhance photosynthesis [20]. Hence, a structure that pro-
vides viewing access for its inhabitants will also provide a means for sun-
light to constructively affect one of the most basic processes that is required
to sustain life on the Moon. Regolith also exhales Radon, which can be
potentially life-threatening [21]. Perhaps the use of a simple barrier such
as an air-tight bladder between whatever regolith is used and the livable
space of the habitat where it is used could lower the Radon concentration to
acceptable levels.
It is also important to note that not all facilities built on the Moon will
be inhabited. As such, they need not necessarily have the same level of
radiation protection as would habitable structures. However, if their con-
tents were sufficiently valuable and needing protection against damage,
such non-inhabitable facilities would likely require some sort of protection
against meteoroid impacts. Hence, meteoroid protection could be a necessity
in some cases where radiation protection through the use of lunar regolith
may not be needed and not the appropriate solution.
Assessing the Effectiveness of Lunar

Habitat Meteoroid Shielding
A multi-phase test program is required to assess the effectiveness of pos-
sible meteoroid shielding mechanisms that would involve the various design
considerations mentioned in this paper. For example, an initial assessment
of the effectiveness of the lunar regolith can be made using sand as a rego-
lith stimulant target. Sand impact tests have been performed previously at
NASA/Ames [22] and at the Ernst Mach Institute (EMI) in Freiburg, Germany
[23]. The EMI tests have shown tunneling to occur at lower impact velocities.
Hence, low velocity impacts might be just as much a concern as higher veloc-
ity impacts and should be investigated as well. After sand impact tests, target
composition can be refined to be more representative of the lunar regolith.
Following some initial testing of sand to characterize its response against
low and high velocity impacts, testing could begin on specimens represen-
tative of possible habitat wall configurations. Figure 39.3 below shows five
possible configurations involving Nextel, aluminum, and sand. This would
be an example of a hybrid protection system that involves materials brought
from Earth (aluminum), materials made from in-situ lunar resources
(Nextel), and some regolith material as well (modeled by the sand). In all of
the configurations, the “outside” is to the left, while “inside the habitat” is
to the right.
Additional variations on these initial designs are varied and numerous.
For example, the sand and/or sandstone can be placed loosely or can be
compacted to study the effects of these variations in construction on impact
response and protection. Low velocity tests should be performed to again
assess how much channeling occurs for the various configurations, and
whether or not such channeling could lead to a perforation of the rear or main
wall of the target. High velocity tests can be used to assess whether there will
be petalling or simply a through-hole if perforation occurs. Another issue to
address is whether or not perforation occurs for mainly larger projectiles,
or does the sand amplify some blast and shock loading effects that can also
cause perforation to occur even for small projectiles.
In addition to perforation resistance, two other related aspects of the effec-
tiveness of a candidate lunar habitat wall are (i) the ease of its reparability,
especially through the use of in-situ resources, and (ii) its resiliency, that is,
the level of protection it affords while in a damaged state. For example, con-
sidering the structural wall representations shown in Figure 39.3, for options
(A), (B), and (E), if there is a hole “on the inside,” it can be repaired and the
wall resealed “on the outside” using techniques similar to those developed
for the repair and resealing of a breached Space Station wall [24]. Resealing
the “outside” wall in option (C) and (D) might be a little difficult since a patch
will have to be sewn on somehow.
This, however, does lead to the question as to whether or not anything at all
should be done about resealing a hole “on the outside,” regardless of whether
it is in an aluminum outer wall, or in a blanket made from Nextel. In some
of the tests a projectile should be fired into the same location as a previous
shot without resealing the outer wall or blanket or refilling the configuration
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)

Full (a), or half-full (b) “box” with all sides made from aluminum (black lines) and with
sand or pieces of sandstone inside
Full (c), or half-full (d) “box” with aluminum bottom and sides (black lines), and a
Nextel blanket “top” with sand or sandstone inside
A “box” with aluminum bottom and sides (black lines), and a combination of a Nextel
blanket and aluminum “tops”
Figure 39.3
Possible test specimens simulating lunar habitat wall design.
with sand. In other tests, the sand and/or sandstone should be replaced, and
again a projectile fired into the same location. The data obtained from such
tests can be used to determine the extent to which external repairs must be
performed on breached outer walls of lunar habitats, as well as the urgency
with which such repairs must be made.
Another aspect of the test program that must be determined, in addition
to impact velocities and target construction, is projectile dimensioning and
material characterization. To determine an appropriate projectile size that
should be used, it is first necessary to estimate how often a reasonably-sized
particle can be expected to impact a reasonably-sized lunar habitat. Several
previous studies that have proposed or considered some sort of lunar habi-
tat have shown structures with exposed surface areas ranging from 500 m2
to 750 m2 (see [25-27]). Therefore, for the purposes of this study and to be
somewhat conservative from an impact likelihood perspective, we assume
an exposed surface area of 1000 m2.
Using the current interplanetary meteoroid flux model [2], we calculate
that a lunar habitat structure with an exposed surface area of 1000 m2 can
expect approximately 1.35 impacts per year by a 1 mm meteoroid particle,
and approximately 0.0065 impacts per year (or 3.25 impacts every 500 years)
by a 5 mm meteoroid particle. If we assume a 20 year life-span for the habi-
tat, we can calculate the probability of an impact by at least one of each such
particle size during those 20 years using the following equation:
Q = 1 − e−N, (39.1)
where
N = F × A × T, (39.2)
with F being the number of impacts per unit area per year, A is the total
exposed area, and T is the exposure time. For the 1 mm particle, we find
that Q is very nearly 1, that is, an impact over 20 years by at least one 1 mm
particle is a near certainty. However, for the 5 mm particle, Q ~ 12.2%, that
is, there is a greater than 10% probability that over 20 years there will be an
impact by at least one 5 mm particle. Based on these considerations, projec-
tiles not smaller than 1 mm and probably as large as 5 mm should be used
in a test program to assess the protective capabilities of the proposed habitat
wall configurations.
Regarding projectile shape and material, while meteoroids are far from
round, it can be argued that they are “chunky.” Hence, for the most part, to
ensure consistency and repeatability, tests should be performed using spheri-
cal projectiles made from materials having a density approximately the same
as the average meteoroid density in the size regime discussed previously.
Although meteoroids are typically said to have an average mass density of
0.5 gm/cm3, the mass density of meteoroids is currently thought to be the

following decreasing non-continuous function of mass [28]:
2.0 gm/cm 3 for m < 10−6 gms


ρ = ρ(m) = 1.0 gm/cm 3 for 10−6 gms < m < 10−2 gms (39.3)

0.5 gm/cm 3 for 10−2 gms < m
Using Equation (39.3), we find that spherical particles having diameters

between 1 and 3 mm would need to have a density of ~1.0 gm/cm3 (e.g.,
Lexan), while larger particles would require being made of a material hav-
ing a density of ~0.5 gm/cm3 (e.g., aerated concrete [29]). Of course, current
launcher technology limits the velocity at which a sizable projectile (on the
order of 5 to 10 mm in diameter) can be fired at a target to approximately
7 to 8 km/s, while the average meteoroid velocity, as stated previously, is on
the order of 20 km/s. To empirically assess the effects on target integrity of
impacts at such high velocities, it is necessary to resort to scaling techniques,
in particular, the scaling of impact energy.
One alternative is to keep the projectile diameter the same, and deter-
mine, based on an equal energy consideration, what material density would
be needed to produce the same impact energy at a testable impact velocity
(say 7 km/s) as that produced by a Lexan projectile at a “real” velocity of
20 km/s. Under these conditions we find that steel projected at 7 km/s could
be used as a simulant material to model the impact of a Lexan projectile at
20 km/s.
Another alternative would be to assign a simulant material, and then cal-
culate the diameter that would be required for a projectile of the specified
simulant material to deliver an amount of energy at impact that would be
the same as the amount of energy delivered by a Lexan projectile of a cer-
tain diameter at, say, 20 km/s. In this case, if we specify that the simulant
material should be aluminum, we find that the assessment of the impact of a
2 mm Lexan projectile at 20 km/s can be performed using a 3 mm aluminum
projectile fired at 7 km/s.
Final Thoughts
In addition to the more fundamental issues addressed in the preceding sec-
tions of this paper, the following considerations are offered for continuing
work that would seek to refine the designs that may be developed after the
fundamental issues have been addressed.
• Does the meteoroid flux have a local orientation dependence (i.e.,

near the Moon), similar perhaps to directionality of near-Earth
orbital debris? If it does, perhaps the overall design of a lunar habitat
can be tailored to take advantage of this orientation dependence.
• Does solar radiation also have orientation dependence as well? If so,
it can be argued that radiation protection should be provided in the
direction where it does the most good; the rest of the habitat might
not need as much radiation protection, but should still have protec-
tion against meteoroid impacts.
• What role(s) can we expect to be played by next-generation materials,
such as shape-memory alloys and self-healing materials? Although
the self-healing property of cementitious materials has been known
and studied for over twenty years [30], self-healing polymers are
beginning to receive increasing attention in recent years (see [31, 32]).
• Is there a place for transparent shielding? How would a multi-layer glass
window (e.g., three, four or five layers each ~1 cm thick and spaced over
10 to 20 cm) fare in the lunar environment? Additionally, transparent
concrete is becoming a reality on Earth (see [33-35]), so it is certainly not
too far a stretch of the imagination to envision transparent lunacrete,
made with regolith materials, as an extension of the more ‘traditional’
formulation of lunar concrete (see [36-41]). This type of habitat wall or
shielding would (1) protect against radiation, (2) protect against meteor-
oids, and (3) improve the quality of life since you can see through it.
Regardless of how they are built, habitats on the Moon will require protection
from hazards of near-Earth and interplanetary space, including meteoroid
impact on a critical habitat structure or structural component. As humans move
to colonize and settle moons and planets, innovative techniques must be devel-
oped to take advantage of local resources to ensure that whatever shielding or
wall construction is used is sustainable and repairable. This paper has presented
some initial considerations in the design and development of such structures.
Future test programs will provide data that can be used to assess the effective-
ness of these designs, and to suggest design changes that will improve their
effectiveness and even suggest new directions for exploration and discovery.
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful for the support provided by the Humboldt Foun
dation through a Fraunhofer-Bessel Research Award that enabled this
study, and for the helpful advice provided by their colleague, Dr. Eberhard
Schneider of EMI.
This paper is an expanded version of a paper presented at the ASCE Earth

and Space 2008 conference. A still more expanded version, with additional
calculation details and other information, is being submitted for publication
to the ASCE Journal of Aerospace Engineering.
References
1. Anderson, B., and Smith, R.E., Natural Orbital Environment Guidelines for Use in
Aerospace Vehicle Development, NASA TM-4527, Marshall Space Flight Center,
1994.
2. Cour-Palais, B.G., Meteoroid environment model - 1969 [near Earth to Lunar
surface], NASA-SP-8013, Johnson Space Center, 1969.
3. Bodiford, M.P., Fiske, M.R., McGregor, W., and Pope, R.D., “In-Situ Resource-
Based Lunar and Martian Habitat Structures Development at NASA/MSFC”,
AIAA Paper No. 2005-2704, Proceedings of the 1st Space Exploration Conference,
Vol. 2, Orlando, Florida, 2005.
4. Lindsey, N.J., “Lunar Station Protection: Lunar Regolith Shielding.” Proceedings
of the 2003 International Lunar Conference, S.M. Durst, et al, eds, American
Astronautical Society, Science and Technology Series, Vol. 108, Springfield, VA,
2003, pp. 143–148.
5. Evans, S.W., Stallworth, R., Robinson, J., Stellingwerf, R., and Engler, E.,
“Meteoroid Risk Assessment of Lunar Habitat Concepts.” Proceedings of
the 2006 ASCE International Conference on Engineering, Construction, and
Operations in Challenging Environments, Houston, Texas, 2006, pp. 543–550.
6. Destefanis, R., Schäfer, F., Lambert, M., and Faraud, M., “Selecting Enhanced
Space Debris Shields for Manned Spacecraft.” International Journal of Impact
Engineering, Vol. 33, 2006, pp. 219–230
7. National Research Council, Maintaining US Leadership in Aeronautics, National
Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1998.
8. Zing, X., Burnoski, L., Agui, J.H., and Wilkenson, A., “Calculation of Excavation
Force for ISRU on Lunar Surface.” AIAA Paper No. 2007-1474, Proceedings of the
45th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Reno, Nevada, 2007.
9. Woodcock, G.R., “Economic Prospects for Lunar Industries.” AIAA Paper No.
1995-4006, Proceedings of the 1995 Space Programs and Technologies Conference,
Huntsville, Alabama, 1995.
10. Kaplicky, J., and Nixon, D., “A Surface Assembled Superstructure Envelope
System to Support Regolith Mass Shielding for an Initial Operational Capability
Lunar Base.” in Lunar Bases and Space Activities of the 21st Century, W.W. Mendell,
ed, Lunar and Planetary Institute, Houston, Texas, 1986.
11. Arnold, J.R., “Lunar Resource Surveys from Orbit, AIAA Paper No. 1977-
0526, Proceedings of the 3rd AIAA and Princeton University Conference on Space
Manufacturing Facilities, Princeton, New Jersey, 1977.
12. Taylor, S.R., Lunar Science: A Post-Apollo View, Pergamon Press, New York, 1975.
13. http://www.3m.com, accessed November 2007.
14. http://www.a-m.de/viskostaetglas-tafel1.htm, accessed November 2007.
15. http://www.matweb.com/, accessed November 2007.

16. Sanders, G., et al, “ISRU at a Lunar Outpost: Implementation and Opportunities
for Partnerships and Commercial Development.” Proceedings of the 2007
International Lunar Conference, to appear.
17. Cour-Palais, B.G., Theall, J.R., and Dahl, K.V., “Development of the Nextel
Multi-Shock Shield, 1990-1993.” AIAA Paper No. 1993-4083, Proceedings of the
1993 Space Programs and Technologies Conference, Huntsville, Alabama, 1993.
18. Cour-Palais, B.G., and Crews, J.L., “A Multi-Shock Concept for Spacecraft
Shielding.” International Journal of Impact Engineering, Vol. 10, 1990,
pp. 135–146.
19. Sadler, P., et al, “The South Pole Greenhouse and Development / Construction
of a Lunar Habitat Demonstrator.” Proceedings of the 2007 International Lunar
Conference, to appear.
20. de Vera, J.P.P., et al, “Photosynthesis of Eukaryotic Symbiotic Organisms in a
Mars-Like Environment.” Proceedings of the 2007 International Lunar Conference,
to appear.
21. Levy, F., “Indoor Air Quality Implications of 22-Rn from Lunar Regolith.”
Proceedings of the 2007 International Lunar Conference, to appear.
22. Gault, D.E., Shoemaker, E.M., and Moore, H.J., Spray Ejected from the Lunar
Surface by Meteoroid Impact, NASA TN D-1767, Ames Research Center, 1963.
23. Schneider, E., and Stilp, A., Verhalten von Sand als Auffangmaterial für
Stahlsplitter, EMI Report No. E-13/77, July 1977.
24. Hall, S.B., “Marshall Researchers Developing Patch Kit to Mitigate ISS Impact
Damage.” Orbital Debris Quarterly, Vol. 4, No. 4, NASA Johnson Space Center,
Houston, Texas, 1999.
25. Ring, C.B., Butterfield, A.J., Hynes, W.D., Nealy, J.B., and Simonsen, L.C., Single
Launch Lunar Habitat Derived from NSTS External Tank, NASA TM-4212, Langley
Research Center, 1990.
26. Connolly, J., “Overview of the Surface Architecture Elements Common to a Wide
Range of Lunar and Mars Missions.” AIAA Paper No. 1990-3847, Proceedings of
the 1990 Space Programs and Technologies Conference, Huntsville, Alabama, 1990.
27. Rais-Rohani, M., On Structural Design of Mobile Lunar Habitat with Multi-
Layered Environmental Shielding, NASA CR-2005-213845, Marshall Space
Flight Center, 2005.
28. Drolshagen, G., and Borde, J., ESABASE/DEBRIS: Meteoroid/Debris Impact
Analysis – Technical Description, Report No. ESABASE–GD–01/1, ESA/ESTEC,
Noordwijk, The Netherlands, 1992.
29. http://www.matweb.com/search/PropertySearch.aspx, accessed November
2007.
30. http://www.rilem.net/tcDetails.php?tc=SHC, accessed November 2007.
31. Kessler, M.R., “Self-healing: A New Paradigm in Materials Design.” Proceedings
of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part G: Journal of Aerospace
Engineering, Vol. 221, No. 4, 2007, pp. 479–495.
32. Rule, J.D., Sottos, N.R., and White, S.R., “Effect of microcapsule size on the
performance of self-healing polymers.” Polymer, Vol. 48, No. 12, 4 June 2007,
pp. 3520–3529.
33. Kroggel, O., and Grubl, P., “Ultrasonic Inspection of Concrete Structures - New
Steps Towards ‘Transparent’ Concrete.” Proceedings of the International Conference
on Repair and Renovation of Concrete Structures, 2005, pp. 205–212.
34. Losonczi, A., and Bittis, A., “Transparent Concrete Causing a Sensation.”
Betonwerk und Fertigteil-Technik, Vol. 71, No. 3, 2005, pp. 66–69.
35. http://www.litracon.hu/
36. Kaden, R.A., “Methodology for Forming and Placing Lunar Concrete”, in
Lunar Concrete, R.A. Kaden, ed, SP-125, American Concrete Institute, Detroit,
Michigan, 1991.
37. Toutanji, H., Fiske, M.R., and Bodiford, M.P., “Development and Application
of Lunar ‘Concrete’ for Habitats.” Earth and Space 2006 - Proceedings of the 10th
Biennial International Conference on Engineering, Construction, and Operations in
Challenging Environments Earth and Space, pp. 69ff.
38. Kanamori, H., “For the Realization of Lunar Concrete.” Proceedings of the 4th
International Conference on Engineering, Construction and Operations in Space,
American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, New York, 1994, pp. 942–951.
39. Breyer, L.A., “Lunacrete: A Novel Approach to Extraterrestrial Construction.”
In Space Manufacturing 5: Engineering with Lunar and Asteroidal Materials,
Proceedings of the 7th Princeton/AIAA/SSI Conference, Princeton, New Jersey,
1985, pp. 172–178.
40. Agosto, W.N. and Gadalla, A.M.M., “Lunar Cement Formulations for Space
Systems Shielding and Construction.” In Space Manufacturing 5: Engineering
with Lunar and Asteroidal Materials, Proceedings of the 7th Princeton/AIAA/SSI
Conference, Princeton, New Jersey, 1985, pp. 179–183.
41. Huston, H.L., Oishi, K., and Saito, T., “Radiation Shielding for Lunar Bases Using
Lunar Concrete.” Paper No. IAF-1992-0339, Proceedings of the 43rd Congress of the
International Astronautical Federation, Washington, D.C., 1992.
40
Deployment of Greenhouse for
Long-Term Lunar Base
Vadim Y. Rygalov
Human Factors & Environmental Design
The Department of Space Studies
John D. Odegard School of Aero-Space Sciences (JDOSAS)
University of North Dakota
Patrick Stoffel
Space Studies Program Distant Student
The Department of Space Studies
John D. Odegard School of Aero-Space Sciences (JDOSAS)
University of North Dakota
Vadim Y. Rygalov, PhD is a biophysicist and has worked in the area of

Closed Ecological Systems (CES) for long-term Life Support (LS) since 1989.
He received a PhD in multi-level systematic analysis of environment–sea
organisms interactions from the Institute of Biophysics SB RAS (Krasnoyarsk-
City, Siberia) in 1987. During his science-research career he was involved in
a variety of projects related to multiple interactions between live organisms
and their environments, including development of a Low Pressure Martian
Greenhouse (MG) prototype at KSC NASA, 1999−2004. Currently he is an
associate professor in the Department of Space Studies at University of North
Dakota.
Patrick Stoffel is a resident of Madison, Wisconsin. He has a BS degree in
biomedical science from St. Cloud State University, Minnesota, and an MS
degree in space studies from the University of North Dakota, Grand Forks.
This publication is resulting from his MS research project under advising of
Dr. Vadim Y. Rygalov, his co-author. He got interested in space exploration
at the age of 6 years, received a telescope for his 9th birthday, and after that
spent nights on the family farm getting to know the stars. He enjoys working
with animals and he is an animal welfare advocate. He spends time travel-
ing, writing articles, and riding a motorcycle.
593
Introduction
A greenhouse, as an adjunct to the lunar base, will provide food, oxygen,
water, and act as a sink for CO2 and wastes (water and minerals). Having
green edible plants at the lunar base will also have a huge positive impact on
the psychology of the crews. (To see this, watch videos of the final crew of the
Mir station consuming plants grown and cultivated on the station.) The long
term goal for the greenhouse project is to provide the highest possible clo-
sure in the life support system loop (the goal is 100%) and to supply consum-
able resources for the lunar base. A greenhouse deployment timeline would
have this goal at its endpoint. The start point has already begun–there are
plants on board the International Space Station (ISS) and there were plants
on the Mir station. These are mainly for research and psychological benefits;
they are not part of a bioregenerative life support system. Growing plants on
the Moon will probably begin in the same manner. Most plans and research
into long distance space exploration (a lunar base, Mars exploration, etc.) con-
clude that in situ resource utilization (ISRU) and Closed Loop Life Support
Systems (CELSS) are essential for success. Initial testing with CELSS based
on plant-human interactions has already been done (see Appendix A). ISRU
consumables and a high closure CELSS reduce the supply mass required
for launch from Earth; the supply line is removed from Earth’s gravity well.
Producing food, oxygen, water, and other consumables “off the land” greatly
lowers the cost of supporting long-distance space missions. The cost of get-
ting through Earth’s gravity well (in terms of energy, fuel, and funding) is
the greatest impediment to the human exploration of space.
Scenarios of Greenhouse Deployment

Current NASA plans (Dale, 2006) call for lunar sorties to begin flights to the
Moon by 2020 and the incremental establishment of a lunar outpost from 2020–
2025. The outpost will serve as a test-bed for technologies to be used for mis-
sions to Mars (and beyond). It will most likely be positioned near the lunar
south pole, on the rim of Shackleton crater; however that decision is not final.
This area has the advantages of moderate temperature variation, access to solar
energy (sunlight 70-80% of the time), and hopefully access to volatiles, such as
water ice, in the crater regolith. Sometime between now and 2025 the decision
will be made whether to eventually shut down the lunar outpost (between 2030
and 2035) and move the focus of the U.S. manned space program to the explora-
tion of Mars, or to expand and make permanent the lunar “base” while simul-
taneously planning and initiating Martian sorties. Whether or not the Lunar
Outpost will become permanent and the details and extent of Martian missions
Deployment of Greenhouse for Long-Term Lunar Base 595
will depend on how successful ISRU technology becomes and the amount of
supplies it can produce. A stable, working greenhouse can provide food; some-
thing that has yet to be achieved with physic-chemical (P/C) technology. The
addition of a greenhouse to the lunar outpost can decrease the overall cost of
resupply from Earth and will improve the possibility of keeping the lunar base
operating after Martian sorties have begun.
There are three general visions for deploying a lunar greenhouse:
• Use a modular unit, similar in size and structure to a habitat module.

Fabricated on Earth, it would require little or no effort to deploy on the
lunar surface. No ISRU resources would be required for set up. Once
landed, it could remain on the lander permanently, be moved closer
to the habitat, or be connected directly to the other habitat modules.
A Surface Mobility Carrier, looking like a spider with wheels, will be
used to move modules from the landing pad to the habitat area. This
greenhouse could grow in size by adding additional modules or hybrid-
ing it to an inflatable unit(s). These units may or may not use regolith for
shielding. The resulting hybrid system would be a combination of P/C
(from habitat) and Bioregenerative (from greenhouse) components.
• The use of inflatable units. Inflatable units will presumably be larger
than modular habitat units and will be buried to utilize regolith for
a more extensive radiation shield. These units will require work to
deploy, inflate, and bury; internal construction may be required.
This type of greenhouse may be moved to a pre-dug trench to
allow easier covering of regolith. It may be directly connected to the
habitat modules or remain a stand-alone unit, and it could easily
be expanded by adding additional inflatable units. The combined
habitat-greenhouse LSS would be hybrid but with expanded biore-
generative capabilities (either algae, higher plant life, or both). An
Earth analog example would be something similar to BIOS-3.
• Building a large underground structure into an existing cavern–
such as a lava tube or the bottom of a crater. This greenhouse would
take advantage of the natural terrain to provide shelter from radia-
tion and temperature variation. The unit would be built mostly with
ISRU material such as regolith concrete (water based and waterless),
glass and glass fibers, lunar “sandbags” (filled with regolith); melted
and processed regolith (producing aluminum, titanium, magnesium,
and iron) and whatever else can be created on site. The structure
would be domed and pressure sealed. This structure would require
the most work to construct and deploy but would provide the most
volume, food production, buffer capacity, and stability. This struc-
ture would be largely bioregenerative with P/C for backup and to
make corrections in the system. An Earth analog example would be
something similar to Biosphere-2.
Life Support System Research

Some preliminary research has been done with maximizing closure levels
in life support systems, using a combination of plants and human subjects.
A complete listing and summarization of those accomplishments is provided
for reference (Appendix A). The results of this comprehensive CES research,
accomplished during the second half of twentieth century, confirmed the
feasibility of life support systems based on the Closure Principle (CP):
• Humans/Photo-synthetic Organisms/Microbes are generally com-

patible in one combined ecological material turnover, including
plant biomass production and human wastes treatment;
• It is quite enough to have ≥13–15 m2 of planting area per person, in
∼105 m3 of closed environment, under ∼150–180 W/m2 of intensive
illumination. This would provide a person with clean air (oxygen
supply), water purification, and 30–40% of his food (vegetarian part
of a diet) for long-term (∼6 months) life support;
• Long-term existence (≥6 months) in an artificial CES generally does
not have an adverse effect on human health, including “post-flight”
adaptation to “normal” Earth ecology;
• Stability of this kind, LSS functioning, is completely determined by
the level of active control by the crew;
• Active application of this LS approach for microgravity or planetary
conditions requires development of technologies for self-sustainable
autonomous maintenance.
On board the International Space Station (ISS), we have a small (∼12 to 15 L

volume) experimental greenhouse, LASA, built by collaboration between Utah
State University and the State Research Center of the Russian Academy of
Sciences’ Institute of Bio-Medical Problems in Moscow, Russia. It is used for
extensive research in higher plants’ physiology, growth and development in
microgravity, and the closed environment of spacecraft orbiting the Earth.
Deployment Rationale: Research, Logistics, and Economics

The NASA Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS) final report was
released in November 2005. This study reviewed all previous NASA plans for
lunar and Mars missions going back to Apollo to formulate a workable archi-
tecture. This is the “blueprint” for the CEV, Ares I and V Launchers, Lunar
Operations, and Mars Exploration plans (NASA, 2005). Lunar Missions Mode
Analysis and Lunar Surface Activities are described in detail (ch.4). This
study helps provide an estimate for the best time to deploy a greenhouse.
The ESAS indicates a heavy emphasis on ISRU in both the initial lunar sorties
and the lunar outpost to follow. In fact, the location and duration of the lunar
outpost operations is dependent on early ISRU experiments deployed during
the sorties. The location depends on ISRU experiments because it is hoped
that significant quantities of water can be extracted from the dark crater floor
of Shackleton (and other South Pole craters). The duration depends on ISRU
success because the more supplies that can be produced on-site, the greater
the probability that the lunar outpost will become permanent. These experi-
ments will include O2 production demos (using hydrogen reduction), H2/
H2O extraction demos, and a demonstration of regolith excavation and trans-
port (NASA, NASA’s Exploration Systems Architecture Study, 2005). NASA
will use the data accumulated in these demonstrations to plan and deploy
lunar outpost ISRU pilot operations for regolith excavation and transport, O2
production from regolith, and long term cryogenic storage and transfer of
oxygen. Evolved capabilities from these operations will lead to larger-scale
excavation and manipulation, propellant and consumable production, oxy-
gen extraction using carbothermal ISRU, and surface construction (such as
launch pads, roads, etc.). Physico-chemical systems have progressed and are
reliable for water and atmospheric maintenance, but for a permanent lunar
base and Martian missions, bioregeneration of consumables would provide a
greater degree of stability in O2 and H2O supplies, and provide a dependable
source of food. CES theory ensures that moving from a P/C system (Sabatiers,
LiOH, scrubbers, electrolysis, etc.) to a bioregenerative system (algae, higher
plants, greenhouse environments) would (Rygalov D. V., 2007):
• Increase the mass of the life support system,

• Increase the autonomy of the lunar base and its life support system,
• Increase the stability of the lunar life support system (by itself or as
a backup to the physico-chemical system)—larger buffer, less accu-
mulation of toxins and other unwanted materials,
• Increase reliability of the life support system employed–mechanical
systems will age, breakdown, become degraded by lunar dust. Plants
rejuvenate themselves and do not “breakdown or malfunction” eas-
ily, nor do they require spare parts,
• Have a beneficial psychological effect–humans love the green plants!
According to the Vision Architecture and its latest updates, NASA will build
the transportation infrastructure to get to, land on, and return from the
Moon. It will also provide the navigational and communication capabilities
required for lunar transport and habitation. NASA envisions cooperation
with other nations and corporations to build up the capabilities of the outpost
and its operations (Coleman, Cooke, Yoder, & Hensley, 2008). Greenhouse
deployment would fall into the cooperative category; facilitating long-term

lunar occupation, and both utilizing and producing consumables via ISRU.
Deploying a greenhouse on the Moon will provide time for research, con-
struction, and operational experience to ensure successful implementation
in missions to and bases on Mars.
Cooperative Capabilities with US/NASA-

Unilateral Capabilities of US/NASA ESA-RSA-JAXA-Corporations-Others
The Ares I and V Launch Systems Equipment for Long-Term Outpost
Operations
The Altair Lander and LOR Architecture ISRU Production
Initial EVA and Surface Sortie Capabilities Logistics and Resupply
Navigation and Communication Pressurized and Unpressurized Rovers
Infrastructure
Solar Power System Augmented Power, Navigation, and
Communication Systems
Financial and political constraints will make the ultimate determination

whether the lunar outpost will be permanent. Shutting down the lunar base
when it is producing a significant amount of consumables from lunar resources
would be hard to justify. At $100,000/kg (based on shipping costs from Earth)
the production of 10,000 kg of usable resources (life support needs and con-
struction material–food, O2, H2O, shielding, glass, etc.) using ISRU would cost
over $1 billion to ship from the Earth (Gaffey, 2007). Given that people consume
∼0.62 kg food, ∼28.75 kg of water (drinking, hygiene, cleaning, etc.), ∼0.85 kg of
oxygen per day, and assuming a permanent crew of four at the lunar outpost,
the amount of consumables required is over 40,000 kg (40MT) per year. Based
on this data (with 0% LSS closure and no ISRU), it would cost ∼$4 billion (ship-
ping costs) annually to supply consumables totally from Earth (Eckart, 1996).
Consumables Required (U.S. Space Station Standards Design Loads)

Oxygen Food Water
1 person/1 day 0.85 kg 0.62 kg 28.75 kg
4 people/1 day 3.4 kg 2.48 kg 115 kg
4 people/1 year 1242 kg 906 kg 42,004 kg
Greenhouse Descriptions and Deployment

A comparison of the economics of the life support systems–the P/C units
in the initial habitat module vs. adding a large bioregenerative component
(greenhouse) will determine when and what type of greenhouse will be
added (Rygalov D. V., 2007):
• Resource Costs: The cost of shipping a complete greenhouse module

from Earth vs. building portions of it with ISRU; the cost of building
such a unit (on Earth); the energy and manpower costs to set up and
maintain vs. what is available; etc.
• System Autonomy: Spare parts, whether parts are made ISRU or
shipped from Earth; the labor required to keep the system up and
running; the amount of storage of O2, H2O, CO2, and food; the crew/
staff ratios, etc.
• Reliability: Effect of aging on the components, the number of moving
parts involved; the complexity of the system; the amount of expo-
sure to the elements and its effect on the system; dust degradation
comparisons; buffer capacity; etc.
• Intangibles: Astronaut preference; psychological benefits; contami-
nation issues; politics; etc.
A smaller modular greenhouse, deployed on the surface, could test O2, H2O,
CO2, and food production in the lunar environment and would be a useful
intermediate step before deploying a larger inflatable one. Similar in size
and shielding to the outpost habitat module, it would allow plant growth
and steady-state studies to commence. Steady-state studies will determine
the length of time it will take for the module to achieve balance, determine
how resources get distributed; determine toxin, metal, mineral, and gas
build up; observe how much and where bacterial contamination occurs; and
how to cope with the lunar dust. It will also provide ready, living plants that
can be moved into the larger inflatable buried greenhouse once it comes
online.
The size of the modular greenhouse will depend on the cargo capacity
of the launcher and lunar lander. The U.S. launcher will presumably be the
Ares V. The Ares V gross trans-lunar insertion (TLI) cargo capacity will be
63.5 MT (this compares with 48.6 MT for the Saturn V) (Sumrall, 2008). The
lunar lander (Altair) design is not set in stone–a 2006 preliminary cost esti-
mate was much greater than anticipated; alternate designs and approaches
are being considered (Dorris, 2008). The three basic lander configurations
will be: crew only, cargo only, and crew plus cargo; the configuration
employed to land a greenhouse module would be the unmanned cargo
version. The ESAS estimates a module of ∼24 m3 pressurized volume, ∼8 m3
of that for the airlock, could be mounted on the lander and brought to the
lunar surface. By foregoing the airlock (the greenhouse would be directly
connected to the habitat module or connected via causeway) and the ascent
module (the initial deployment will be performed with an unmanned ver-
sion of the lander) the entire ∼24 m3 pressurized volume of the module
could be utilized for plant growth. The amount of mass the LSAM (Lunar
Surface Access Module) will deliver to the surface has been estimated
between 1,800 kg to 4,300 kg for a crewed lander and over 17,000 kg for
an unmanned version–based on a “minimum functional” design (Dorris,

2008). With modular dimensions of 6 m by 3 m, a cylindrical volume of
24m3, and subtracting space for humans to move around and for the plant
life support systems, there is enough room to support food production to
feed at least one and possibly two astronauts (NASA, NASA’s Exploration
Systems Architecture Study, 2005).
A greenhouse module could be set up and running autonomously before
the first permanent crew arrives. Work is being done by NASA, the NSF,
and the University of Arizona CEAC (Controlled Environment Agriculture
Center) for just such a situation (NASA & UoA, 2007). Cable culture plant
growth uses hydroponics and a NFT (Nutrient Filled Technique) system to
automatically start and maintain plant growth. Pre-seeded nutrient mem-
branes are Velcro sealed, but allow space at the top and sides for sprouts
to emerge. A tube runs thru the membrane, bringing nutrients and water;
the membranes are hung along a cable which stretches from one end of the
greenhouse to the other. Many such cables would fill the module. This sys-
tem is being tested at the South Pole Food Growth Chamber and has suc-
cessfully grown strawberries, lettuce, tomatoes, potatoes, and other food. By
deploying a greenhouse module filled with seeds embedded in this NFT
system, and given the likely volume of such a module, food enough for at
least one and maybe two astronauts (for eternity if maintained) could be
waiting for them when the permanent occupation of the outpost begins. The
food produced could reduce shipping costs from the Earth by at least $1 bil-
lion/yr (based on ∼1000 kg of food, shipped at $100,000 per kg). In three to
five years the greenhouse could pay for itself. The NFT system is being tested
at the South Pole in inflatable habitats; NASA is seriously looking at inflat-
able units to be used for habitation and other space applications (such as
greenhouses).
Much of the initial sortie demonstrations and pilot programs will be dedi-
cated to excavating and transporting regolith. This includes building landing
pads, blast protection berms, mining for O2 production, mining regolith for
H2O production, electric cable trenches, and roads. These tasks were laid out
at the SRR IX (Space Resources Roundtable) by the NASA Advanced Systems
Division and the Colorado School of Mines in October 2007. Much of this
work would be performed before the outpost is finished (2025). Dates given
at the SRR IX indicate that these projects should be past the demo stages and
into project phases by 2023. By 2023, “the Constellation Architecture should
provide from lunar in-situ resources, no less than 1 MT (metric ton–1000 kg)
of oxygen per year” (Mueller & King, 2007). By 2027 that increases to 10 MT
annually. Once ISRU O2 and H2O production and the excavation and move-
ment of regolith have been reliably demonstrated, the deployment of multi-
unit and inflatable greenhouse modules, buried for radiation shielding, can
commence. Given that the knowledge and experience of such deployment is
important for Mars mission consideration, it should be implemented at the
lunar base as soon as possible.
Outpost/Base Bioregenerative Greenhouse
Year Deployed Level of ISRU
Size Production Structure
Minimal- None: Simple

Water, Oxygen
2020 4 (temporary) experimental Plant Demos
demos
Level in Habitat
Oxygen, Water,
25% Crew Greenhouse
2025 4 Permanent Regolith
Needs Module
Manipulation
Bricks, Glass,
100% Crew Inflatible
Cryogenics, Large
2030 6 (?) Needs Greenhouse
Scale Regolith
Units
Deployment of Greenhouse for Long-Term Lunar Base
Movement.
Export Capability Large scale Begin Large

2040 12+ (?) for Mars Resource Underground
Missions Production Development
601
Once deployed, a greenhouse will require gas mixture controls and

monitoring. The temperature must be maintained within a certain bound-
ary, water and humidity must be provided and removed. Contamination
safeguards must be in place. Atmospheric pressure must be maintained.
Nutrients, water, and a growth medium must be supplied. Plants (and
the human gardeners) must be protected from radiation (solar and GCR),
large temperature changes, toxic buildup, and meteorite punctures (pres-
sure loss).
The ESAS had established some ground rules for outpost construction in
2005–these rules would also apply to any greenhouse deployed. These con-
siderations for outpost and greenhouse module deployment include:
• Landed elements should not be required to move unless absolutely

necessary;
• Crew operations for outpost deployment should be as simple and
limited as possible;
• Landed elements will be delivered on common cargo decent modules;
• The building of the lunar base is to be incremental;
• Using initial sortie missions to deliver cargo for future missions.
NASA has also laid out ISRU architectural assumptions to coincide with sor-
tie missions and outpost construction (Sanders & Duke, 2005):
• Characterize lunar resources, the surface environment, and engi-

neering unknowns as soon as possible;
• Develop one robust lunar outpost site;
• Demonstrate ISRU during Lunar Sortie phase to be used during
Base operations;
• Develop lunar infrastructure and operations to support sustainable
lunar operations and parallel Mars manned exploration missions.
Some of the equipment to be deployed on the sortie missions and outpost

include: an ISRU Lunar Miner/Hauler, an O2 pilot plant, and an ISRU Polar
Resource Extractor (NASA, 2005). The ISRU demonstration units will be
tele-operated from the Earth in-between sorties. A mobile, modular green-
house could be attached to the outpost habitat module by moving it off the
cargo lander with a crane and wheeling it over–a non-mobile unit would
need the Surface Mobility Carrier. The greenhouse may be wheeled close
enough to the habitat module to allow an inflatable cause-way structure
to connect them together–similar to what subways and trains use to con-
nect cars, and airports use to connect the terminal with the passenger jets.
Benefits of this type of greenhouse include ease of deployment (compared
to burying a large inflatable structure), similar radiation shielding (same
as habitat module), and the option of directly integrating the greenhouse

into the habitat life support system. This type of greenhouse may be easier
to design and launch if it is essentially a hollowed-out copy of the habitat
module structure.
An inflatable unit could be deployed in a similar manner or deployed
as a separate stand-alone habitat. An example of an inflatable unit is the
TransHab. The TransHab was developed as a habitation module for the ISS
but was never deployed. The module consists of a central core surrounded by
an inflatable shell. It is a huge unit, providing 342m3 of pressurized volume–
this compares with 315m3 for BIOS-3, 150m3 for Mir, 227m3 for BioPLEX, and
75m3 for the ESA Columbus module deployed at the ISS. It measures 12.2m
in length by 7.3m in diameter and is the shape of a cylinder, but rounded at
the ends. To bury a TransHab-sized unit in regolith for radiation shielding,
a trench at least 3.7m deep, 7.3m wide, and 12.2m long is required. This is
253m3 of regolith; at 1.5g/cm3 this equals a mass of 380MT. At least three
meters of regolith covering is required for radiation shielding; this would
require another 1267 MT. At the bare minimum, 1648 MT of regolith would
need to be displaced. This compares with the expected 589MT to be dis-
placed building a landing pad, the 283MT needed to construct a berm to
surround the landing pad, and 358MT estimated to be excavated when the
main habitat is deployed (Mueller & King, 2007). Using a smaller diameter
inflatable module (rather than TransHab) would require much less regolith
excavation and make radiation protection a less time consuming and energy
intensive mission.
Potential Greenhouse Module Dimensions

Pressurized
Habitable Percent
Diameter Radius Length Volume Volume of Volume
Module of Unit Name (meters) (meters) (meters) meters3 meters3 Habitable
Lunar Habitation Module 3.0 1.5 6.0 42.4 24.0 56.6%
ISS TransHab (not deployed) 7.3 3.6 12.2 507.8 342.0 67.3%
4m by 6m Habitation Module 4 2.0 6 75.4 50.7 67.3%
Genesis I (Bigelow Module) 2.54 1.3 4.4 22.3 11.5 51.6%
Large Spherical Habitat 16 8.0 16 2144.7 1501.3 70.0%
The Lunar Habitation Module dimensions are taken from the Exploration Systems Architectural Study
(NASA, 2005)
The information on TransHab was taken from “Inflatable Habitats Technology Development”
(Kennedy, 2000).
The Large Spherical Habitat concept (Roberts, 1988) was taken from “Structural Design of a Lunar
Habitat” (Ruess, 2006).
Genesis I information was obtained from the Bigelow Aerospace website: www.bigelowaerospace.com
The 4m by 6m Habitation Module is a somewhat larger version of the Exploration Systems Architectural
Study model (NASA, 2005).
Information in red are best estimates.
Potential Greenhouse Module Requirements for Excavation

Trench Excavation Radiation Shielding
Mass of Volume of Mass of the Total Mass
Volume Regolith Shielding Shielding of Regolith
of Trench Excavated Required Regolith Displaced
Module of Unit Name meters3 MT meters3 MT MT
Lunar Habitation Module N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
ISS TransHab (not deployed) 253.9 380.9 844.9 1267.4 1648.2
4m by 6m Habitation Module 37.7 56.5 235.6 353.4 410.0
Genesis I (Bigelow Module) 11.1 16.7 126.0 189.0 205.7
Large Spherical Habitat 1072.3 1608.5 2787.6 4181.5 5790.0
The Lunar Habitation Module dimensions are taken from the Exploration Systems Architectural
Study (NASA, 2005)
The information on TransHab was taken from “Inflatable Habitats Technology Development”
(Kennedy, 2000).
The Large Spherical Habitat concept (Roberts, 1988) was taken from “Structural Design of a Lunar
Habitat” (Ruess, 2006).
Genesis I information was obtained from the Bigelow Aerospace website: www.bigelowaerospace.com
The 4m by 6m Habitation Module is a somewhat larger version of the Exploration Systems
Architectural Study model (NASA, 2005).
Settling into a Steady State

A number of considerations must be taken into account when integrating the
greenhouse into the outpost, time must be allowed for the plants to grow to a
productive size. P/C processes and Earth supply must provide consumables
until the greenhouse reaches a stable state. Enough reserve supplies must be
available to allow for failure or for over-estimating the resources that will be
produced by the greenhouse. Previous experiments in CELSS have provided
lessons that will be applied to any greenhouse deployed on the Moon. The
BioPLEX facility (LSSIF) operated from 1995–1997 by NASA and the Johnson
Space Center. Biosphere 2 operated from 1991–1993 and is located just north-
east of Tucson, Arizona. The BIOS series–BIOS 1, 2, and 3 operated from
1965 thru 1996 out of the former Soviet Union and Russia at the Institute
of Biomedical Problems. The BIOS-3 program was the most successful and
achieved closure of 93–95%. All of these systems used either P/C by itself or
a hybrid of P/C and Bioregenerative systems. A great deal of research data is
available; major findings relevant to greenhouse deployment include:
• Off-gassing of equipment and materials in a closed module

environment–ex. formaldehyde in the case of BioPLEX.
• Numerous power outages and equipment failures can occur despite
the best efforts of planning.
• Provide enough lighting backup bulbs to replace burned out units.

• Beware of unimagined chemical reactions both within the enclosure
and between the enclosure and the surrounding environment–ex.
Biosphere 2 had a totally unexpected CO2 drain into the founda-
tion which caused the plants to decrease production of oxygen, thus
oxygen levels dropped over time.
• Trace contaminants will be released from equipment and will accu-
mulate in the LSS as it cycles thru the food chain–ex. Examination
of BIOS-3 participants revealed increased levels of chromium, iron,
nickel, zinc, copper being stored in their bodies introduced via life
support systems.
See Appendix A for more information on past and current P/C and
Bioregeneration analogs and simulators being researched for application on
the Moon and Mars.
Deployment of Inflatable Units

Deploying an inflatable greenhouse module has advantages. It would pro-
vide a much greater volume per mass than a hard shell module. The light
weight inflatable module would presumably cost less to ship from Earth
than a hard-shelled module (because of the reduced mass). The deflated
greenhouse module will have to fit on the Altair lander (either unmanned
or within cargo area of a manned lander). The atmospheric pressure in a
deployed inflatable module must be capable of withstanding the mass of
the regolith shielding, however the one-sixth-g lunar gravity will reduce
the structural requirements that a comparable unit deployed in Earth’s
gravity would need given the same need for radiation shielding. The
TransHab module, in tests, successfully withstood up to four times Earth’s
atmospheric pressure. Inflatable greenhouse modules may be used at Earth
standard pressures (sea-level 101 kPa) or at lower pressures (50–25 kPa) to
simulate possible Martian greenhouse atmospheres (Rygalov V. , 2007).
NASA has researched and tested inflatable modules since the 1960s. Had
lunar operations continued after Apollo 17, an inflatable “Lunar Stay Time
Extension Module” would have been deployed. NASA considers inflatable
technology, robotic construction, self-deploying structures, and self-healing
structures enabling technologies, to be used to increase our ability to explore
the solar system. Inflatable units are considered to be the leading candidates
for lunar and Martian habitats and greenhouses. NASA extensively tested
TransHab for the ISS; the design and functionality of the test modules were
so successful that Bigelow Industries has purchased the rights to produce
these modules for use as commercial space hotels. The use of inflatable
technology for greenhouses has also been extensively researched–the South

Pole Food Growth Chamber Project being the latest example.
Issues with Contamination

COSPAR policy for the Moon says that outgoing cargo does not require ster-
ilization; forward contamination is not considered an issue because of the
extreme environment of the Moon. However, experiments with the LDEF
(Long Duration Exposure Facility) proved that spore forming bacteria can
survive (up to 6 years on the LDEF) in the harsh vacuum of space (Glavin,
2007). The hostile environment of the Moon is similar in many respects to con-
ditions found in the vacuum of space. Greenhouse deployment will involve
plant life and the chances of these plants harboring bacteria or other organ-
isms cannot be ruled out. Some studies have shown that bacteria grown in
microgravity can have their gene expression altered. Salmonella typhimurium
bacteria grown onboard STS-115 were compared to ground control bacteria
and were found to be more virulent (Wilson, 2007). Over time the possibility
of increased virulent bacteria infecting greenhouse life, crewmembers, or
even people on Earth (upon return) increases. Studies with plant life on the
ISS may quantify the risks involved. A greenhouse will not introduce a new
risk–bacterial contamination is always possible–but it will increase the num-
ber of bacteria and undetected organisms gaining access to a microgravity
environment.
Lunar research on bacterial propagation rates, the number and extent of
contamination occurrences, contamination protocols, can be observed and
applied to Martian mission studies. The sterile vacuum, radiation filled sur-
face of the Moon could provide data on the degrees of contamination when
acquiring surface samples; since these samples would be initially lifeless,
any organic material found in the sample would be attributed to the sam-
pling process itself. Missions to Mars, presumably a much more “bacteria
friendly” environment, would benefit from lunar contamination research.
Summary: Greenhouse Deployment for the Lunar Base

The deployment of a modular or inflatable greenhouse is possible with the
Constellation architecture. Deployment of a greenhouse with the initial
Lunar habitat in or near 2025 would allow time to prepare for including them
in missions to Mars—time to “get the bugs out” of the system. Given the cur-
rent plans, this is very achievable. While a large underground structure built
within a lava tube or crater bottom provides the greatest return of consum-
ables, its deployment is unlikely before Mars missions begin.
NASA ESAS plans include all the technology, excavation equipment, expe-
rience, and resources that either inflatable or modular greenhouse deploy-
ment would require. It would add excavation work (in the case of an inflatable
unit in a pre-dug trench covered with regolith) equivalent to at least the
work required deploying the habitat module; wear and tear on the excava-
tion equipment, and an increase in the amount of consumables used during
deployment. Depending on the size, a greenhouse would save at least $1B/yr
in food shipping costs; there would be oxygen production and water purifi-
cation benefits that would also add to its economic value. The cost of devel-
oping, building, deploying, and maintaining the unit(s) must be factored
into the economics. The larger the initial greenhouse volume, the greater the
consumables produced, but the greater the initial cost of deployment.
Bibliography
Bigelow, R. (2008). Bigelow Aerospace-Genesis I-General Specs. Retrieved 2008, from
Bigelow Aerospace: http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/genesis_I/?Genesis_I_
General_Specs
Bodiford, M., Burks, K. H., Perry, M. R., Cooper, R. W., & Fiske, M. R. (2007). Lunar
In Situ Materials-Based Habitat Technology Development Efforts at NASA/MSFC.
Huntsville, AL: NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center.
Churchill, S. E. (1997). Fundamentals of Space Life Science (Vol. 2). Malabar, FL: Krieger
Publishing Company.
Coleman, S., Cooke, D., Yoder, G., & Hensley, S. (2008). Lunar Architecture Update.
3rd Space Exploration Conference and Exhibit. Denver, CO: NASA, JPL, 3rd Space
Exploration Conference.
Cooke, D. (2007). Exploration Lunar Architecture. Presentation to the Lunar Science
Workshop. Tempe, AZ: NASA, Exploration Systems Mission Directorate.
Dale, S. (2006). Exploration Strategy and Architecture. Implementing the Vision: 2nd
Space Exploration Implementing Conference. NASA, Deputy Administrator.
Dorris, C. (2008). Altair Project. 3rd Space Exploration Conference. Denver, CO:
NASA, Deputy Project Manager.
Eckart, P. (1996). Spaceflight Life Support and Biospherics. Torrance, CA, The
Netherlands: Microcosm Press and Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Gaffey, D. M. (2007, Fall). In Situ Resource Utilization for Life Support at Lunar
and Martian Bases. Retrieved 2008, from Lecture/Seminar 45, Space Studies
410, UND.
Gitelson, I., Lisovsky, G. M., & MacElroy, R. D. (2003). Man-Made Closed Ecological
Systems. London, New York: Taylor & Francis.
Glavin, D. E. (2007). In Situ Biological Contamination Studies on the Moon: Impli
cations for Future Planetary Protection and Life Detection on Mars. Greenbelt,
MD: NASA, Goddard Space Flight Center.
ISU. (2006). Luna Gaia: A Closed-Loop Habitat for the Moon-Final Report. SSP 2006
Team Project. International Space University.
Kennedy, K. J. (2000). Inflatable Habitats Technology Development. NASA, TransHab
Project Office. Houston, TX: Johnson Space Center.
Larson, B., & Sanders, J. (2007). NASA In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) Project
And Its Linkage to Lunar Science. Presentation to the Lunar Science Workshop.
Tempe, AZ: NASA, Lunar Science Workshop.
Mueller, R. P., & King, R. H. (2007). Criteria for Lunar Outpost Excavation. Space
Resources Roundtable-SRR IX (pp. 1-39). Golden, CO: NASA/Colorado School
of Mines.
NASA. (2005). NASA’s Exploration Systems Architecture Study. National Aeronautics
and Space Administration.
NASA, & Arizona, U. o. (2007). Lunar Greenhouse (Video 2). Retrieved 2008,
from Brightcove: http://video.aol.com/video-detail/lunar-greenhouse-part-2/
2348016504?
Roberts, M. (1988). Inflatable Habitation for the Lunar Base. NASA Conference Publication
No. 3166. Washington, D.C.: NASA.
Ruess, F., Schaenzlin, J., & Benaroya, H. (2006). Structural Design of a Lunar Habitat.
Journal of Aerospace Engineering.
Rygalov, D. V. (2007, Fall). Hybrid LSS Approaches: System Integration. Retrieved 2008,
from Lecture/Seminar 38_1 and 38_2, Space Studies 410, UND.
Rygalov, V. (2007). Low Pressure Plant Physiology: Martian Greenhouses (Low Pressure
Greenhouses). Grand Forks, ND: UND, Space Studies Dept. Vadim Rygalov.
Salisbury, F. B., Gitelson, J. I., & Lisovsky, G. M. (1997, October). BIOS-3: Siberian
Experiments in Bioregenerative Life Support. Retrieved September 10, 2004, from
BioScience: http://www.aibs.org/bioscience/bioscience-archive/vol47/oct97.
salisbury.text.html
Sanders, G. B., & Duke, M. (2005). In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) Capability
Roadmap: Final Report (NASA). NASA, Johnson Space Center/Colorado
School of Mines. Houston: NASA.
Schwartzkopf, S. H. (1992). Design of a Controlled Ecological Life Support System.
BioScience , 42 (7).
Sumrall, P. (2008). Ares V Overview. 3rd Space Exploration Conference. Denver, CO:
NASA, Ares Projects Advanced Planning Manager.
Wilson, J. E. (2007). Space flight alters bacterial gene expression and virulence and
reveals a role for global regulator Hfq. Tempe, AZ: Center for Infectious Diseases
and Vaccinology, The Biodesign Institute, ASU.
Terms
LSS: Life Support Systems
ISRU: In Situ Resource Utilization
CELSS: Controlled Ecological Life Support System
ISS: International Space Station
COSPAR: Committee on Space Research
LDEF: Long Duration Exposure Facility

ESAS: Exploration Systems Architecture Study
CEV: Crew Exploration Vehicle: NASA spacecraft in development
NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration
P/C: Physico-chemical (Life Support System)
IBMP: Institute for BioMedical Problems (Moscow, Russia)
TLI: Trans Lunar Insertion
MT: Metric ton = 1000 kg
NSF: National Science Foundation
NFT: Nutrient Filled Technique
CEAC: Controlled Environment Agriculture Center
Appendix A
Table 40.1
CES Research Historical Overview
Project Title, Country Years of System Purpose; Bio- Key People Playing
of Origin for Funding Operation, Engineering Characteristics Integral Roles in
and Support Function and Outcomes the Project
Earth’s Biosphere ≥5.7 * 109 BC to Purpose unknown Human history,
(Biosphere-1) present leaders
Volume ∼5.1*1018 m3; No human control
Planting area ∼0.49 * 10 m2 on Biosphere-1
(Earth)
International, Global Complex life support of
Life Support System multiple affiliation
Unique Natural Principle of Biosphere control:
Prototype for statistical regulation +
Artificial CES evolution
Principle of control among
human population:
technological development
Ground Based 1960–1961 Experiments linking micro- Academician S. P.

Experimental algae with rats and dogs for Korolev; Dr. Y.
Complex (GBEC-1) periods up to 7 days Shepelev et al.;
(USSR) of the Institute of
Bio-Medical
Problems (IBMP)
It was shown that Institute of Plant
photosynthetic organisms can Physiology (IPP),
provide closed air loop Moscow
together with animals
Continued on next page
Table 40.1 (Continued)

Experiments at the 1961 Gas exchange between US Air Force
United States Air monkeys and an algae tank
Force School of occurred for up to 50 hours
Aviation Medicine without any adverse effects
USA)
Micro-CES (m-CES) ∼1965–Present Micro-CES were created for C. Folsome
(USA, Russia, fundamental research of (University of
Europe) closed environment Hawaii, Manoa)
functioning principles B. Kovrov et al.
100 mL – 5 L of micro-algae/ (Institute of
bacteria/protozoa; Biophysics (IBP)
Determined that materially RAS,
closed m-CES can stay Krasnoyarsk);
self-sustainable & functional Others
for decades based on the
simplest ecological structures
BIOS-1 (USSR) 1965–1968 First step to regenerate Academician S. P.
atmosphere for one human; Korolev; Acting
Volume ∼12 m3; member of the
∼8m2 of illuminated area for Russian Academy
micro-algae Chlorella of Sciences (RAS)
cultivation;
Complete atmospheric closure; J. I. Gitelson et al.,
water and nutrition stored in IBP, Krasnoyarsk,
advance; provided ∼20% of Siberia
material closure for essential
substances; buildup of trace
contaminants was noticed
BIOS-2 (USSR) 1968–1972 Atmosphere & water Academician J. I.
regeneration Gitelson, Prof. G.
Volume ∼20.5 m3 Lisovsky, Prof. B.
Chlorella + higher plants Kovrov et al., IBP
∼80 to 85% (Air + Water) of RAS, Krasnoyarsk,
total material closure Siberia
GBEC-2 1969 Three people lived in small IBMP, Moscow
Ground Based enclosed systems with
Experimental physical-chemical + biological
Complex LS for one year
(USSR) Volume ∼115 m3
Food and water were stored
ahead in time; several types
of green plants were used to
provide vitamins
∼100% of oxygen and water
regenerated

BIOS-3 (USSR/Russia) 1972–1991 System built to achieve Academician J. I.

As a result of this (3 completely complete material isolation Gitelson, Prof. G.
program, the closed from outside and autonomy Lisovsky, B. Prof.
Principle of Human experiments; Volume ∼315 m3 Kovrov et al., IBP
Control for artificial longest – ½ year) Planting area ∼120 m2; RAS, Krasnoyarsk,
CES self-sustainable 3 people + variety of higher Siberia
functioning was plants (“conveyor cultures” for
formulated continuity in biomass supply)
+ micro-algae and physical-
chemical waste regeneration
units provided ∼93 to 97 % (Air
+ Water + Vegetarian part of
diet) of total material closure;
trace contaminant buildup
was noticed
BIOS-3M ∼1991–1996 Goal: further acceleration of Prof. G. Lisovsky,
(Modernized) material turnover to minimize and Dr. A.
(Russia) physical dimensions Tikhomirov et al.,
BIOS-3 + Doubled Light IBP RAS,
Sources (40 xenon lamps with Krasnoyarsk,
12000 W/lamp) Siberia; in
Fundamental instabilities collaboration with
noticed for artificial intensive F. Salisbury et al.
CES, principle of Human at Utah State
Control as stabilizing factor for University, Logan,
artificial LS was formulated USA
BIOS-3M Eco ∼1991–1996 Investigation of CES eco- Prof. G. Lisovsky,
Ecological Research physiological stability limits; and Dr. V. Rygalov
Facility (Russia) BIOS-3 + Doubled Light et al., IBP,
Sources (Intensive CES Krasnoyarsk,
Stability); Siberia
Volume ∼157.75 m3
Planting area ∼20.5 m2
Higher plants + test chemical
toxicants (SO2, NH3, Ethylene)
The concept of CES stability
limits in combination with
LSS physical dimensions and
Human Control principle was
formulated and confirmed in
experiments
Continued on next page

Biosphere-2 (USA) 1991–Present Unique simulation of J. Allen, and M.

Biosphere-1 and planetary LS Nelson et al.,
base; completely closed in Institute Eco-
material exchange & open for techniques/Space
natural sun-light and Biospheres
information flows Ventures; USA/
Volume ≥ 210 * 103 m3; Great Britain
Area ∼1.28 * 104 m2
Determined Eco & (Closure Basic Earth biomes are
Physiological experiment included in the system +
Processes, Statistical with 8 intensive agricultural
Regulation/Human crew-members: (without chemicals) area and
Factors with the 1991–1993) high-tech human habitat
Intention of
Self-Sustainability
Breadboard Project, 1986–2004 Facility total volume ∼115 m3 Dr. B. Nott, Dr. J.
NASA Higher (Currently Plant area ∼20 m2 Sager, and Dr. R.
Plant-based reconfigured Goal is maximal facilitation of Wheeler et al.,
Controlled Ecological into Space Life food production (mixed Kennedy Space
Life Support System Sciences Lab) crop), air purification, water Center
(CELSS) Program recycling and high material
Biomass Production flux control based on
Chamber (BPC) advanced technologies
(USA) (NASA, Kennedy
Space Center)
Bio-Home (USA 1990–Present Bio-Home is ∼65 m2 facility for Dr. B. Wolverton et
- NASA, Stennis testing the integration of al., NASA Stannis
Space Center) specifically bio-regenerative Space Center
technologies, including plants
as indoor air purifiers and
aquatic plant waste processing
Bio/Plex (USA) 1986–Present Highly advanced technologies Dr. D. Hanninger,
(NASA, Johnson for Bio- and P/C-regeneration and Dr. D. Barta et
Space Center) of the environment, integrated al., Johnson Space
into one system for long-term Center
human LS
CEEF (Japan) 1992–Present Highly technologically Prof. K. Nitta et al.,
advanced system for LS and National
Biosphere functions-Simulation Aerospace
includes basic Earth biomes Laboratory
and physical-chemical
regeneration processes

Martian Greenhouse 1998–Present Highly automated system for Dr. R. Wheeler

Prototype (USA) plant growth under low (KSC NASA), Dr.
(NASA, Kennedy atmospheric pressure (≥1/10 P. Fowler
Space Center) of Earth atm) oriented for use (Dynamac Inc.)
of natural space resources (In
Situ Resources Utilization =
ISRU concept)
Volume ∼0.417 m3
Planting area ∼0.8 m2
Goal: automatic and Dr. V. Rygalov
autonomous higher plant (University of
growth and oxygen Florida)
accumulation before crew
arrival to the planet Mars
GBEC-3 500 day Plans are: 2006 to Physical/Chemical + Bio- IBMP, Moscow
experiment simulating 2008 Regenerative LS & Long-term
small group social/ psychological effects of
interaction during closed confined environment
Martian expedition to specify workload, provide
Equivalent System Mass (ESM)
analysis, test equipment and
specify LSS components
European Space
Agency/Russian
Space Agency/
Russian Academy of
Sciences
Potential participants:
NASA, Canadian
Space Agency,
French Space Agency,
National Space
Agency of Japan,
others
Section VII
Lunar Soil Mechanics

41
A Constitutive Model for Lunar Soil
C.S. Chang
University of Massachusetts
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Amherst, Massachusetts
Pierre-Yves Hicher
University of Nantes
Research Institute in Civil and Mechanical Engineering
Nantes, France
Pierre-Yves Hicher is currently professor of civil engineering at Ecole

Centrale de Nantes, France and director of the Research Institute in Civil
and Mechanical Engineering, UMR CNRS-Ecole Centrale Nantes-University
of Nantes. His principal research activity and publications lie in the field of
the mechanical behavior of soils and granular materials.
Introduction
The soil on the Moon formed by space weathering processes and dynamic
impacts of micro-meteorites is composed of aggregates of minerals, rock-
lets and glasses, welded together into agglutinates. We are interested in the
behavior of soils in a typical regolith of the Moon—a surface layer which
consists of loose sand and rock fragments which overlies the solid rock.
The fine particles of lunar soil are the products of the continual impact on
the surface by meteoroids which smash and grind rocks into soil and weld
soil into new rocks. The range of grain size distribution is summarized in a
soil gradation curve given in Fig. 41.1 (Costes et al., 1970) based on the core
samples obtained from the surface layer of the Moon (Apollo 11 and 12).
According to the particle size distribution, the lunar soil can be classified
as dry silty sand following the Unified Soil Classification System, ASTM
standards.
617
100
90
80
Percent Passing (%)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
Particle Size (mm)
Figure 41.1
Approximated gradation range for Apollo 11 and 12 soil core samples.
However, observations and measurements conducted during Surveyor

(1966–1968), Apollo (1968–1972), and Luna (1959–1976) missions indicate that
lunar soil has an unusually high cohesion in comparison to the same type
of soils tested under Earth conditions. According to Buzz Aldrin, astronaut
on Apollo 11, the soil on the Moon ‘‘has the cohesive property that wet sand
would have’’ (Costes et al., 1970). A stable vertical trench excavated during
the Surveyor 7 mission is shown in Fig. 41.2a and a footprint left by Surveyor
3 demonstrates the fineness and cohesiveness of the lunar soil (Fig. 41.2b).
Our knowledge of engineering properties of lunar soil are derived mainly
from operations performed during Surveyor and Apollo programs, including
bulk and core samples returned to Earth, trench excavation, ground penetra-
tion, and some simple physical experiments. In laboratory studies, it was
found that soils tested under a chamber with ultrahigh vacuum and high
temperature had an increase of up to 13° in angle of internal friction and
1.1kPa in cohesion (Bromwell 1966; Nelson 1967; Perko et al. 2001). This
increase of soil strength is consistent with the observed stable vertical trend
excavation in dry silty sand on the Moon.
For soil on Earth, cohesion is originated from electrostatic forces and surface-
energy forces, which includes van der Waals forces (intermolecular potential
energy). The surface-energy forces act at very short range. Compared to the
gravitational forces, the surface-energy forces are negligible on Earth for soils
with particle sizes larger than around 0.06 mm. Thus terrestrially, the forces
are negligible for sand or silty sand. However, as particle size decreases to the
size of clay, the surface-energy forces have a greater influence on its strength.
The effect of surface energy forces on friction and adhesion properties of
small particles can be found in the literature of powder technology, particu-
late technology and interface sciences (Derjaguin 1934, Derjaguin et al. 1975,
Johnson 1971, Molerus 1978, Thorton and Ning 1998, Tomas 2001).
Due to various environmental differences on the Moon (such as the
gravitational fields, temperature extremes, low to practically nonexistent
A Constitutive Model for Lunar Soil 619
Figure 41.2a
Trench excavated by Surveyor 7 Spacecraft in Lunar subsurface soil.
Figure 41.2b
The Spacecraft (Surveyor 3–Apollo 12) had bounced upon landing, leaving a footprint.
atmospheric pressure, plus the space weathering which includes surface acti-
vating effects like UV radiation, the solar wind and galactic particle fluxes),
it seems plausible to consider surface energy forces as a dominant cause for
altering the mechanical behavior of lunar soil with the size of silty sand.
An issue that may be addressed is to what order of magnitudes the surface-
energy forces can influence the strength and deformation of lunar soils.
In this paper, a model is developed that accounts for the surface energy
forces between particles and is capable of modeling its effect on the shear
strength of the soil assembly. For this purpose, we adopt a microstructural
modeling approach (Chang and Hicher, 2005; Hicher and Chang, 2005).
Models using this approach can also be found in the work by Jenkins (1988),
Walton (1987), Rothenburg and Selvadurai (1981), Chang (1988), Emeriault
and Cambou (1996), Liao et. al (2000), Kruyt and Rothernburg (2002), among
others. Elasto-plastic models using this approach can be found by Chang
et al. (1992a, 1992b), Suiker and Chang (2003).
It is noted that the above mentioned microstructural continuum approach
is not a “complete” micro-mechanical approach. Since the complete micro-
structural details for a particle assembly are not known, the complex defor-
mation behavior of the particle assembly cannot be derived directly from
the first-principles theory based solely on particle-level properties. Besides
the parameters of particle-level properties, the present model adopts some
mesoscale parameters because inter-particle behavior is not exclusively a
local phenomenon; it is considerably influenced by the degree of interlock-
ing and porosity of the surrounding particles. In the present model, these
parameters are based on the critical void ratio concept, and are empirically
determined from testing on soil specimens.
Therefore, the present model should be regarded as a model of semi-empirical
nature. It is necessary to calibrate parameters from soil tests in order to pre-
dict complex behavior with good quantitative agreement. The main advantage
of the present model over conventional continuum constitutive models is its
microscale consideration, which allows one to conveniently extend the model
for new phenomenon at the particle level, such as the surface energy forces.
However, adding the surface energy term from first principles physics into
an otherwise semi-empirical model may elicit the following concern: How
can one part of the physics be treated from first principles if the other parts
of the physics are treated only empirically? The answer is that even though
the surface energy forces are added from first principles physics, this does
not alter the empirical nature of the model. The model is aimed to predict the
“order of magnitude” of the surface energy effect.
In what follows, we first describe the formulation of this model, which
takes account of the surface energy forces between particles. The model per-
formance is then demonstrated through the results of a simulation of fine
Hostun sand tested under terrestrial conditions (i.e., without surface energy
forces). The fine sand has a mean particle diameter of 0.5 mm, loaded to
failure in triaxial testing cells under different confining stresses. Finally, the
effect of surface energy forces between particles is introduced to predict the

stress-strain-strength behavior of lunar soil.
Stress-Strain Model
In this model, we envision a granular material as a collection of particles. The
deformation of a representative volume of the material is generated by the
mobilization of contact particles in all contacts. Thus, the stress-strain relation-
ship can be derived as an average of the mobilization behavior of local contact
planes in all contacts. For a contact plane in the αth orientation, the local forces
{
fiα and the local movements δ αi can be denoted as follows: fiα = fnα , f sα , ftα }
and δ αi = {δ αn , δ αs , δ αt }, where the subscripts n, s, and t represent the components
in the three directions of the local coordinate system. The direction normal
to the plane is denoted as n; the other two orthogonal directions, s and t, are
tangential to the plane. Rotation of particles is not considered here.
The forces and movements at contact planes of all contacts are suitably
superimposed to obtain the macroscopic stress strain tensors. The macro-
scopic stiffness tensor is obtained on the condition that the rate of energy dissi-
pation expressed in terms of the macro stress and strain must be equivalent to
that expressed in terms of micro forces and movements. In such formulation,
it has usually been assumed that the microstructure is statically constrained,
which means that the forces on each contact plane are assumed equal to the
resolved components of the macroscopic stress tensor.
Inter-Particle Behavior
van der Waals Forces
The surface energy forces pull soil particles together, thus increase the shear
strength of the soil. The physics of the surface energy forces between two par-
ticles is reviewed in this section. The adhesive forces between two solid grains
result mainly from electrostatic forces and van der Waals forces. The electro-
static component in lunar soil is assumed to be negligable (Perko et al. 2001).
Therefore, in this paper, the surface energy forces are calculated from van der
Waals energy fields. For simplicity, lunar soil grains are represented by spheres
of equal radii that are separated by thin layers of adsorbed molecules.
van der Waals forces between two bodies are derived from the dispersion inter-
action energy between two identical atoms or molecules (Israelachvili 1992):
C
W (r ) = − (41.1)
r6
where r is the distance between the two atoms and C is the London disper-
sion coefficient.
Then, with the assumption of additivity of these attractive forces, the inter-
action energy of a molecule located at a distance D of the planar surface of
a solid made up of like molecules is the sum of its interaction with all the
molecules in the body:
πCρ (41.2)
W (D) = −
6D 3
where ρ = number of atoms per unit volume.
The corresponding van der Waals force is
δW (D) πCρ (41.3)

F= =
δD 2D4
It is then possible to calculate the interaction energy between two solids as,
for example, two spheres:
AR1R2
W=− (41.4)
6D(R1 + R2 )
where D = distance between two spheres, R1 and R2 = radii of the two spheres,
A = π 2Cρ1ρ2 is the Hamaker constant, ρ1 and ρ2 being the number of atoms
per unit volume for the two bodies. For two flat surfaces, one obtains the
interaction energy per unit area:
A (41.5)
W=−
12 πD2
The van der Waals force between two solids in contact can then be com-
puted from the interaction energy. One obtains the following two cases:
Between two spheres:
R1R2 (41.6)
f = 2 πW (D)
R1 + R2
Eq. (41.6) is called the Derjaguin approximation (Israelachvili, 1992). In the

case of two identical spheres, Eq. (41.6) becomes:
AR2 (41.7)
f=
12 D2
Between two flat surfaces, per unit area:
A
f= (41.8)
6πD2
Let us now consider two soil grains as two identical elastic spheres. If sub-
jected to an external force f, the two spheres will deform and create a flat
circular contact area with a radius a:
1/3
 3(1 − υ 2p )R 
a=  f 1/3 (41.9)
 4Ep 
Ep and υp are the Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio of the particles. The
derivation of Eq. (41.8) can be found in Derjaguin et al. (1975), Johnson
(1971), Dahneke (1972), Valverde et al. (2001). It is noted that, for simplicity,
we consider only the case of elastic contact flattening (Eq. (41.9)). Under
these simplified conditions, van der Waals forces acting between two par-
ticles can be considered as the sum of two terms, one due to the interaction
between two flat surfaces of area S = πa2 and one along the remaining sur-
face of the two spheres. Using the Derjaguin approximation for the second
term, we obtain the expression of the van der Waals force between two
particles:
A 2 AR
f= a + (41.10)
6D 3 12 D2
where A = Hamaker coefficient; D = thickness of molecular layer between

two particles; R = the radius of the particles. Hamaker constant A was esti-
mated to be 4.3 × 10−20 J for lunar soil and 1.5 × 10−20 J for terrestrial quartz
sand (Perko et al. 2001).
The thickness of the molecular layer between two particles D is highly
dependent on the atmospheric pressure and composition. On the Moon, the
atmospheric pressure is nearly zero, which can lead to a very thin layer of
molecules between two particles compared to that under terrestrial environ-
ment. Therefore, according to Eq. (41.10), it is reasonable to expect that the
surface energy forces between particles are much higher than those between
particles under terrestrial environment.
It is noted that the radius a of the contact area in Eq. (41.10) increases with
confining stress of a specimen. Thus the surface energy force also increases
with confining stress, which indicates that the surface energy force will con-
tribute to the shear strength not only on the cohesive component but also on
the frictional component.
The orientation of a contact plane between two particles is defined by the
vector perpendicular to this plane. On each contact plane, an auxiliary local
coordinate can be established as shown in Fig. 41.3. The surface energy force
f given in Eq. (41.10) represents only the force magnitude. Its direction is nor-
mal to the inter-particle contact plane given by niα. Thus in a vector form, the
surface energy force fiα(SE) = fniα.
n
x
t
n
s
t
γ s
z
β
Figure 41.3
Local coordinate at inter-particle contact.
Between two particles, the inter-particle force fiα can be decomposed into
two components: (1) due to applied load on the boundary of the soil assembly
fiα(A), and (2) due to surface energy forces between particles fiα(SE). Thus
fiα = fiα ( A) + fiα (SE ) (41.11)
The surface energy force is a function of contact area as shown in Eq. (41.10).

However, the contact area is in turn a function of inter-particle force
(see Eq. (41.9)), thus the expression of Eq. (41.11) is implicit and nonlinear in
nature.
Inter-Particle Force-Displacement Relationship

Elastic Part
The contact stiffness of a contact plane includes normal stiffness, knα, and
shear stiffness, krα (assuming krα = ktα = ksα). The elastic stiffness tensor is
defined by
fiα = kijαeδ αj e (41.12)
which can be related to the contact normal and shear stiffness
kijαe = knα niα nαj + krα ( siα sαj + tiαt αj ) (41.13)
where n, s, t are three orthogonal unit vectors that form the local coordinate
system (see Fig. 41.3). The vector n is outward normal to the contact plane.
Vectors s and t are on the contact plane.
The value of the stiffness for two elastic spheres can be estimated from
Hertz-Mindlin’s formulation (Mindlin 1969). For sand grains, a revised form
was adopted (Chang et. al, 1989), and is given by
n n
 f   f 
kn = kn0  n 2  ; kr = kr 0  n 2  (41.14)
 Gg l   Gg l 
where Gg is the elastic modulus for the grains, fn is the contact force in the
normal direction. l is the branch length between the two particles. kn0, kr0
and n are material constants. For two spherical particles, the branch length is
same as particle size l = d. If the Hertz-Mindlin’s contact formulation is used,
the value of kn0 in Eq. (41.14) can be expressed in the following form:
2/3
d  12  (41.15)
kn0 = Gg  
2  1 − νg 
Plastic Part
Plastic sliding often occurs with an upward or downward movement, thus
shear dilation/contraction takes place. The stress-dilatancy is a well-recognized
phenomenon in sand (see discussions in the work by Taylor 1948, Rowe 1962,
Goddard 1990), and should be correctly modeled. The dilatancy effect has
been described by Chang and Hicher (2005)
δ np f
= r − tan φ0 (41.16)
∆ p fn
where ϕ0 is a material constant which, in most cases, can be considered equal

to the inter-particle friction angle ϕμ. Note that the shear force T and the rate
of plastic sliding ∆ p are defined as:
(δ ) + (δ )
2 2
fr = f s2 + ft2 and ∆ p = p
s
p
t
(41.17)
The yield function is assumed to be of Mohr-Coulomb type:
F( fi , κ ) = fr − fnκ( ∆ p ) = 0 (41.18)
where κ(Δp) is an isotropic hardening/softening parameter. When F > 0, it indi-

cates loading, otherwise unloading. The hardening function, defined as a hyper-
bolic relationship between κ and Δp, involves two material constants: ϕp and kp0:
k p 0 tan φ p ∆ p
κ= (41.19)
fn tan φ p + k p 0 ∆ p
The value of κ asymptotically approaches tan ϕp. The initial slope of the
hyperbolic curve is k p0. On the contact plane, under a yield condition, the
direction of plastic shear sliding ∆ p follows the associated flow rule, thus
is perpendicular to the yield surface. However, the plastic movement
in the direction normal to the contact plane is governed by the stress-
dilatancy equation shown in Eq. (41.16). Thus the overall flow rule is non-
associated.
Interlocking Influence
One of the important elements to be adopted in granular modeling is the
critical state concept. Under critical state, the granular material remains at
a constant volume while it is subjected to a continuous distortion. The void
ratio corresponding to this state is denoted as ec.
The critical void ratio ec is a function of the mean stress. The relationship
has traditionally been written as follows:
 p′ 
ec = Γ − λ log( p′) or ec = eref − λ log   (41.20)
 pref 
Γ and λ are two material constants and p’ is the mean stress of the packing,
and (eref,pref) is a reference point on the critical state line.
The inter-particle friction angle ϕμ is a constant for the material. However,
the peak friction angle, ϕp, on a contact plane between two particles is depen-
dent on the degree of interlocking of neighboring particles, which can be
related to the state of packing void ratio e by:
m
e 
tan φ p =  c  tan φµ (41.21)
 e
where m is a material constant (Biarez and Hicher, 1994).

For dense packing, the peak frictional angle ϕp is greater than ϕμ.
When the packing structure dilates, the degree of interlocking and the
peak frictional angle are reduced, which results in a strain-softening
phenomenon.
Elasto-Plastic Force-Displacement Relationship

With the elements discussed above, the relations between the rate of force-
displacement for two particles can be derived that includes both elastic and
plastic behavior, given by
fiα = kijαpδ αj (41.22)
The detailed expression of kijαp can be found in Chang and Hicher (2005).
Stress-Strain Relationship
Macro Micro Relationship
The stress-strain relationship for an assembly can be determined by integrat-
ing the behavior of all inter-particle contacts. During the integration pro-
cess, a relationship is required to link the macro and micro variables. Using
the static hypotheses proposed by Liao et al. (1997), we obtain the relation
between the macro strain rate and inter-particle displacement rate (here, we
do not consider the finite strain condition)
N
u j ,i = Aik−1 ∑ δ l
α =1
α α
j k
(41.23)
where δ j is the relative displacement rate between two contact particles, and
the branch vector lk is the vector joining the centers of two contact particles. It
is noted that contact particles include both direct contact and indirect contact
of neighboring particles associated with a Voronoi polyhedron as discussed by
Cambou et al. (2000). For convenience, we let N be the total number of contacts.
The variables δ αj and lkα are defined respectively as the values of δ j and lk asso-
ciated with the αth contact. The fabric tensor Aik in Eq. (41.23) is defined as
N
Aik = ∑l l
α =1
α α
i k (41.24)
Using the principle of energy balance and using Eq. (41.23), the mean force
rate on the contact is
fjα = σ ij Aik−1lkαV (41.25)
In Eq. (41.25), the stress increment σ ij can be obtained by the contact forces
and branch vectors for all contacts (Christofferson et al., 1981, Rothenburg
and Selvadurai, 1981)
N
σ ij =
1
V ∑ f l
α =1
α α
j i (41.26)
Applying the defined contact force in Eq. (41.25), Eq. (41.26) is uncondition-
ally satisfied. Because of its approximation nature, Eq. (41.25) can be viewed
as an averaged solution, in which the inter-particle force can be regarded as
the mean value for forces on all contact planes of the same orientation. For
convenience, we also regard the branch length as the mean value for all con-
tact planes of the same orientation.
The inter-particle force in Eq. (41.26) consists of two parts: fiα(A) due to
the applied load on the boundary of the soil assembly, and fiα(SE) due to the
surface energy forces between particles (see Eq. (41.11)). Thus the stress can
be separated into two parts:
N N
σ ij =
1
V ∑
α =1
fjα ( A)liα +
1
V ∑ f
α =1
j
α ( SE ) α
l i (41.27)
The second part of Eq. (41.27) represents the stress induced by surface energy
forces, denoted as
N
( ) 1
∑ f
SE
α ( SE ) α
σ ij = j l
i (41.28)
V α =1
It is noted that this term is not analogous to the usual concept of cohesion
for bulk materials. In the present model, the surface energy stress depends
on the packing structure and is a tensor rather than a scalar. Only for an iso-
tropic distribution of the branch lengths lα, the surface energy stress can be
reduced to an isotropic tensor.
As mentioned earlier, the surface energy force is a function of contact
area, which is in turn a function of inter-particle force. Thus all equations in
Section 2 are nonlinear in nature. The set of nonlinear equations for stress-
strain relationships is discussed in the next section.
Computation Scheme
Using Eqs. (41.22), (41.23), and (41.25), the following relationship between
stress and strain can be obtained:
∑(k )
−1
ep
u i , j = Cijmp σ mp ; where Cijmp = Aik−1 Amn
−1 V
jp lkαlnα (41.29)
α =1
The summation in Eq. (41.29) can be replaced by an integral over orienta-

tions. The integral can lead to a closed-form solution for the elastic modulus
of randomly packed equal-size particles (Chang et al. 1995a). However, in
elastic plastic behavior, due to the nonlinear nature of the local constitutive
equations, a numerical calculation with an iterative process is necessary to
carry out the summation in Eq. (41.29). In order to facilitate the numerical
calculation, the orientations are selected to coincide with the locations of
Gauss integration points in a spherical coordinate system. Summation over
these orientations with the Gauss weighting factor for each orientation is
equivalent to determining the integral over orientations. We found that the
results were more accurate by using a set of fully symmetric integration
points. From a study of the performance of using different numbers of ori-
entations, we found N ≥ 74 to be adequate (Chang and Hicher 2005).
Summary of Parameters
One can summarize the material parameters as:
• Normalized contact number per unit volume: Nl3/V

• Mean particle size, d
• Inter-particle elastic constants: kn0, kr0 and n;
• Inter-particle friction angle: ϕμ and m;
• Inter-particle hardening rule: kp0 and ϕ0;
• Critical state for the packing: λ and Γ or eref and pref
Besides critical state parameters, all other parameters are for inter-particles.
Standard values for kp0 and ϕ0 are the following: kp0 = kn0 and ϕ0 = ϕμ and a typical
ratio kr0/kn0 = 0.4 can be generally assumed. Therefore, only six parameters have
to be derived from experimental results and they can all be determined from
the stress-strain curves obtained from drained compression triaxial tests.
Results of Numerical Simulation

Triaxial Tests on Terrestrial Soil without Surface Energy Forces
A series of drained triaxial tests on fine Hostun Sand were performed by Al
Mahmoud (1999). The gradation curve tested sand is shown in Fig. 41.4. The
mean size of the particles for fine Hostun sand is d = 0.5 mm. It is classified
as uniform fine sand. The minimum and maximum void ratios for this sand
are emin = 0.575, and emax = 0.943, respectively.
100
90
80
Percent Passing (%)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
10 1 0.1 0.01
Particle Size (mm)
Figure 41.4
Gradation curve for fine Hostun sand.
Table 41.1
Model parameters for fine Hostun Sand
eref pref (Mpa) λ ϕμ (°) ϕ0 (°) m kp0/kn
1.05 0.01 0.14 34 34 1.5 0.02
We assume here that surface energy forces can be neglected under terres-
trial conditions. This assumption will be discussed in the next section. The
model needs a small number of input parameters, such as mean particle size,
particle stiffness, inter-particle friction, initial porosity tensor, and an ini-
tial degree of interlocking. The inter-particle elastic constant kn0 is assumed
to be 61000 N/mm. Considering the grain size distribution curve, the con-
tact numbers per volume Nl3/V are 2 for dense sand and 0.9 for loose sand
(Hicher and Chang 2005).
The value of kr0/kn0 is commonly about 0.4, corresponding to a Poisson’s ratio
for Hostun sand ν = 0.2 and the exponent n = 0.5 (Biarez and Hicher, 1994).
From test results, we were able to derive the values of the two parameters
corresponding to the position of the critical state in the e-p’ plane: λ. = 0.14
and pref = 0.01 MPa for eref = 1.05. The friction angle ϕμ was also determined
from the stress state corresponding to the critical state: ϕμ= 34°. The equation
governing the dilatancy rate requires the determination of the parameter ϕ0.
This parameter represents the concept of “phase transformation” as defined
by Ishihara and Towhata (1983) or “characteristic state” as defined by Luong
(1980). A value of ϕ0 = ϕμ was retained.
The peak friction angle is not an intrinsic parameter, but varies with the
void ratio according to Eq. (41.21). A value of m = 1.5 was determined from
the test results. The value of kp0 was determined by curve fitting. The set of
parameters for fine Hostun sand is presented in Table 41.1.
The tests were performed at different confining pressures on samples
prepared at different initial void ratios. Typical results are presented in
Figs. 41.5 and 41.6, which show the triaxial testing results for both dense
20
20 kPa 50 kPa 20 kPa 50 kPa
Deviatoric Stress - q (kPa)
100 kPa Prediction

Volumetric Strain (%)
600 100 kPa Prediction 15
10
400
5
200
0
0 –5
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
Vertical Strain (%) Vertical Strain (%)
Figure 41.5
Stress-strain curves for dense sand.
400 3
20 kPa 50 kPa 20 kPa 50 kPa

Prediction 2

100 kPa 100 kPa Prediction
300
1
200 0
–1
100
–2
0 –3
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
Figure 41.6
Stress-strain curves for loose sand.
and loose specimens made of Hostun sand. The stress strain curves are plot-
ted for dense sand in Fig. 41.5, and loose sand in Fig. 41.6. The model per-
formance can be demonstrated by comparing the predicted and measured
macro behavior.
One can see the combined influence of the initial void ratio and of the
mean effective stress on the stress-strain curves and the volumetric change.
The stress-strain curve has a peak that increases with confining stress. For
dilatant materials, the deviatoric stress reduces after peak and converges
towards a constant state of stress corresponding to the critical state. In prac-
tice, it is difficult to reach this state because of strain localization, especially
in dense materials. The critical state was estimated from the results on loose
specimens.
Triaxial Tests with Consideration of Surface Energy Forces

In order to evaluate the possible effects of lunar environmental conditions
on the stress-strain response of soils, the influence of the surface energy
forces for different values of inter-particle distance D was examined. The
stress-strain curves were predicted using the same soil parameters given
in Table 41.1. Given the introduction of van der Waals forces, shear strength
is expected to be higher. Fig. 41.7 shows the influence of the distance D
between the particles on the shear strength for soil specimens under 20 kPa
confining stress, where q0 represents the shear strength for soil without
surface energy forces and q represents the shear strength with the effects
of these forces.
It is noted that when the distance D is greater than 2 nm, the effect of
the van der Waals forces is practically negligible. This distance D is a func-
tion of the amount of molecules which can be adsorbed on the solid sur-
face. The adsorbate thickness may be estimated by means of potential theory
(Adamson 1990, Perko et al. 2001). Molecule adsorption on a solid surface
is conditioned by temperature, gas pressure and atmospheric composition.
On Earth, adsorption conditions are easily fulfilled due to the presence of a
1.8
Loose sand
Ratio of q/q0 Dense sand
1.4
1
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Distance (nm)
Figure 41.7
Effect of distance between particles on shear strength.
high atmospheric pressure. Therefore the distance D can easily exceed sev-
eral nms such that the effect of the van der Waals force is negligible. Under
lunar atmospheric condition, the thickness of the adsorbed molecule layer
is likely to be very thin. For the case of 0.3 nm thickness (D = 0.6 nm), the
comparisons of the stress-strain curves in Earth and in Moon atmosphere
environments are given in Fig. 41.8 for dense soil and Fig. 41.9 for loose soil.
Assuming the thickness D is 0.3–0.6 nm, the computed shear strength for
lunar soils is 12 to 15% higher than that of Earth soil. The stiffness of the
lunar soil is also higher. It is noted that the effect of van der Waals forces
for this example would result in an increase of 2 to 3 kPa in shear strength,
while an increase of 0.5 kPa in strength is sufficient to hold a 1 m trench cut
in lunar gravity condition.
160
Deviatoric Stress - q(kPa)
18
120 14 Moon
Earth
80 10
6
40 Moon
Earth 2
0 –2
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15 20
Figure 41.8
Predicted stress-strain curves for lunar and terrestrial dense soils.
100 3

1
50 0
–1
Moon Moon
Earth –2 Earth
0 –3
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Figure 41.9
Predicted stress-strain curves for lunar and terrestrial loose soils.

In the present study we introduce surface energy forces between particles and
estimate their effects on the shear strength of soil. The microstructural approach
is adopted because it allows us to model interactions at the particle level.
In the model, a simple elastic-plastic behavior was assumed on each contact
plane. The elastic part is based on the Hertz-Mindlin contact formulation,
while the plastic part is based on a Mohr-Coulomb friction law with an iso-
tropic hardening assumption and a non-associated flow rule. The interaction
among inter-particle planes is assumed to be dependent on the degree of
interlocking and the porosity of the assembly of soil. The effect of porosity is
modeled by a phenomenological approach using the concepts of critical state
such that strain softening behavior can be modeled for dense materials. On
the whole, the model requires a limited number of parameters, which can
easily be determined from conventional triaxial tests.
The ability of the model to reproduce the main features of sand behav-
ior has been demonstrated. Model simulations were compared with drained
triaxial test results at different initial void ratios and different confining
stresses leading to contractant or dilatant behavior of the sand specimens.
The comparison demonstrated that the model is capable of reproducing the
general trend for both loose and dense sands.
The model was applied to predict the shear strength of lunar soil under
extremely low atmospheric pressure. Even if the predicted shear strength for
lunar soil obtained by including surface energy forces is only a hypothesis,
which must await further testing on the Moon for validation and calibration,
the numerical simulations seem to give reasonable results.
Model predictions indicate that soil under extremely low atmospheric
pressure has an increase of shear strength by several kPa higher than the one
which would be present under Earth’s atmospheric pressure. The influence
is more pronounced in dense specimens than in loose specimens, due to the

fact that the particles are arranged more closely to each other in dense pack-
ing. This result is in accordance with the general trend observed in-situ. The
magnitude is on the same order as the measured increase of shear strength
for lunar soil simulants tested under the usual atmospheric pressure and
under a chamber with ultrahigh vacuum.
References
Adamson, A. W. (1990) Physical Chemistry of Surfaces, 5th Ed., John Wiley & Sons,
New York.
Al Mahmoud, M. (1999) “Etude en laboratoire du comportement des sables sous
faibles contraintes”, Thèse de doctorat de l’université des sciences et technolo-
gies de Lille, p. 141.
Biarez J. and Hicher, P.Y. (1994) Elementary Mechanics of Soil Behaviour, Balkema,
p. 208.
Cambou, B., Dedecker, F., and Chaze, M. (2000), “Relevant local variables for the
change of scale in granular materials,” Constitutive Modelling of Granular
Materials (Dimitrios Kolymbas, Ed.), Springer, Berlin, 275–290.
Chang, C. S. (1988), “Micromechanical modeling of constructive relations for granu-
lar material,” Micromechanics of granular materials (Satake, M. and Jenkins,
J. T., eds.), 271–279.
Chang, C. S., Chao, S. C., and Chang Y. (1995a), “Estimates of Mechanical Properties of
Granulates with Anisotropic Random Packing Structure,” International Journal
of Solids and Structures, Vol. 32, No. 14, pp. 1989–2008.
Chang, C. S., and Gao, J. (1995b), “Second-gradient constitutive theory for granular
material with random packing structure,” International Journal of Solids and
Structures, 32 (16), 2279–2293.
Chang, C. S., and Gao, J. (1996), “Kinematic and Static Hypotheses for Constitutive
Modelling of Granulates Considering Particle Rotation,” Acta Mechanica,
Springer-Verlag, Vol. 115, No. 1–4, 1996, pp. 213–229.
Chang, C. S., and Hicher, P.-Y., (2005) “An elasto-plastic model for granular mate-
rials with microstructural consideration.” International Journal of Solids and
Structures, Vol. 42, No. 14, pp. 4258–4277.
Chang, C. S. and Kuhn, M. R. (2005), “On Virtual Work and Stress in Granular Media,”
International Journal of Solids and Structures, Vol. 42, pp. 3773–3793.
Chang, C. S., and Liao, C. (1990), “Constitutive Relations for Particulate Medium with
the Effect of Particle Rotation,” International Journal of Solids and Structures,
Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 437–445.
Chang, C. S., Kabir, M., and Chang, Y. (1992a), “Micromechanics modelling for the
stress strain behavior of granular soil II: evaluation,” Journal of Geotechnical
Engineering, ASCE, 118 (12), 1975–1994.
Chang, C. S., and Ma, L. (1992), “Elastic Material Constants for Isotropic Granular
Solids with Particle Rotation,” International Journal of Solids and Structures,
Pergamon Press, Vol. 29, No. 8, pp. 1001–1018.
Chang, C. S., Misra, A., and Acheampon, K. (1992b), “Elastoplastic deformation of

granulates with frictional contacts,” Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE,
118 (8), 1692–1708.
Chang, C. S. and Misra, A. (1990), “Application of uniform strain theory to hetero-
geneous granular solids,” Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE. 116 (10),
2310–2328.
Chang, C. S., Sundaram, S.S., and Misra, A. (1989) “Initial Moduli of Particulate Mass
with Frictional Contacts,” International Journal for Numerical and Analytical
Methods in Geomechanics, John Wiley & Sons, Vol. 13 (6), pp. 626–641.
Christoffersen, J., Mehrabadi, H. M. and Nemat-Nasser, S. (1981) A micromechanical
description of granular material behavior. Journal of Applied Mechanics, ASME
48(2), 339–344.
Costes, N. C., Carrier, W.D., Mitchell, J.K. and Scott, R.F. (1970) “Apollo 11: soil
mechanics results.” Journal of Soil Mech. and Found. Div., ASCE, vol. 96, n° 6,
pp. 2045–2080.
Dahneke B. (1972) “Influence of Flattening on Adhesion of Particles,” Journal of
Colloid and Interface Science 40 (1): 1.
Derjaguin B (1934) “Analysis of friction and adhesion IV The theory of the adhesion
of small particles,” Kolloid-Zeitschrift 69 (2): 155–164.
Derjaguin B. V., Muller V. M., Toporov Y. P. (1975) “Effect of Contact Deformations on
Adhesion of Particles,” Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 53 (2): 314–326.
Emeriault, F., and Cambou, B. (1996), “Micromechanical modelling of anisotropic
non-linear elasticity of granular medium,” International Journal of Solids and
Structures, 33 (18), 2591–2607.
Goddard, J. D., and Bashir, Y. M. (1990), “On Reynolds dilatancy,” Recent Development
in Structured Continua (D. De Kee and P. N. Kaloni, Eds.), Vol. II, Longman’s,
London, 23–35.
Hicher, P-Y. (1998), “Experimental behavior of granular materials,” in Behavior of
Granular Materials, Ed. By B. Cambou, Springer Wien, New York, 1–97.
Hicher, P.-Y., and Chang, C. S., (2005) “Evaluation of two homogenization techniques
for modelling the elastic behaviour of granular materials.” J. Eng. Mechanics,
ASCE, Vol. 131, n° 11, pp. 1184–1194.
Ishihara, K., and Towhata, I. (1983), “Cyclic behavior of sand during rotation of prin-
cipal axes, ” Mechanics of Granular Materials, Ed. Elsevier, 55–73.
Israelachvili, J. (1992), “Intermolecular and surface forces,” 2nd Ed., Academic Press,
San Diego, p. 450.
Jenkins, J. T. (1988) “Volume change in small strain axisymmetric deformations of
a granular material,” Micromechanics of granular materials (Satake, M. and
Jenkins, J. T., Eds.), 143–152.
Johnson K. L. (1971), “Surface Energy and Contact of Elastic Solids,” Proceedings of the
Royal Society of London Series A- Mathematical and Physical Sciences 324 : 301.
Kruyt, N. P., and Rothenburg, L. (2002), “Micromechanical bounds for the effec-
tive elastic moduli of granular materials,” International Journal of Solids and
Structures, 39 (2): 311–324.
Kruyt, N. P. (2003), “Statics and kinematics of discrete Cosserat-type granular materi-
als,” International Journal of Solids and Structures, 40: 511–534.
Liao, C. L., Chan, T.C., Suiker, A.S.J., and Chang, C.S. (2000), “Pressure-dependent
elastic moduli of granular assemblies,” International Journal for Analytical and
Numerical Methods in Geomechanics, 24, 265–279.
Luding, S., Latzel, M., Volk, W., Diebels, S., and Herrmann, H. J. (2001), “Computer
Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering,” v 191, n 1–2, Micromechanics
of Brittle Materials and Stochastic Analysis of Mechanical Systems, p. 21–28.
Luong, M. P. (1980), “Stress-strain aspects of cohesionless soils under cyclic and
transient loading,” Int. Symp. on Soils under Cyclic and Transient Loading,
Swansea, 353–376.
Mindlin, R. D. (1969), “Microstructure in linear elasticity,” Arch. Rational Mech. Anal.,
16, 51–78.
Mitchell, J.K. (1972), “Soil mechanical properties at the Apollo 14 site,” J. Geophys.
Res., vol. 77 (29), pp. 5641–5664.
Molerus O. (1978), “Effect of Interparticle Cohesive Forces on Flow Behavior of
Powders,” Powder Technology, 20: 161.
Nemat-Nasser S. and Zhang, J. (2002), “Constitutive relations for cohesionless fric-
tional granular material,” International Journal of Plasticity, 18, 531–547.
Perko, H., Nelson, J. and Sadeh, W. (2001), “Surface cleanliness effect on lunar soil shear
strength,” Journal Geotechnical Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 127, No. 4, 371–383.
Rothenburg, L., Selvadurai, A. P. S. (1981), “Micromechanical definitions of the Cauchy
stress tensor for particular media,” Mechanics of Structured Media, (Selvadurai,
A. P. S., Eds.), 469–486. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Rowe, P. W. (1962), “The stress-dilatancy relations for static equilibrium of an assem-
bly of particles in contact,” Proc. Roy. Soc. London A 269, 500–527.
Scott, R.F., (1973), “Lunar soil mechanics.” Proc. 8th Int. Congr. On Soil Mech. and
Found. Engrg., Moscow, pp. 177–190.
Suiker, A.S.J., and Chang C.S. (2003), “Modelling failure and deformation of an assem-
bly of spheres with frictional contacts,” Journal of Engineering Mechanics,
ASCE, (Accepted).
Taylor, D. W., (1948), Fundamentals of soil mechanics. J. Wiley and Sons, New York, N.Y.
Tejchman, J. and Bauer, E. (2005), “Modeling of a cyclic plane strain compres-
sion-extension test in granular bodies within a polar hypoplasticity,” Granular
Matter, v 7, n 4, p. 227–242.
Thornton C, Ning Z. M. (1998), “A theoretical model for the stick/bounce behaviour
of adhesive, elastic-plastic spheres,” Powder Technology 99 (2): 154–162.
Tomas J. (2001), “Assessment of mechanical properties of cohesive particulate solids.
Part 1: Particle contact constitutive model,” Particulate Science and Technology,
19 (2): 95–110.
Valverde J.M., Castellanos A., Watson P.K. (2001), “The effect of particle size on inter-
particle adhesive forces for small loads,” Powder Technology 18 (3): 236–241.
Wallton, K. (1987), “The effective elastic moduli of a random packing of spheres,”
Journal of Mechanical and Physical Solids, 35, 213–226.
42
Geotechnical Engineering Properties
of Lunar Soil Simulants
Haydar Arslan
Laboratory of Atmosphere and Space Physics
University of Colorado, Boulder
Susan Batiste
Laboratory of Atmosphere and Space Physics
Stein Sture
Vice Chancellor and Dean of Graduate School
Abstract The goals of lunar soil mechanics studies are both to improve
scientific knowledge about the properties of lunar soil and to provide the
engineering knowledge needed to plan and perform lunar surface activities.
To enhance the scientific understanding of the behavior, and the mechanisms
responsible for shear failure of lunar soil, geotechnical properties of different
simulants have been evaluated. Mechanical and engineering properties of
a simulant UNB-AN-1 were determined experimentally. Conventional tri-
axial compression experiments were conducted on UNB-AN-1 at a density of
1.7 g/cc which is close to the average density of the upper few centimeters of
the lunar surface. The shear strength dependence on grain size distribution
of simulants has been analyzed experimentally. The small amount of differ-
ence in grain size distribution results in different shear strength properties
for the simulants. The effect of particle shape on the behavior of lunar soil
was simulated with an illustrative microstructure deformation mechanism
for angular materials as lunar soil. The effect of particle size and particle
shape is more dominant at low confinement. Thus, more consideration is
needed for the microstructural properties of lunar soil.
Introduction
Investigation of mechanical properties of lunar soil is needed for the landing
of spacecraft and to understand engineering properties for future operations
including mobility, construction, mining and foundation design. Results of
637
the investigation can be used to assess hazards such as landslides and com-
pressible soils for future landing site selection and to provide engineering
input for the design of Moon landing vehicles, lunar rovers, sampling devices,
and other equipment. The rovers planned for future missions have increased
in capability to travel further from the landing site and into more diverse ter-
rain. The evaluation of soil mechanical properties of regolith simulant is of
increased importance for these long distance or duration excursions.
Lunar soil mechanics studies started in 1964 by Surveyor and Apollo mis-
sions. Scott (1965) presented a report on lunar soil properties. Prior to 1969,
when 13 kg of regolith fines were returned on Apollo 11, no lunar regolith was
available to model a simulant after. Apollo missions brought back a total of
approximately 115 kg of regolith by the end of 1972, and Luna missions brought
back 321 g between 1970 and 1976. While these samples remain extremely sig-
nificant, this is not sufficient for performing complete soil mechanics studies.
Instead, the returned samples were used to evaluate physical, chemical, and
limited geotechnical properties. That information was then used to select ter-
restrial soils, which would sufficiently mimic the lunar regolith.
Lunar soil properties such as density, friction angle cohesion are published
by Christensen et al. (1967), Jaffe (1969) and Scott (1969). Costes et al. (1970)
and Costes and Mitchell (1970) studied the resistance of lunar soil to penetra-
tion for different densities. Carrier et al. (1991) studied density measurements
and settlement of lunar soil. Klosky (1997) used Minnesota Lunar Simulant
(MLS-1) to study a comprehensive geotechnical engineering investigation
about lunar soil. Willman et al. (1995) studied grain size distribution of JSC-1.
Klosky et al. (2000), Arslan et al. (2008) investigated some geotechnical engi-
neering properties of JSC-1.
Engineering Properties of Different Simulants

JSC-1 was the one of the first lunar soil simulants produced in 1980s. It was
produced to a better understanding on future human activities such as mate-
rial handling, construction, excavation, and transportation on the Moon. The
simulant is available in large quantities to any qualified investigator. JSC-1
was mined from a volcanic ash deposit located in the San Francisco volcano
field near Flagstaff, AZ. One basalt flow from a nearby vent has a K-Ar age
of 0.15 ± 0.03 million years. The source quarry is within an area mapped as
“slightly porphyritic basalt” (Moore and Wolfe, 1987). Lunar simulant MLS-1
is produced by the University of Minnesota (Weiblen et al., 1990). MLS-1 is
derived from a high-titanium basalt hornfels which approximates the chemi-
cal composition of Apollo 11 soil. The material source for MLS-1 was crystal-
line. Table 42.1 summarizes engineering properties of both simulants and
lunar soil studied by different researchers.
Table 42.1
Summary of Geotechnical Engineering Properties of JSC-1, MLS-1 Simulants and Lunar Soil
MLS-1 JSC-1 Lunar Regolith
Passing #200 43% [Perkins and Madson, 1996] 36% [Perkins and Madson, 1996] ≈52% [from Carrier, 2003]
Cu 16 [Perkins and Madson, 1996] 7.5 [Perkins and Madson, 1996] 16 [Carrier, 2003]
Cc 1.1 [Perkins and Madson, 1996] 1.12 [Perkins and Madson, 1996] 1.2 [Carrier, 2003]
D50 ≈0.095 mm [from Perkins and Madson, ≈0.11 mm [from Perkins and Madson, 1996] 0.072 mm [Carrier, 2003]
1996]
Specific Gravity 3.2 [McKay et al., 1994] 2.91 [Willman et al., 1995] 2.9-3.2, 3.1 recommended [Carrier et al., 1991]
Void Ratio max [Perkins and emax = 1.05 ρmin = 1.56 g/ [Perkins and emax = 1.18 ρmin = 1.33 g/ Apollo 11 [Cremers 1.39 1.26
Madson, cc Madson, 1996] cc et al., 1970]
1996] [Klosky, 2000] ρmin = 1.43 g/ Apollo 12 1.15
cc [ Jaffe, 1971]
Apollo 14 2.26-2.37 0.87-0.89
[Carrier et al., 1973]
Apollo 15 1.94 1.10
Void Ratio min [Perkins and emin = 0.45 ρmax = 2.20 g/ [Perkins and emin = 0.61 ρmax = 1.80 g/ Apollo 11 0.67 1.80
Madson, cc Madson, 1996] cc [Costes et al., 1970]
1996] Apollo 12 1.93
[Jaffe, 1971]
[Klosky, 2000] 1.83 g/cc Apollo 14 0.87-0.94 1.55-1.51
Geotechnical Engineering Properties of Lunar Soil Simulants
Apollo 15 0.71
Elongation 1.69 [Willman et al., 1995] 1.31-1.39 [Mahmood, 1974]
Aspect Ratio 0.68 [Willman et al., 1995] 0.4-0.7 [Gorz, 1972]
Glasses No Yes Yes
Agglutinates No No Yes
(Countinued)
639
640
MLS-1 JSC-1 Lunar Regolith
Shear Strength φ = 58° for c=0 at p=10kPa φ = 64° for c=0 at p=10kPa [Perkins and φ = 30-50°
[Perkins and Madson, 1996] Madson, 1996] c=0.1-1.0 kPa
[Mitchell, 1974]
ρ, g/cc φ, deg c, kPa [Carrier et al., 1991]:
McKay, 1994 1.50, 45.0° ≤ 1.0 Depth, φ, deg c, kPa
1.60, cm
1.65
Perkins, 1991 1.9 49° 0.2 0-15 42° 0.52
Carrier, 1991 52-55° 2.4-3.8 0-30 46° 0.90
Klosky, 1996 1.62 44.4° 3.9 30-60 54° 3.0
Klosky 1996 1.72 52.7° 13.4 0-60 49° 1.6
Dilatancy ρ, g/cc Conf. Dil.
Stress, Angle,
kPa deg
Klosky 1996 1.62 1 kPa 44.0°
10 kPa 40.5°
Klosky 1996 1.72 10 kPa 65.0°
Residual Strength 44° [Perkins and Madson, 1996] 42° [Perkins and Madson, 1996]
E, MPa Young’s [Perkins, 1991] [Klosky, 2000]
modulus Dr=37% E= 4.60 MPa Dr= 40%, E=18-60 MPa
Dr=66% E= 7.99 MPa Dr=60%, E=65-110 MPa
Dr=97% E= 7.92 MPa
Increases with mean stress Increases with mean stress
Slightly higher than JSC-1 values Slightly lower than MLS-1 values
K, MPa, Bulk [Perkins, 1991] [Klosky, 2000]
Modulus Dr=37% K= 9.63 MPa Dr= 40%, K=35-60
Dr=66% K= 7.69 MPa Dr=60%, K=75-110
Dr=97% K= 12.1 MPa
Increases with mean stress Increases with mean stress
Slightly lower than JSC-1 values Slightly higher than MLS-1 values
Lunar Settlements
Geotechnical Engineering Properties of Lunar Soil Simulants 641
Geotechnical Engineering Properties of a Simulant UNB-AN-1

The major component of soil strength and deformability is derived from
interparticle friction at particle contacts. These properties are highly depen-
dent on the size, texture, and orientation of contacts. The particle size dis-
tribution in an unconsolidated material, such as lunar soil, is a variable that
controls to various degrees the strength and compressibility of the material,
as well as its optical, thermal, and seismic properties. Grain size analysis is
an integral part of soil classification in that it enables determination of the
exact composition and distribution of particles sizes. Grain size distribution
consists of separating size classes by sieving for coarse-grained particles and
by using the hydrometer for fine-grained particles. Designation D422 (ASTM
1995) covers the sieve and hydrometer procedures required for particle anal-
ysis, and dry sample preparation should be used. Particle size distribution
consists of quantifying the size classes by percentages based on weight from
the graphical results of the grain size analysis. The weight percentages are
calculated for those particles passing (or finer than) designated sieve sizes
and hydrometer results and displayed as gravel percentage; coarse, medium,
and fine sand percentages; silt percentage; and clay percentage.
Grain size distribution of a simulant UNB-AN-1 was studied to compare
this simulant with others and lunar soil. Figure 42.1 shows results and
compares with grain size distribution of lunar soil regolith as reported by
100
UNB-A1
90 Apollo upper
Apollo lower
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
10 1 0.1 0.01
Particle Diameter, mm
Figure 42.1
Grain size distribution of UNB-AN-1.
Carrier et al. (1973), illustrated with upper and lower curves representing the
range of grain size distributions found among the tested return samples. As
can be seen, UNB-AN-1 is significantly more coarse-grained than and not as
well-graded as a typical lunar soil.
Strength and volume change characteristics are key to understanding
and predicting the mechanical behavior of the regolith simulant. The con-
ventional triaxial compression test was used to evaluate the shear behav-
ior of UNB-AN-1. There is a breadth of techniques (and variations thereof)
for sample preparation in the laboratory, and also no standardization in
the terminology (i.e. similar techniques appear with different names).
Common methods are using dry material, like the dry deposition method,
which has the benefit of forming uniform samples by adjusting the height
of pluviation, while some variations of the method include additional com-
paction (e.g. Yoshimine et al. 1998). If compaction of the sample is performed
by use of a thin rod, then the gravitational (transverse isotropic) fabric of
the soil is presumably destroyed leading to an isotropic fabric (Oda, 1981).
On the other hand, tapping on the mold is thought to destroy less of the
gravitational fabric leading to intermediate levels of anisotropy (Miura and
Toki 1982).
The triaxial test system, developed by Alshibli (1995), consisted of a stan-
dard Brainard-Kilman triaxial test cell, a standard loading frame, a fluid sys-
tem comprised of pipes, connections and pressure reservoirs, controlled by
air pressure regulators, and a control and data collection system. A Brainard
Kilman 5600 Load Frame was used to compress the specimens, and a 5600
Electronics Module provided a user interface to control the displacement dis-
tance and rate. A linear voltage differential transducer (LVDT) hardmounted
on the load frame recorded the axial displacement of the top test cell endcap.
The confining pressure was controlled by an air regulator connected to a
house air pressure supply, using a dial gauge for first order approximation
setting. The regulated air was then routed to a sealed cylindrical Plexiglas
pressure reservoir partially filled with water, which was connected by plastic
pipes to a differential pressure transducer, with one side open to the atmo-
sphere. This was used for fine pressure reading and was connected to the
test cell which provided confining pressure to the specimen. The reservoir
was divided into two sections, each connected to the test cell line, but with
valves to open or close the connection. During experimentation, only one
section of the reservoir remained open to the test cell, and allowed water
to be provided to or collected from the cell as the volume decreased. It also
allowed the change in pressure between the two sides to be measured, and
thus the change in height, which was then converted to volume, of the reser-
voir side open to the test cell. As the system worked by allowing the height
of water in the reservoir to change in order to measure volume changes,
the system did allow the confining pressure in the test cell to increase or
decrease slightly (up to 1.75 kPa, or 0.25 psi) as the volume of the specimen
increases or decreases, respectively.
Specimens tested were cylindrical in shape, 74.6 mm in diameter by

150 mm. In order to prepare a sand specimen for testing, a latex membrane
was first folded around a six-piece mold with internal dimensions the size
of the sample as stated above, with a small vacuum placed on the mold to
assure the latex membrane conformed with the mold. This was then secured
onto the bottom platen of the test cell (Figure 42.2a). The rest of the test cell
is assembled (cylindrical water jacket, tie rods, upper plate) and the space
between the specimen and the water jacket is filled with water and pressur-
ized. The vacuum internal to the specimen is then removed (pore space is
left open to the atmosphere, at gauge pressure), with the surrounding water
left to support the specimen. The test cell is then placed on the load frame,
connected with measurement apparatuses and the experiment is started
(Figure 42.2b).
A latex membrane is used to contain the specimen, providing a bar-
rier between the sand and the confining water. Initially, the membrane is
unstretched, but as the specimen is compressed and expanded radially the
membrane is deformed and therefore it applied additional confinement on
the specimen. In order to account for this effect, the stiffness of the mem-
brane must be investigated. Results of this stiffness are used to calculate the
induced radial confining pressure on the specimen.
(a) (b)
Figure 42.2
Triaxial test sample preparation.
Triaxial Test Results

Stress-strain and volumetric behavior of the UNB-AN-1 samples under three
different confinements are given in Figure 42.3 and Figure 42.4. The stress
ratio data will be used to find shear strength parameters cohesion and fric-
tion as will be given later. From these data, it is determined that the average
internal friction angle of the UNB-AN-1 and the average cohesion is 1.4 kPa
and the friction angle is 41.2º for the density of 1.7g/cm3.
As Figure 42.4 illustrates, UNB-AN-1 is highly dilatant. The simulant
showed strong dilatancy after a small amount of initial elastic compression.
It must be noted that strong sample compression accompanies unloading of
the sample, indicating reverse dilatancy. This is a result of the higher angu-
larity of the simulant.
The cohesion value, 1.4 kPa is a reasonable value for a lunar soil simulant
(Perkins, 1991; McKay, 1994; Klosky, 1996) and indicates the particulates are
probably sufficiently angular, thus the basic method used to create the mate-
rial is probably acceptable. The friction angle is low however; a value between
45–55° would be preferred (Perkins, 1991; McKay, 1994; Klosky, 1996). This
may be due to the coarser grain size distribution of the UNB-AN-1 simulant,
as reported above.
It must be noted that high dilatancy is one of the dominant properties of the
simulants and lunar soil too. This dilatancy is highly related with angularity
of lunar soil and the simulants. The effect of angularity or asperities can be
4
??
0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Axial Strain
Figure 42.3
Behavior of stress ratio as a function of axial strain for density of 1.7 g/cc at 30 kPa
confining stress.
0.01
0.00
Volumetric Strain
–0.01
–0.02
–0.03
–0.04
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Axial Strain
Figure 42.4
Volumetric behavior of UNB-AN-1 for density of 1.7 g/cc at 30 kPa confining stress.
explained with a block representation of granular materials. As Figure 42.5

illustrates, higher angularities (?) results in more vertical deformation (dh)
due to horizontal or shear deformation (dx). This dilatancy will be a more
dominant behavior under low confinement in a lunar environment due to
low gravity.
dx
dh
Figure 42.5
Representation of angularity-dilatancy relation.
Conclusion
Engineering and mechanical properties of different simulants have been
presented and discussed. A sample preparation technique for triaxial testing
and effect of grain size distribution on engineering properties of UNB-AN-1
simulant has been explained. The grain size distribution of the simulant was
slightly out of the upper and lower bound range proposed for lunar soil.
This leads to different shear strength properties. Based on experiments con-
ducted for this study and previous studies, the size and shape of lunar soil
are perhaps the most important factors affecting the strength of granular
soils. The mechanical behavior of lunar soil is dependent on the properties
of the grains from which they are constituted. As was shown experimen-
tally, the dilative behavior of the lunar soil simulants is significant under
shear loading. High angularity of the particles results in a dilative response
of lunar soil which is more dominant under low confinement.
References
Alshibli, K.A. (1995). Localized Deformations in Granular Materials. Ph.D. dissertation,
University of Colorado at Boulder.
Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Soil and Rock, American Society for Testing and
Materials, ASTM, Philadelphia, PA (1995).
Arslan, H., Sture, S., Batiste, S. (2008) Experimental simulation of tensile behavior
of lunar soil simulant JSC-1, Materials Science and Engineering A volume 478,
pp. 201–207.
Carrier W. D. III, Mitchell J. K., and Mahmood A. (1973a) The nature of lunar soil.
J. Soil Mech. Found. Div, Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., 99, 813–832.
Carrier W. D. III, Mitchell J. K., and Mahmood A. (1973b) The relative density of lunar
soil. Proc. Lunar Sci. Conf. 4th, pp. 2403–2411.
Carrier, W. D., Olhoeft, G. R., and Mendell, W., ‘‘Physical Properties of the Lunar
Surface,’’ Lunar Sourcebook, Heiken, Vaniman, and French, eds., Cambridge
University Press, New York (1991) 475–567.
Costes N. C., Carrier W. D. III, Mitchell J. K., and Scott R. F. (1970a) Apollo 11: Soil
mechanics results. J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., 96, 2045–2080.
Costes N. C., Carrier W. D. III, Mitchell J. K., and Scott R. F. (1970b) Apollo 11 soil
mechanics investigation. Science, 167, 739–741.
Cremers C. J., Birkebak R. C., and Dawson J. P. (1970) Thermal conductivity of fines
from Apollo 11. Proc. Apollo 11 Lunar Sci. Conf., pp. 2045–2050.
Görz H., White E. W., Johnson G. G., and Pearson M. W. (1972) CESEMI studies of
Apollo 14 and 15 fines. Proc. Lunar Sci. Conf. 3rd, pp. 3195–3200.
Jaffe L. D. (1971a) Bearing strength of lunar soil. The Moon, 3, 337–345.
Jaffe L.D., Recent Observations of the Moon by Spacecraft, Space Science Reviews, V.
10 N.4 (1969) pp. 491–616.
Klosky, J.L., S. Sture, H.-Y. Ko, F. Barnes (1996) “Mechanical Properties of JSC-1 Lunar
Regolith Simulant”, Proceedings of Space V: Engineering, Construction and
Operations in Space ’96, Vol 1, pp. 680–688 ASCE.
Klosky, J.L, “Behavior of Composite Granular Materials and Vibratory Helical
Anchors”, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Colorado at Boulder (1997).
Klosky, J.L., S. Sture, H.-Y. Ko, F. Barnes (2000) “Geotechnical Behavior of JSC-1 Lunar
Regolith Simulant”, Journal of Aerospace Engineering, ASCE 13:4. pp. 680–688.
Mahmood A., Mitchell J. K., and Carrier W. D. III (1974) Particle shapes of three lunar
soil samples. Unpublished report, available from W. D. Carrier III.
McKay, D.S., J.L. Carter, W.W. Boles, C.C. Allen, J.H. Allton (1994). “JSC-1: A New
Lunar Soil Simulant”, Proceedings of Space IV: Engineering, Construction and
Operations in Space, V. 2, pp. 857–866.
Miura, S. and Toki, S. (1982): A simple preparation method and its effect on static and
cyclic deformation-strength properties of sand, Soils and Foundations, 22(1), 61–77.
Mitchell J. K., Houston W. N., Carrier W. D. III, and Costes N. C. (1974) Apollo Soil
Mechanics Experiment S-200. Final report, NASA Contract NAS 9–11266, Space
Sciences Laboratory Series 15, Issue 7, Univ. of California, Berkeley.
Miura, S. and Toki, S. (1982): A simple preparation method and its effect on static and
cyclic deformation-strength properties of sand, Soils and Foundations, 22(1), 61–77.
Oda, M. (1981): Anisotropic strength of cohesionless sands, Journal of the Geotechnical
Engineering Division, ASCE, 107(9), 1219–1231.
Perkins, S.W. (1991) Modeling of Regolith Structure Interaction in Extraterrestrial
Constructed Facilities, Ph.D. thesis, University of Colorado, Boulder.
Perkins, S.W., C.R. Madson (1996) “Mechanical and Load-Settlement Characteristics
of Two Lunar Soil Simulants”, Journal of Aerospace Engineering, ASCE 9:1, 1–9.
Scott R.F. Lunar Problems in Soil Engineering, ASCE J. Soil Mech. And Fnd. Div.
Vol. 91 (1965) pp. 1–14.
Weiblen P.W., Murawa M.J., and Reid K.J. (1990) Preparation of simulants for lunar
surface materials. Engineering, Construction and Operations in Space II, American
Society of Civil Engineers, New York, pp. 428–435.
Willman, B.M., W.W. Boles, D.S. McKay, C.C. Allen (1995). “Properties of Lunar Soil
Simulant JSC-1” ASCE J. of Aerospace Engineering, 8:2, 77–87.
Yoshimine, M., Ishihara, K. and Vargas, W. (1998): Effects of principal stress direction
and intermediate principal stress on undrained shear behavior of sand, Soils and
Foundations, 38(3), 179–188.
43
Tension of Terrestrial Excavation
Mechanics to Lunar Soil
Jason R. Florek
Baker Engineering and Risk Consultants, Inc.
Washington, DC
Jason R. Florek received his doctorate in mechanical engineering in 2007

from Rutgers University, where his research focused on the large defor-
mation of thin-walled structures to both uniform and non-uniform blast
loading. He is a member of ASME and is currently working as a project con-
sultant for Baker Engineering and Risk Consultants, Inc. (BakerRisk) in their
Washington, D.C. office.
Abstract This paper focuses on extending models for cutting terrestrial

soil for use with lunar soil. This area is of particular importance since nearly
all lunar base designs call for some form of regolith shielding. It has been
shown that Earth-based analyses do not directly translate for use with lunar
soil. Required forces do not just simply scale by one-sixth due to the reduced
lunar gravity. Papers that make similar extensions typically assume a single
value for the important lunar soil properties. Most studies do not take into
account the variability of these parameters with depth or the uncertainty
associated with the property values. In contrast, those studies that account for
this variability tend to ignore how the parameters relate with one another.
As such, here, appropriate ranges of parameter values are considered for
input to various two-dimensional excavation models. Parameter dependen-
cies are also accounted for, resulting in a more realistic calculation of the
forces required to cut and move lunar soil. Comparisons are made between
these forces and those required to move lunar simulants in 1/6 g and 1 g
environments. Additionally, recommendations are made for which contrib-
uting factors can be ignored in a simplified analysis.
Introduction
Modeling the cutting and moving of lunar soil is of particular design impor-
tance for future habitation of the Moon. Nearly all lunar base designs call
for some form of regolith shielding for protection against radiation and
649
micrometeorite impact [1]. Additionally, digging regolith is critical to activi-

ties such as paving roads and collecting natural resources. Before any of
these projects can begin, the forces associated with digging and excavating
regolith must be well understood so as to minimize the associated power
and weight costs.
It has been shown that Earth-based analyses do not directly translate for
use with lunar soil. Ettouney and Benaroya [2] outlined numerous key dif-
ferences associated with reduced gravity, including reduced stiffness, wave
propagation speed, damping and relative bearing capacity for lunar soils as
compared to their analogs on Earth. As experimentally shown by Boles et al.
[3], required forces do not just simply scale by one-sixth due to the reduced
lunar gravity. Such a scaling would only give a lower bound on these forces,
with 1 g results on Earth providing an upper bound. Meanwhile, Willman
and Boles [4] extended four terrestrial excavation models for use on the
lunar simulant MLS-1. They found all the models to be inaccurate in pre-
dicting experimentally-obtained results. However, only single values for
important soil properties (e.g., cohesion and internal friction angle) were
assumed.
Like other studies (e.g., Ref. [5]), Willman and Boles [4] did not take into
account the variability of these parameters with depth or the uncertainty
associated with the property values. In contrast, Wilkinson and DeGennaro
[6] accounted for this variability in their parameter study using the two-
and three-dimensional excavation models previously examined in Ref. [7].
Blouin et al. [7] considered four different two-dimensional cutting models,
namely that of Gill and Vanden Berg [8], McKyes [9], Swick and Perumpral
[10], and Osman [11]. More recently, Wilkinson and DeGennaro [6] examined
these four models along with an empirical model used to design the exca-
vation arm of the Mars Viking lander [12]. While Refs. [6, 7] both provide
equations for horizontal drawbar for each model in terms of soil and tool
parameters, Wilkinson and DeGennaro [6] distinguish themselves by per-
forming a parameter study, plotting drawbar force as a function of one vari-
able parameter while keeping all others constant, to determine which terms
have the largest effect on drawbar. These plots allow for a more direct com-
parison between individual models than by merely presenting the relevant
equations. However, these plots ignore how certain parameters physically
relate with one another. For example, soil density is a function of depth [13],
while failure surface angle is a function of the rake and friction angles [14].
Wilkinson and DeGennaro [6] made these quantities essentially indepen-
dent of one another.
The current paper extends the comparisons provided by Wilkinson and
DeGennaro [6]. First, their treatment of linear failure models is summarized,
considering only tool depth or rake angle variable. Then, Osman’s model [11],
which is given only a superficial treatment in Ref. [6] due to its relative com-
plexity, is thoroughly examined. The forces predicted by each of these mod-
els are compared in terms of moving lunar soil in a 1/6 g environment or
Tension of Terrestrial Excavation Mechanics to Lunar Soil 651
simulant MLS-1 on Earth. Finally, the models of Gill and Vanden Berg [8]
and McKyes [9] are modified so as to account for a density varying with
depth. Cohesion and internal friction angle are also considered to be depth-
dependent per collected lunar soil data [15]. This interdependence allows
for a more realistic parameter study. Recommendations are made for which
contributing factors (e.g., adhesion, surcharge) can be ignored in a simplified
analysis.
It should be noted that Refs. [10, 12], both considered by Wilkinson and
DeGennaro [6], are not developed here. In Ref. [6], it is shown that Swick
and Perumpral’s model [10] yields matching force values to that of McKyes
[9] despite having different formulations. Moreover, Swick and Perumpral’s
general equation also appears in McKyes’ later text [14]. To avoid redundancy,
only McKyes’ formulation [9] is examined here. In addition, the Lockheed-
Martin/Viking model [12] is ignored here due to the non-physical nature of
its empirically-derived terms. It is uncertain how modifying certain terms of
Ref. [12] will affect the validity of the model.
Penetration and Excavation Models

Blouin et al. [7] list the three basic earthmoving processes as penetrating, cut-
ting and excavating the soil. Figure 43.1 provides a clear representation of
all the forces that come into play for the middle process assuming a linear
failure model. Here, l and w are the length and width of the blade, d is the
depth of the cut, v is the tool speed, T is the magnitude of the required tool
force, to adhesion along the blade and cohesion along the failure plane. As
different authors tend to use different notations for these dimensions, forces
and angles, the current paper generally adopts those used in Refs. [6, 7] as per
Fig. 43.1. Discrepancies with notations in the other papers can be resolved by
consulting Table 43.1.
w
q
v
β ρ β ρ
T W
l R
d δ
Cal φ
clfp
Figure 43.1
Parameter designations and applied forces for a linear failure model.
Table 43.1
Parameter values and notations from various sources
Parameter Units MLS-1 Min Avg Max
Reference [4] [6] [6] [6] [4] [6] [11] [16]
Number
Adhesion N/m2 0.9 200 1930 5000 Ca Ca ca ca
Cohesion N/m2 900 68 170 4500 c c c c
Density kg/m3 1920 1200 1680 3500 γ/g γ — γ/g
Failure Plane degrees — 20 30 55 β ρ 45 − φ/2 β
Angle
Friction degrees 24 0 10 50 δ δ δ δ
Angle (Ext.)
Friction degrees 37 20 35 50 φ φ φ φ
Angle (Int.)
Rake Angle degrees 60 5 45 90 α β α ρ
Surcharge kg/m2 0 0.5 1 100 q/g q q/g q/g
Tool Depth m var 0.05 0.5 1 z d z d
Tool Length m var 0.1 0.7 1 — l a Lt
Tool Width m 0.13 0.3 1 3 b w — —
Lineal Failure Model

References [8, 9] assume a linear failure plane as shown in Fig. 43.1. Although
this triangular shape diverges from the actual failure geometry, the procedure
for determining required drawbar is much more efficient than for an assumed
logarithmic spiral, which is discussed in the next section. Balancing the forces
shown in Fig. 43.1 yields the general Fundamental Earthmoving Equation
F = ( γgdN γ + cN c + qN q + Ca N a )wd (43.1)
where the N factors are unique for each author as some include the effects
of surcharge and adhesion, while others do not. The other parameters in
Eq. 43.1 are as defined in Table 43.1.
Gill and Vanden Berg Model

Per Ref. [6], the horizontal drawbar of Gill and Vanden Berg [8] is of the gen-
eral form
H ∗ = H − kw = Tts + Td + Tc + Tk (43.2)
where Tts accounts for tool-soil interactions, Td for changes in depth, Tc for soil
cohesion, and Tk for kinetic effects. These terms are defined, respectively, by
sin(β + ρ)
Tts = FMlγg
sin ρ
1 sin(β + ρ)
Td = FM dγg [cos(β + ρ) + sin(β + ρ)tan β]
2 sin2ρ
FM c
Tc =
sin ρ(ρ + φ cos ρ)
and
FM γ v 2 sin β
Tk =
sin(β + ρ)sin(ρ + φ cos ρ)
where
wd( sin β + δ cos β)sin( sin ρ + φ cos ρ)

FM =
sin(β + ρ)(1 − φδ) + cos(β + ρ)(φ − ρ)
and ν is the tool speed. Wilkinson and DeGennaro [6] vary this speed
between 0.01 and 0.3 m/s, with an average of 0.1 m/s. Ranges and averages
for the other parameters in these expressions can be found in Table 43.1.
Surcharge is not included in this model. It should be noted that, in contrast
to other papers, Wilkinson and DeGennaro [6] do not use weight density in
their equations, rather they substitute mass density multiplied by gravita-
tional acceleration. Similarly, they use a mass surcharge in place of a weight
surcharge when applicable. This may seem like a trivial substitution, but
it makes the effect of changing gravity much clearer. This change is very
important in applying earthmoving models for use on the Moon.
Meanwhile, the cutting resistance term kw in Eq. 2 is removed from the total
horizontal force since, according to Blouin et al. [7], it is only important when an
obstacle or significant wear are present. Actually, Wilkinson and DeGennaro [6]
retain this term. The effects of doing so are shown in Fig. 43.2. At shallow depths,
the constant cutting force is the most significant of all the terms in Eq. 43.2. As
depth increases, its contribution lessens in favor of the depth (weight) and tool-
soil terms. Similar trends are seen when a parameter other than depth is varied.
The fact that this cutting resistance is constant for all depths, as well as rake
and friction angles, makes it seem rather arbitrary. It appears that the term, not
present in any of the other models in Refs. [6, 7], is artificially increasing the
drawbar. As such, it should be ignored in a simplified analysis.
Furthermore, the cohesion term in Eq. 43.2 only becomes important for c
values much greater than the average 170 N/m² given in Table 43.1. Also, the
kinetic term seems to have very little effect in all cases. As a result, it appears
both Tc and Tk can be ignored in a simplified analysis, making drawbar
Horizontal Force vs. Tool Depth

Gill & Vanden Berg Model
12000
Total
Cut
Tool-soil
Depth
10000 Cohesion
Kinetic
8000
Force (N)
6000
4000
2000
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Depth (m)
Figure 43.2
Horizontal drawbar force as a function of tool depth per Ref. [8].
completely dependent on soil weight and tool-soil interaction. This assertion

though will be revisited when property interdependencies are considered.
Moreover, the Gill and Vanden Berg model [8] can be applied to the experi-
mental set-up of Willman and Boles [4]. In their study, drawbar forces of
192 N, 522 N and 825 N were measured for three different cut depths into
a container of MLS-1 simulant. These measurements did not compare well
with four three-dimensional cutting models, one of which overpredicted the
force by at least a factor of 2. Meanwhile, the other models all yielded simi-
lar results, but this time they underestimated the required force by at least
a factor of 4. Substituting the average values for Ref. [4] from Table 43.1 into
Eq. 43.2, the three forces are matched by the Gill and Vanden Berg model
[8] when the shear plane failure angle (unspecified in Ref. [4]) takes on val-
ues of 10.4°, 10.6° and 11.5°, respectively. However, these angular values are
well below the minimum 20° given in Ref. [6]. For more typical failure plane
angles, the model of Ref. [8] would tend to overpredict the required forces.
This is not entirely surprising as the dominant depth and tool-soil terms in
Eq. 43.2 are both functions of gravity. Using 1 g to replicate the experimental
results of Ref. [4] then makes a simplified Gill and Vanden Berg model [8] an
upper bound to the true required drawbar per Ref. [3].
McKyes Model
In contrast to Gill and Vanden Berg [8], McKyes [9] incorporates surcharge
into his model so that
H = Tq + Tts + Td + Tc + Tk , (43.3)
where
Tq = FM qg(cot β + cot ρ)
Tts = FMCα [1 − cot β cot(ρ + φ)]
1
Td = FM dγg(cot β + cot ρ)
2
Tc = c[1 + cot ρ cot(ρ + φ)]
tan ρ + cot(ρ + φ)
Tk = FM γ v 2
1 + cot β tan ρ
and
wd
FM =
cos(β + δ) + sin(β + δ)cot(ρ + φ)
From Fig. 43.3a, it appears again that depth and tool-soil terms are most
significant, with cohesion becoming more relevant as tool depth increases.
Furthermore, it is apparent that the surcharge of 1 kg/m² from Table 43.1 is
insufficient to produce a visible change in drawbar.
Comparing Figs. 43.2 and 43.3a, it is clear that Gill and Vanden Berg’s
model [8] predicts drawbar forces more than double that of McKyes’
model [9]. Indeed, comparing all charted data in Ref. [6] for these two mod-
els, regardless of variable parameter, the former model predicts a horizontal
force between two to four times larger than the latter model of McKyes [9].
The difference is most striking with regard to varying rake angle. While Gill
and Vanden Berg [8] predict a drawbar monotonically increasing with β, due

McKyes Model
4500
Total
Surcharge
4000 Tool-soil
Depth
Cohesion
3500 Kinetic
3000
2500
Force (N)
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Depth (m)
Figure 43.3a
Horizontal drawbar force as a function of a) tool depth and b) rake angle per Ref. [9].
to his formulation, McKyes’ model [9] shows the behavior in Fig. 43.3b. For
small rake angles, the tool-soil term actually subtracts from the other terms.
Furthermore, the depth (weight) term shows a local minimum near β = 30°.
As rake angle is typically greater than this value, these trends do not cause
a serious problem.
Despite their differences in magnitude, the predictions of Refs. [8, 9] show
similar trends. In a simplified analysis, it appears that cohesion, kinetic
effects and surcharge can generally be ignored. However, unlike the model
of Gill and Vanden Berg [8], McKyes’ model [9] cannot be made to fit the
experimental values from Ref. [4] by simply varying a quantity such as
the failure plane angle as the predicted forces are too low. These lower
forces arise due to the tool-soil term in Eq. 43.3 being related to adhesion,
as opposed to weight as in Eq. 43.2. Note that the experimental adhesion
of 0.9 N/m 2 is particularly low in comparison with the values of Ref. [6] in
Table 43.1.
Horizontal Force vs. Rake Angle

McKyes Model
4000
Total
Surcharge
3500 Tool-soil
Depth
Cohesion
3000
Kinetic
2500
2000
Force (N)
1500
1000
500
–500
–1000
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
Rake Angle (deg)
Figure 43.3b
Horizontal drawbar force as a function of a) tool depth and b) rake angle per Ref. [9].
Logarithmic Spiral Failure Model

Meanwhile, Osman’s model [11] incorporates a logarithmic failure plane as
shown in Fig. 43.4. This failure profile is formed by arbitrarily locating the
logarithmic spiral center (on, with n = 1, 2, 3 in Fig. 43.4) on line ad, which
makes an angle ρ = 45 − ϕ/2 with the horizontal, where ϕ is the internal fric-
tion angle of the soil. The spiral sweeps an angle w′ from point b on the tip
of the cutting tool to line ad per the equation
r1 = r0e w'tanφ
where r0 is the distance from the spiral center to point b. By geometric con-
struction, line de is tangent to spiral arc bd, also running at an angle ρ below
the horizontal. Therefore, triangles adf and edf are mirror images of each
other.
d2
d3
d7 q
o1
w´ a f e
d3 d6 β d4 ρ
d1
o2
Rc , Rq t
z P´ o3 W R´´
P´´
δ Cal
Mc d
b
φ
φ F´
F´´
Figure 43.4
Parameter designations and applied forces for a logarithmic spiral failure model.
The necessary drawbar force for equilibrium is found per a moment bal-
ance of the various forces acting on wedge abdf, making use of moment arms
dn with respect to the chosen spiral center (o1 in Fig. 43.4). The actual drawbar
force for a given set of soil and tool parameters is the minimum value for
all possible centers on, as it will be this force that initially fails the soil. The
failure surface in Fig. 43.4 is very similar in shape to what would be seen
experimentally.
However, the above procedure is relatively complicated and no explicit
formulations exist. The seven distances dn must be calculated for each spi-
ral center location until a minimum drawbar force is attained. As a result,
Wilkinson and DeGennaro [6] only superficially examined this model. All
dn are arbitrarily set to a unitless value of 1 in Ref. [6]. From Fig. 43.4, these
distances clearly have a dimensional length and are unequal.
Moreover, Refs. [6, 7] both incorrectly substitute the failure plane angle
(angle def in Fig. 43.4) for internal friction angle ϕ in their presented equa-
tions. Actually, such a substitution is not surprising since many papers use
different notations for their parameters as shown in Table 43.1. The chance of
a substitution error increases when parameter designations are interchanged
such as rake angle and failure plane angle in Refs. [6, 16]. The former reference
uses β and ρ, respectively, for these parameters, while Luengo et al. [16], who
extended Eq. 43.1 for automatic excavations, reverse these designations.
The total drawbar acting on the cutting tool can be calculated by summing
forces P′ and P′′ from Fig. 43.4. These forces are the cohesive and frictional
components of the total force, respectively. Per a moment balance about the
spiral center,
w c  φ  φ 
(43.4)
P′ =  (r12 − r02 ) + 2 ct tan  45 +  d4 + qgt tan  45 +  d5 + Cαldτ 
dg  2 tan φ  2  2 
where t is the Rankine passive zone depth as depicted in Fig. 43.4 (see Ref.
[17]). The first term is due to cohesion acting on arc bd (Mc in Fig. 43.4), the
second due to cohesion in Rankine zone def (Rc in Fig. 43.4), the third due to
surcharge on line af, and the fourth due to adhesion along the blade length.
It should be noted that Refs. [6, 7] not only incorrectly substitute failure plane
angle ρ for ϕ in Eq. 43.4 (ρ is actually equal to 45 − ϕ/2), but they also give the
wrong expression for length af over which surcharge q acts (t/sin(45-ρ/2) as
opposed to t/tan(45 − ϕ/2)). Art was here, but was deleted.
Meanwhile, per another moment balance,
w 1  φ  φ 
P′′ =  γgt tan  45 +  d1 + γgAd2 + γgt tan  45 +  d4 
2 2 2 (43.5)
d3  2  2  2 
where A is the area of wedge abdf. Both tan2(45 + ϕ/2) terms (R′′ and Rq in
Fig. 43.4) arise from a principal stress analysis via Mohr’s circle [17]. Refs. [6, 7]
incorrectly substitute this area for the area of the spiral sector obd, namely
r02
Asector = [e 2 w 'tan φ − 1]
4 tan φ
The total area A should consist of the sum of Asector and the area of triangles
adf and oab. For the case when the spiral center is below the surface ae (like o2
in Fig. 43.4), these triangular areas add together. In contrast, when the center
is above the surface (like o1 in Fig. 43.4), areas adf and oab subtract to obtain
the correct area abdf.
In order to calculate P′ and P′′, and therefore the total drawbar force, all
seven distances dn must be known. Wilkinson and DeGennaro [6] claim that
these distances are indeterminate. In actuality, distances d1, d4 and d5 can be
readily evaluated from geometry, distances d3, d6 and d7 from the elementary
moment equation
   
|M|=|r × F|=|F|d⊥
The remaining distance d2, which spans from the spiral center to the cen-
troid of wedge abdf, is the most difficult distance to calculate. This wedge is
a composite of three distinct areas as noted above. As such, the centroid of
each of these areas must be found in order to determine the position of the
wedge centroid. Conversely, a numerical scheme can be employed once the
shape of the failure plane is known.
Again, each location of the spiral center yields unique values of the seven
dn. The actual drawbar is the one that minimizes the sum of Eqs. 43.4 and
43.5. The horizontal component of this drawbar is found by multiplying the
result by sin(β + δ).
However, there is a major problem with this procedure as described. Since

the terms in Eqs. 43.4 and 43.5 arise from a moment balance about the spiral
center, they do not inherently add together. For spiral center o1 in Fig. 43.4,
the sign notations in these equations are indeed correct as only P′ and P′′
produce counterclockwise moments. Yet, for any center located below the
surface ae, the adhesion force along the tool length also produces a coun-
terclockwise moment. For a center such as o3, the d4 and d5 terms also sub-
tract from P′ and P′′. Moreover, when the rake and external friction angles
are small (β + δ < 90°), the orientation of P′ and P′′ is more akin to force T
shown in Fig. 43.1, which may further alter the signs in Eqs. 43.4 and 43.5.
This behavior is reminiscent to that shown in Fig. 43.3b, where the adhe-
sion (tool-soil) term subtracts from the net drawbar at small rake angles.
However, in contrast to McKyes’ model [9], where the minimum total draw-
bar is zero, the end result for Osman’s model [11] could be the prediction of
a negative drawbar force, depending on the individual parameter values.
To alleviate this problem, the above procedure is simplified as per Ref. [17].
Hence, the adhesion and surcharge terms in Eqs. 43.4 and 43.5 are ignored
in the moment balance. After the minimum failing force is determined, the
horizontal component of that force is added to the horizontal component of
the adhesive force in order to obtain the required drawbar.
This simplified procedure was used to generate the curves in Fig. 43.5 for
rake angles of 30° and 60°. These curves show the total predicted failing
force, along with the contribution of the adhesive force to the total drawbar.
It is clear that adhesion is dominant for the case of the smaller rake angle,
which provides for a longer tool length for the adhesive force to act over at
any given depth. However, when β = 60°, the total horizontal force is larger
than for the shallower rake angle for cuts at least 35 cm deep. In that case, the
weight term is larger and the moments in Eqs. 43.4 and 43.5 tend to be addi-
tive as per the discussion above. Fig. 43.5 also shows how these presently-
generated curves relate to Wilkinson and DeGennaro’s formulation [6] of the
Osman model [11] when β = 45°. The Ref. [6] curve has a starting value of over
4000 N due to all distances dn being assumed equal to 1. Intuitively, a non-
zero starting value does not make sense since all physically-acting moments
approach zero as depth decreases. Still, the total force at a 60° rake angle
approaches the overestimating curve at a depth of 1 m.
Using the Ref. [4] input from Table 43.1 (recalling that failure plane angle
is predetermined as a function of internal friction angle), the simplified
Osman model [11] can be used to predict the required forces to fail the
stimulant MLS-1. Doing so, values of 60 N, 167 N and 298 N are respectively
generated at depths of 4 cm, 7 cm and 9.5 cm. These values are roughly
1/3 of those obtained experimentally by Willman and Boles [4]. Like for
McKyes’ model [9], the low adhesion of 0.9 N/m2 makes Osman’s other-
wise important tool-soil term insignificant. From Fig. 43.5, a more typi-
cal adhesion value contributes to over half of the total drawbar for depths
under 10 cm when β = 60°. Still, the vastly underpredicting results cited

Osman Model
10000
Total (Rake = 45) [6]
Total (Rake = 30)
Adhesion (Rake = 30)
8000 Total (Rake = 60)
Adhesion (Rake = 60)
6000
Force (N)
4000
2000
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Depth (m)
Figure 43.5
Horizontal drawbar force as a function of tool depth per Ref. [11].
above give a closer estimate than any of the three-dimensional predict-

ing models considered in Ref. [4]. But due to the lack of experimental cor-
roboration, it appears that the use of neither Osman’s model [11] nor even
more complicated three-dimensional models can be justified in the current
application.
Property Interdependencies
According to the models of Gill and Vanden Berg [8] and McKyes [9], the
forces due to the depth (weight) of the soil and the interaction between the
cutting tool and soil are the most critical in evaluating required drawbar
force. In their current state, both models assume a constant mass density.
However, per figures and charts in Refs. [13, 15], this assumption is far from
accurate for lunar soil. It has been shown that the density of lunar soil can be
well-represented by the following curve-fits:
 z + 1.69 
γ( z) = 1.89 
 z + 2.9 
from Ref. [13], and
 z + 12.2 
γ( z) = 1.92 
 z + 18 
from Ref. [15], where z is depth in cm and γ(z) is in g/cm3.

Taking the depth (weight) term from McKyes’ model [9], namely
1
Td = FM dγg(cot β + cot ρ)
2
considering a variable density yields

Td = FM g
∫0
γ ( z)( H − z)dz(cot β + cot ρ)
where H is the total depth of the cut (previously d). Evaluating the integral
with γ(z) of the form γmax(z + c1)/(z + c2),
H
 1
∫0
γ ( z)( H − z)dz = γ max  − z 2 + ( H + c2 − c1 )z
 2
z= H
3 2 
+ c2 + ( H + c2 )(c1 − c2 )In( z + c2 ) 
2  z= 0

With a constant density, Eq. 43.8 merely equates to γH²/2. As such, an effec-
tive average density can be calculated by comparing the result of Eq. 43.6 with
γH2/2.
Figure 43.6 shows that using the average density of 1680 kg/m3 from
Table 43.1 overestimates the maximum density of Eq. 43.6 for about the first
8 cm, and increasingly underestimates the maximum for deeper cuts. This
threshold depth is roughly 35 cm for the density of Eq. 43.7. In contrast, con-
sidering an effective average density, Eq. 43.6 does not achieve 1680 kg/m3
until cuts past 40 cm. Equation 43.7 does not reach this value until about
1.3 m. From Fig. 43.6, it appears that the average density should be closer to
1400 kg/m3 for cuts less than 10 cm deep, while closer to 1500 kg/m3 for cut
depths near 20 cm. Therefore, depending on how deep the desired cut depth,
the given predictive models may need to be modified to account for variable
density. Otherwise, large deviations can arise.
Similarly, cohesion and internal friction angle have been shown to depend on
the lunar soil’s relative density [13, 15]. This relative density is itself a function
of bulk density and, therefore, also of depth. Figure 43.6 shows values of cohe-
sion obtained from plotted data in Refs. [13, 15] that correspond to the effec-
tive average densities per Eqs. 43.6 and 43.7. The average cohesion of 900 N/m2
from Table 43.1 overestimates these curves up until depths of 22 cm and 63 cm,
Density and Cohesion vs. Soil Depth

3000
2850 Maximum Density per Eq. 6
2700 Average Density per Eq. 6
2550 Maximum Density per Eq. 7
2400 Average Density per Eq. 7
Density (kg/m3), Cohesion (N/m2)
2250 Cohesion per Av. Eq. 6

2100 Cohesion per Av. Eq. 7
1950
1800
1650
1500
1350
1200
1050
900
750
600
450
300
150
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Depth (m)
Figure 43.6
Density and cohesion as a function of lunar soil depth.
respectively. An underestimation occurs thereafter, particularly for the Eq. 43.6

case. Cohesion appears to be highly sensitive to density as large deviations
exist between the two cohesion curves in Fig. 43.6 (roughly a factor of 2-3 for
cuts deeper than 10 cm) despite the corresponding densities differing by only
about 10% over the same depth range. Furthermore, the failure plane angle is
not arbitrary. It is predetermined in Osman’s model [11], while it is a function
of rake and friction angles in the other considered models [14]. The parameter
study of Wilkinson and DeGennaro [6] does not take into account any of these
interdependencies.
Figure 43.7 compares the baseline depth-varying curves from Ref. [6] for
the models of Gill and Vanden Berg [8] and McKyes [9] with alternate curves
that consider density, cohesion and internal friction angle all functions of
depth. The relation between average density, cohesion and depth for the
alternate curves is as shown in Fig. 43.6. Internal friction angle, meanwhile,
is varied per plotted data in Refs. [13, 15] with values ranging between 35° at
zero depth to 52° at a depth of 1 m for the effective average density distribu-
tion calculated from Eq. 43.6.
All six curves in Fig. 43.7 are relatively close to one another for tool depths
up to 20 cm. This is with the cutting force term removed from the Gill and
Vanden Berg curves as per Eq. 43.2. For deeper cuts, the differences in required
drawbar become evident as density and cohesion drastically increase. Indeed,
at a depth of 1 m, the highest and lowest curves in Fig. 43.7 deviate by over
a factor of 3. Moreover, using the density of Eq. 43.6 with the noted property

Accounting for Property Interdependencies
16000
15000 Gill & Vanden Berg
14000 w/Density of Eq. 6
McKyes
12000
w/Density of Eq. 6
10000
9000
Force (N)
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Depth (m)
Figure 43.7
Horizontal drawbar force as a function of tool depth accounting for property interdependencies.
interdependencies, the McKyes’ model [9] actually predicts a higher drawbar

than the standard Gill and Vanden Berg model [8] for tool depths greater than
45 cm. This behavior can be explained as follows. For shallow cuts, the tool-
soil term dominates for all models. At a depth of 20 cm, the depth (weight)
term becomes significant for all models, eventually becoming the most domi-
nate as depth increases. By 20 cm, the cohesion term is also significant for all
models, but much more so for the McKyes’ formulations [9], where it eventu-
ally overtakes the tool-soil term as the second-largest contributor to draw-
bar. Actually, with cohesion considered variable with depth, this contribution
ranges between 20–40% of the total drawbar of the McKyes’ model [9] regard-
less of depth or density distribution used. It appears then that for cuts less
than 20 cm, a simplified model that includes only weight and tool-soil terms
may be adequate using a constant density value. For deeper cuts, a separate
cohesion term should also be included in the analysis, along with density and
cohesion values that are functions of depth.
Conclusions
For establishment of a lunar base to be successful, the properties of regolith
and forces associated with moving the lunar soil must be well understood.
Different published models show a wide range of calculated drawbar forces
and relative complexities. While some three-dimensional formulations cor-

relate poorly with limited experimental results, certain two-dimensional
models compare surprisingly well. It appears that from the better-correlating
models, soil weight and tool-soil interactions are most important for the
design of first-generation cutting machines, where cutting depths may
not be particularly deep. Gill and Vanden Berg’s model [8] may be used to
produce a conservative estimate of required drawbar in this situation. For
later designs, where cuts will need to be deeper than 20 cm, soil cohesion
should also be considered a major factor. Additionally, density and cohe-
sion should both be considered variable with depth. Experimental testing of
lunar soil samples obtained from initial landing missions should be used to
validate and refine these assertions, and to possibly generate other impor-
tant interdependencies.
References
1. P. Eckart. The Lunar Base Handbook. The McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, second
edition, 2006.
2. M. E. Ettouney and H. Benaroya. Regolith mechanics, dynamics, and founda-
tions. J. Aerospace Engng., 5(2):214–229, 1992.
3. W. W. Boles, W. D. Scott, and J. F. Connolly. Excavation forces in reduced gravity
environment. J. Aerospace Engng., 10(2):99–103, 1997.
4. B. M. Willman and W. W. Boles. Soil-tool interaction theories as they apply to
lunar soil stimulant. J. Aerospace Engng., 8(2):88–99, 1995.
5. L. E. Bernold. Experimental studies on mechanics of lunar excavation. J. Aerospace
Engng., 4(1):9–22, 1991.
6. A. Wilkinson and A. DeGennaro. Digging and pushing lunar regolith: Classical
soil mechanics and the forces needed for excavation and traction. J. Terramech.,
44:133–152, 2007.
7. S. Blouin, A. Hemami, and M. Lipsett. Review of resistive force models for
earthmoving processes. J. Aerospace Engng., 14(3):102–111, 2001.
8. W. R. Gill and G. E. Vanden Berg. Agricultural Handbook 316: Soil Dynamics
in Tillage and Traction. Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Washington, DC, 1968.
9. E. McKyes. Soil Cutting and Tillage. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam,
The Netherlands, 1985.
10. W. C. Swick and J. V. Perumpral. A model for predicting soil-tool interaction.
J. Terramech., 25(1):43–56, 1988.
11. M. S. Osman. The mechanics of soil cutting blades. J. Agricultural Engng. Res.,
9(4):313–328, 1964.
12. T. Muff, R. H. King, and M. B. Duke. Analysis of a small robot for Martian rego-
lith excavation. In AIAA Space 2001 Conference and Exposition. AIAA, 2001.
13. S. W. Johnson and K. M. Chua. Properties and mechanics of the lunar regolith.
Appl. Mech. Rev., 46(6):285–300, 1993.
14. E. McKyes. Agricultural Engineering Soil Mechanics. Elsevier Science Pub-

lishers, B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1989.
15. W. D. Carrier III, G. R. Olhoeft, and W. Mendell. Physical properties of the lunar
surface. In G. Heiken, D. Vaniman, and B. M. French, editors, Lunar Sourcebook: A
User’s Guide to the Moon, pages 475–594. Cambridge University Press, New York,
NY, 1991.
16. O. Luengo, S. Singh, and H. Cannon. Modeling and identification of soil-tool
interaction in automated excavation. In Proceedings of the 1998 IEEE/RSJ
International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems, pages 1900–1906,
Victoria, BC, Canada, 1998.
17. K. Terzaghi and R. B. Peck. Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice. John Wiley &
Sons, New York, NY, 1948.
44
Lunar Concrete1
Martina Pinni
ESA-EAC
Astronaut Training Division
Linder Höhe, Köln, Germany
Martina Pinni is a registered architect with an interest in high-tech build-

ings, extreme environments, and spinoff applications of space technology
in building construction. Her thesis in architecture focused on an interior
design for a space habitation module (2000). Her professional experience
includes 6 years of technical and commercial positions in façade engineer-
ing, architectural design, and research (2001−2007). Teaching experience
includes three semesters as faculty assistant of building technology at the
University IUAV of Venice (2006−2007), and current position in astronaut
training—structures, thermal control, life support system, emergencies—at
ESA-EAC Cologne for the International Space Station project (2008–present).
She earned a Laurea (M. Arch.) from the University IUAV of Venice (2000), an
MS from the University of Houston, Space Architecture (2004), and attended
the ISU SSP’07 at BeiHang University in Beijing (2007).
Introduction
Concrete is an ancient building material. So primitive and heavy that
Buckminster Fuller, overeager of achieving structural efficiency per unit
of weight, preferred by a long way the new aeronautical alloys to build his
super lightweight “ephemeralized” high-tech domes. Fifty percent of con-
crete’s weight is (structurally) redundant, wrote Fuller in an article in 1961
(Tensegrity). He repeatedly stated throughout his life that unnecessary weight
and gravity structures are popular only because we still use “stone age logic”
(Lightful Houses, 1928; Designing a New Industry; 1946, Synergetics, 1975).
The pristine reasons for its use are rediscovered today by space scientists,
who imagine that engineered concrete could be well suitable for extraterres-
trial constructions of a later generation, those for which planetary material
1 An early version of this article featured in the Italian construction magazine Costruire N° 299,
April 2008, pp. 80–84. Published with permission.
667
Figure 44.1
Jim Irwin, the Lunar Roving Vehicle and the Landing Module with Mount Hadley Delta in the
background (courtesy of NASA).
will be used. All in all, future lunar houses could be built almost like those on
Earth. Therefore, in the international context of a new race to space, the space
agencies of the various countries, especially in the United States, are wiping
the dust-covered researches made in the Seventies on extraterrestrial mineral
and energetic resources, mostly coming from the Apollo missions (1969–1972),
almost 35 years ago.
Some of these studies and knowledge gained from missions to the Moon
have been discussed during the Rutgers Symposium on Lunar Settlements,
organized in June 2007 by Prof. Haym Benaroya, Director of the Center for
Structures in Extreme Environments (CSXE) at Rutgers University, New
Jersey. The topics that have become of major interest lately, in the context of
the planning for future human-inhabited outposts on the Moon, concern the
In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) of the rocks and minerals forming the
regolith of the Moon, the nearest of our celestial bodies.
The themes that concern construction on the Moon are complex and diverse,
and they range from energy to structures, to thermal isolation, to seismic pro-
tection, covering all of the fields of traditional building, with the addition of
particular environmental matters, such as raised by abrasive dust, galactic
and solar radiation, vacuum conditions (10−15 bar), and reduced gravity (1/6 g).
The building of future habitats became a stimulating discussion among the
Lunar Concrete 669
scientists that took part in the meetings. And, among the most “trendy” issues
and novelties, they talked about lunar concrete, waterless concrete, and lunar
soil sintering/melting.
Until recently, studies of extraterrestrial construction involving the possi-
bility of making lunar concrete had focused on the Portland cement variety,
whose extraterrestrial applications had been studied extensively in the eight-
ies. Lunar concrete was first prepared by Professor Tung Dju (T.D.) Lin, a
Taiwanese born scientist and U.S. citizen, with samples brought to Earth by
the astronauts of the Apollo 16 mission (the next to last mission in early 1972).
Dr. Lin, who is presently a Research Professor at National Cheng Kung
University in Taiwan and a Research Consultant for the Portland Cement
Association (PCA), USA, presented the results of his fundamental research
and experiments in various publications starting from 1985, in a study
endorsed by NASA. Using 40 grams of real lunar soil (regolith) from the lunar
highlands at the Apollo 16 site, Dr. Lin prepared a lunar concrete sample.
However, he initially experimented with a lunar regolith simulant, JSC-1,
prepared by Johnson Space Center, Houston, using a volcanic rock from
Arizona, in order to have similar engineering properties to lunar regolith and
have a composition similar to certain terrains of the Moon. With the simulant,
Dr. Lin, as well as other engineers, experimented with several techniques for
Figure 44.2a
Harrison Schmitt, Apollo 17, collects soil samples near a crater at Station 5, Camelot (courtesy
of NASA).
Figure 44.2b
Picking up rocks at Station 2, Apollo 15 (NASA).
Figure 44. 2c
Apollo 16, station 4, soil sample 399 (NASA).
Lunar Concrete 671
Figure 44. 3
Lunar concrete production tests: 1/2˝ cube and 1˝ cube samples (Courtesy of Dr. T.D. Lin,
Research Professor at National Cheng Kung University in Taiwan and a Research Consultant
for the Portland Cement Association, USA).
the casting of lunar concrete; among them, the one entitled “dry mix/vapor
injection” proved very effective. The dry-mix/steam-injection method was
developed to overcome casting concrete in a vacuum environment on the
lunar surface. Soil that had been properly sized was placed in sealed forms,
dry mixture, and pressurized steam was added. After shaping little cubes
through dry mixing the components, pressurized steam flows through for
18 hours, giving concrete samples with excellent characteristics, both those
made with the simulant and real lunar regolith.
In future lunar constructions, the binder could be transported from Earth or
even obtained from the soil. Dr. Lin’s theory was that the lunar ground already
contains everything needed to make a good concrete and that it would only take
transporting some hydrogen in form of methane or ammonia in a liquid state to
get water, the only component completely missing in the lunar environment.
Lunar regolith, as we now know, can produce a better concrete than ter-
restrial soil, because of the conditions of the high vacuum, which makes
small particles aggregate into larger ones, resulting in a very resistant aggre-
gating material. The resistance to compression of the samples proved quite
good. The tiny sample prepared with the 40 grams of highlands regolith
has shown a resistance to compression of 75 MPa, and exposed to vacuum
for long periods, it has maintained its strength at 80%. Much more testing
would be needed to see how this material really compares to high resistance
terrestrial concrete. But, as Dr. Lin puts it, the 1/6 g lunar gravity will cer-
tainly benefit the design of flexible structural components, such as beams/
slabs and the supporting operations in construction.
According to Dr. Lin, the shattered lunar rocks, the regolith, could pro-
duce, therefore, a thin, light, and extremely resistant cement. By additional
processing, other materials could be extracted from the soil, among which
would be metallic iron to produce bars. Iron would be easily workable under
Ilmenite in Apollo 11 Hi-Ti Mare Soil
FeTiO3
10 µm Courtesy of L.A. Taylor
Figure 44.4
Ilmenite in Apollo 11 Hi-Ti Mare Soil (Courtesy of Larry Taylor).
the low gravity conditions. So, there are plenty of theoretical possibilities.
The very real problem on the Moon is how to produce water. As has been
demonstrated several years ago in studies by Professor Larry Taylor from
Tennessee, at temperatures of 800–900°C, hydrogen reacts readily with the
iron-titanium-oxide mineral, ilmenite, to break the iron-oxygen bonds thereby
releasing the oxygen to combine with the hydrogen to produce water.
Hydrogen should be transported from Earth in percentages of 3 in 1,000 of
the final mass of the concrete to be produced. As Taylor explains: “Solar Wind
consists of about 95% protons (H+), and the remainder being alpha (He+), car-
bon, nitrogen, etc. particles. Due to the lack of an atmosphere, these particles
impinge on the lunar soil with high velocities. In this manner, the particles
become implanted within the outer few 10s of nanometers of each soil grain.
As such, the lunar soil contains 50–100 parts per million (0.01 wt %) of these
particles. At first thought, this seems trivial. However, taking the hydrogen
from the lunar soil grains in the outer few meters of the regolith over an area
of some five soccer fields would give us about twenty tonnes of liquid hydro-
gen, capable of producing 180 tonnes of water. Obviously the amount of soil
to be handled to get all this is large, but not unrealistic.”
There are other challenges. In fact, in such a high vacuum as that on the Moon,
clear water would evaporate as soon as it could be formed because of its low
boiling point, which is so greatly lowered by the extremely reduced pressure on
the Moon. Therefore, it is necessary to look for alternative materials to cement
the soil grains together to form concrete. In other words, an alternative binder
needs to be used, something that can undergo phase changes at very low tem-
peratures. In the rocks and soils of the Moon is the mineral troilite (FeS), which
might be used to recover native sulfur as alternative binder for lunar cement.
Sulfur-based concrete, using sulfur as the cement, is commonly used in
harsh terrestrial environments. It has properties different from Portland
Lunar Concrete 673
Figure 44.5
Comparative deterioration after immersion in 20% sulphuric acid of samples of sulfate-resistant
Portland cement concrete (after three weeks), and STARcrete™ (after 3 years) (Courtesy
STARcrete™ Technologies, Inc.).
cement, in that it doesn’t have capillary porosity, and this makes it imper-
meable to fluids. The concrete would be composed of mineral aggregates
cemented together with highly polymerized native sulfur, thereby making
a durable concrete. The typical percentages of ingredients for the terrestrial
sulfur concrete are around 80% of aggregates, 12% of sulfur, and 8% of fly
ashes. It is already used in some civil construction because of its properties,
especially in chemically aggressive environments and in the presence of salts.
It is capable of being operational within 24 hours from the time of casting and
also has the possibility of being cast at temperatures well below 0°C. Although
for most applications it cannot compete commercially with Portland cement
concrete, its unique characteristics make it a viable construction material for
extreme environments such as with extraterrestrial applications.
Compared to the complex operations needed to work with cement from
the lunar soil and water, the process required to produce sulfur concrete
appears to have a good level of feasibility. The sulfur would be produced by
effective heating of the troilite to about 1200°C, which could be obtainable
with a simple solar-mirror concentrator. Professor Houssam Toutanji, from
the University of Alabama in Huntsville, proposed to make it even stronger,
to reinforce the concrete with glass fibers that could be obtained by melting
the lunar regolith. Professor Toutanji used sulfur powder and JSC-1 lunar
regolith simulant to cast plates (4x10x0.5 in). The sulfur concrete mixes con-
sisted of 35% sulfur and 65% JSC-1 regolith simulant by mass. Sulfur binder
and JSC-1 aggregate mixtures reinforced with short and long glass fibers,
both derived from regolith simulant.
Lunar regolith simulant was melted at melting temperatures of 1450 to
1600°C for periods of 30 min to one hour. Glass fibers were pulled from the
melt. For glass fiber pulling, the crucible was placed onto a refractory brick
and an alumina ceramic rod was used to pull the fibers, as shown in Fig. 44.6.
Figure 44.6
Hand-draw of glass fibers (Toutanji et al. 2006).
These fibers were long fibers with an average length of 8 inches and a
diameter of about 1 mm, as shown in Fig. 44.7.
The results showed that with the addition of fibers the ultimate flexural
strength was increased significantly. Sulfur concrete strengthened with
short and long glass fibers (glass fibers made from regolith simulant) showed
an increase of about 40 to 50%. Professor Toutanji indicated that this was a
preliminary data and he is currently conducting a study to investigate the
effect of the glass fibers on the ductility and strain energy capacity of the
sulfur concrete.
No Portland concrete in space, then? Maybe yes, but for other applica-
tions and with a new recipe. Recent studies conducted at the University of
Alabama in Huntsville have shown how the Portland cement can be mixed
with glass microbeads (microscopic hollow spheres), latex, acrylic fortifier,
and water, all in the appropriate proportions. The resulting material, dried
for twelve hours, is so light that it floats on water, so flexible it bends with-
out breaking, and so inert it withstands radiation. In comparison with other
types of concrete, especially in cost savings compared to the “traditional”
Lunar Concrete 675
Figure 44.7
Glass fiber drawn from lunar regolith simulant (Toutanji et al. 2006).
graphite epoxy, this “new” type of concrete should have several good space
applications, for example in tanks and rocket fuselages. For the time being,
Professor John Gilbert from UAH says, with this flexible concrete, reinforced
with glass fibers, they have built a canoe for the traditional concrete canoe
competition. This type of canoe is difficult to ride in, because its elasticity
makes it move in resonance with the waves (Figs. 44.8–44.9).
An entirely startling discovery about lunar soil recently has been made by
Professor Larry Taylor, Director of the Planetary Geosciences Institute at the
University of Tennessee. As he explains, “If a pile of lunar soil is placed in
your kitchen microwave oven, it will melt at more than 1200°C, before your
tea-water will boil (100°C).” Quite unbelievable until Taylor explains why. The
major weathering and erosional process on the Moon is meteorite and micro-
meteorite (less than 1mm) impacts, at velocities of 30,000 to 150,000 km/hr.
This is the major process responsible for the formation of the soil on the Moon.
With such high velocities, the micro-meteorites not only smash rocks and soil
particles into minute sizes, but most importantly, they melt large portions
of the soil, which produces glass. A good half of mature lunar soils are this
Figure 44.8
Several batches of concrete were prepared and students used drywall knives to place the mix
over three layers of graphite fiber mesh (courtesy Team University of Alabama Huntsville).
Figure 44.9
Students built the canoe on the mold (courtesy University of Arizona).
Lunar Concrete 677
Figure 44.10
Microwave wagon designed by Larry Taylor. It is equipped with a magnetron with the pri-
mary cone of microwaves, and with a parabolic metal reflector, to reflect waves on the soil for
homogeneous sintering (courtesy of Taylor and Meek, 2005).
impact glass. Part of this impact melt actually vaporizes and is then deposited
as myriads of tiny metallic iron particles in the impact glass.
It is the nano-sized metallic iron that couples so highly with the microwave
energy. Using but one magnetron out of a microwave oven, which normally has
four, Prof. Taylor’s research team has been able to fully focus the single 2.45 GHz
microwave beam such that it has extreme concentrations of energy. This single
magnetron can melt real lunar soil at about 1750°C in some 10 seconds.
Taylor has designed a wagon (Fig. 44.10) whereby a series of magnetrons,
at a certain frequency and power, will sinter the lunar soil to a depth of
30–40 cm. Another row of magnetrons, at another frequency and power, can
melt the upper 3–5 cm of the soil, which will rapidly quench to a glass.
With such a piece of microwave equipment, it should be possible to create
effective roads and more importantly, rocket landing pads, which will keep
lunar dust from being thrown all over, possibly settling on solar cells. The
lunar dust, in fact, is highly abrasive, can make moving parts useless, and
damage delicate mechanisms of the rovers, space suits and spacecraft, and it
can be very dangerous if inhaled by the astronauts.
All these solutions have advantages and drawbacks. Perhaps they will all
be used, but for different applications. For paving there are other propos-
als, like the simple removal of the dust layer, which was created above the
bedrock by meteoroid impact. Special machines and equipment will need to
be designed for that. The ultimate decision on which technology to use for
which application will be based on improved knowledge, and in-situ assess-
ment and verification.
Figure 44.11
Astronaut Gene Cernan test-driving Lunar Rover, raising abrasive dust, December 11, 1972.
The first exploration settlements needed for the exploitation of all these
resources, though, may require preliminary non-concrete structures. As
Professor Haym Benaroya from Rutgers University says: “[I believe that] the
early settlements would not be concrete-based because we will still need
some infrastructure to create the concrete building blocks and erect the struc-
ture. I believe that the sequence of structural types will be: prefabricated
-inflated/rigidized -solid, perhaps sintered regolith or some concrete-based
building blocks.” He continues: “Probably, many different technologies will
merge as our infrastructure develops on the Moon. The linking of sintering/
microwave technologies may allow for the initial formation of building mate-
rials. Furthermore, the development of robotic fabricators that can prepare,
mix, and build the structural components autonomously may allow for the
preparation of structures long before astronauts land.”
Acknowledgments
Many thanks to Haym Benaroya, Tom Gilbert, T.D. Lin, Larry Taylor, and
Houssam Toutanji for kindly providing information and images.
45
Silicon-Utilizing Organisms May Be Used
in Future Terraforming of the Moon
Satadal Das
Department of Microbiology,
Peerless Hospital & B. K. Roy Research Centre,
Kolkata, India
President, National Space Society-Kolkata Chapter
Satadal Das is a consultant microbiologist at Peerless Hospital and B.K. Roy

Research Centre at Kolkata, India. His main areas of research at present
are on silicon utilizing microorganisms, isolation of newer antibiotics from
microorganisms in a barren island of the Sundarbans—the world’s largest
mangrove forest, and the effect of titanium on bacterial growth and nutri-
tion. He has published 39 papers in various journals and presented more
than 100 papers in various international and national conferences. He is a
member of 11 scientific societies and is the secretary of Indian Association of
Medical Microbiologists, West Bengal Chapter. At present he is the president
of National Space Society-Kolkata Chapter.
Abstract Silicon-utilizing organisms are well known to tolerate differ-

ent physical, chemical and biological stresses. Thus there is a scope to use
them in selected batches on lunar surfaces for initial terraforming—at least
for caeliforming. Although they produce aberrant morphological forms on
silica based medium containing extremely trace amounts of carbon and
nitrogen—somewhat resembling lunar surface constituents, but even in these
altered forms they are quite able to initiate a micro environment leading to
formation of complex micro ecosystem which may be remodeled later for the
benefit of mankind. Once this initial protocol is standardized, we may use
it on other extraterrestrial surfaces to create similar micro environments in
future. Silicon-utilizing organisms will help in terraforming the Moon.
Introduction
Silicon-utilizing organisms have been defined as organisms with high sili-
con content (≥1% dry weight) and which can metabolize silicon with or
without demonstrable silicon transporter genes (SIT) in them [1]. They can
679
survive in extremes of temperature, pressure, radiation, pH, salinity and

nutrient conditions. Thus it is important to see whether there is any possi-
bility to use silicon-utilizing organisms for initial terraforming process on
the Moon. A classification of silicon utilizing organisms has already been
described [1].
Although there are some similarities of silicon with carbon, carbon is
the key element in the development of living creatures on earth and in no
way silicon is comparable to carbon regarding this. However, in the early
desolate days in the life history of earth when conditions were not suit-
able for survival of the presently omnipotent carbon-based life, silicon
may play a role in the initiation of life on earth and a “nutrient profile”
of silicon similar to nitrate and phosphate in ocean may be traced even
today.
Among different minerals only N, K, Si, Ca and Na are found more than
1% in plants, but it is unfortunate to know that while ecological aspects of
N, K, Ca, and Na are well known, the role of silicon in terrestrial ecosys-
tems is not sufficiently understood. However, silicon-utilizing organisms
can tolerate radiation stress, water stress, oxygen lack, micro gravity etc.
which are prevalent on lunar surface. Except the two most important ele-
ments essential for life on earth— carbon and nitrogen which are present
in trace amounts, all other chemicals are present in sufficient amounts
on lunar surface. The Moon contains oxygen (42.6%), magnesium (20.8%),
silicon (20.5%), iron (9.9%), calcium (2.31%), aluminum (2.04%), nickel
(0.472%), chromium (0.314%), manganese (0.131%), titanium (0.122%), many
chemicals in trace amounts and possible presence of water in polar cra-
ters. The dark colored lunar basalts, which are igneous rocks, are mainly
silicates and they also contain iron, titanium, zirconium, uranium and
lanthanum. Lunar sedimentary rocks are equivalent to regolith, which
also contains large amounts of silicon. Titanium present on the Moon
may also help growth of silicon utilizing organisms on solid surfaces
(unpublished data).
Silicon biomineralization occurs as a biologically controlled process or by
a biologically induced process [2]. In biologically controlled silicon mineral-
ization, there is formation of intracellular silica deposition vesicle (SDV) and
silicate is sequestered and transferred to the mineralization site by energy
driven pump mechanism (Fig. 45.1) in presence of specific transporter protein
[3]. In biologically induced silicon mineralization at first there is nucleation
of silicon followed by gradual transformation of the initial amorphous phase
into a crystalline phase. There are also other methods of silicon deposition
mainly by conversion of monomeric silica into oligomers and ultimately are
converted into silanol and siloxane. Other methods like hydrogen bonding,
cation bridging and direct electrostatic interactions have also been described
[4,5,6]. There are at least five SIT genes described in diatoms and following
this, SIT genes of some other silicon-utilizing organisms have also been
described [7,8]. Diatom silicon transporters (SITs) are membrane-associated
Silicon-Utilizing Organisms May Be Used in Future 681
Glucose respiration
Photosynthesis
Silicification
Active pump
rate in diatoms
mechanism
106x
Electrostatic
binding Cationic
Hydrogen aminoacids-
Specific glycine,
bonding serine and
silicon tyrosine
transporter
protein
OH
OH NH3
(Amino Acid)
HO Si OH HO
OH HO Si OH
OH
Silica colloid
Silicalemma
(SDV
membrane)
SDV
(Silica deposition vesicle)
Species specific shape
Figure 45.1
General mechanism of silicification of diatoms.
proteins that directly transport silicic acid [3]. Different types of silaffins
and long-chain polyamines (LCPA) are found in embedded proteins of silica
matrix of diatoms and many silaffins and LCPA (Fig. 45.2) can promote rapid
precipitation of silica [9,10,11,12]. Why some groups of organisms prefer to
use silicon is very difficult to explain; probably it was developed in more
silica rich hydrosphere during the Cambrian [13] mainly to construct cell
Silica Matrix Polypeptides

of Diatoms which Help in Silicification
Induced Polypeptides Native Polypeptides
Silaffin-1 Silaffin-2 Long Chain

(Species Polyamines Native Silaffin-1 Native Silaffin-2
Specific (LCPAs)
Silaffin-1A, Species Specific
Silaffin-1B,
Silaffin-1H,
Silaffin-1L,
etc.)
Figure 45.2
Polypeptides which help in silicification.
walls with less energy consumption and helping photosynthesis by forming

CO2 from bicarbonates [14], besides acting as armor against predation by
zooplankton [15].
Whether silicon-utilizing organisms can survive in such extraterrestrial
situations where carbon and nitrogen present in extremely trace amounts is
the main aim of the present study. Other aims of this study are formulation
of a basal media which may be used as a replica of extraterrestrial “soils” and
standardization of a proposed protocol for future terraforming of extrater-
restrial bodies.
General Methods
Formulation of a Basal Medium to Study Whether a
Microorganism Can Grow on Extraterrestrial “Soils”
The “extraterrestrial” basal medium (ETBM) comprising 3 mL of a solu-
tion containing biologically active chemicals of a known extraterrestrial
body composition other than silicate, sodium and phosphates (concen-
trated 2.5x) plus 3 mL sodium metasilicate (analytical, Fluka at present
Sigma-Aldrich, linear formula Na2SiO3, formula weight 122.06; 11.8 g/dL)
was used as a solidifying base, with the addition of 1.5 mL phosphoric acid
(analytical, Fluka at present Sigma-Aldrich, linear formula H3PO4, formula

weight 98.00; 16%v/v). For a general study where particular composition
of extraterrestrial body is unknown an “extraterrestrial” medium (ETM)
comprising of Na2HPO4, 0.375 g; KH2PO4, 0.5 g; MgSO4.0.075 g and dis-
tilled water 50 mL; sterilized by passing through G-5 sintered glass filter,
was solidified with sodium metasilicate and phosphoric acid as described
for ETBM above. Sodium metasilicate and phosphoric acid solutions were
sterilized by autoclaving and kept for at least 48 hours at 6–8°C before
preparation of the medium. Media prepared in this way showed less
release of water. Carbon and nitrogen were not added as in extraterres-
trial situations they are usually present in trace amounts and these trace
amounts were available through “carry over” in cultures or through natu-
ral contaminations.
Microorganisms
The strains of microorganisms used were locally isolated Gram positive soil
microorganisms - Mycobacterium smegmatis, M. terrae, M. triviale, M. gordonae,
Bacillus subtilis, Aspergillus fumigatus, Rhizopus stolonifer.
Cultivation Procedures
The stock cultures of mycobacteria, Bacillus and fungi were available
on Lowenstein-Jensen (L-J) medium, nutrient agar (NA) medium and
Sabouraud dextrose (SD) medium. For different microorganisms inocu-
lates were prepared by transferring 5–6 colonies of bacterial strains or
thoroughly fragmented 1–2 colonies of fungal strains to glass homog-
enizers, followed by grinding and suspension in 5 ml of phosphate buf-
fer (pH 7.4) saline and homogenization by shaking with glass beads, next
followed by a low speed centrifugation (10 min) to give uniform homoge-
neous supernatant. These were matched and standardized with reference
to McFarland standard 1.0 and their viable counts determined, so as to
contain 50–100 isolated colonies on L-J medium, NA medium and 10–50
isolated colonies on SD medium in 0.01 mL of each standardized sus-
pension. The inoculation of different ETM and conventional media were
done accordingly each in five lots and they were observed for 60 days. The
time taken for growth on a particular medium at 37°C, its increase with
the duration of incubation, colonial morphology, pigmentation, effects of
serial transfer of growth, microscopic morphology with different types
of strains were studied in this experiment, and electron microscopy of
M. smegmatis growths were studied separately. The growth characteristics
were also examined with respect to the capacity for reversion to the origi-
nal morphological characters, when returned to the conventional media
from ETM medium.
Electron Microscopical Study

Electron microscopy observations of M. smegmatis grown on ETM and con-
ventional media were done with the help of Jeol JEM-200 CX electron micro-
scope (Jeol Ltd, Tokyo, Japan) after staining with 1% solution of uranyl acetate
on a carbon coated copper grid (300 mesh).
Enrichment of Silicon-Utilizing Microorganisms from

the Environment in Sodium Metasilicate Solutions
Many silicon utilizing microorganisms can thrive in sodium metasilicate
(SM) solution as high as up to 4% concentration [1]. Details of this technique
have been described elsewhere [1]. To confine common silicon utilizing
organisms from the environment SM solutions of four different concentra-
tions— 0.5%, 1%, 2% and 4% were prepared with tap water. SM solutions
were kept in wide mouth plastic containers in different lots (10 each), they
were exposed to air for 24 hours then they were closed with airtight caps and
kept in dim lighted areas for as long as 5 years in ambient temperature for
“enrichment” of a selective group of stress adaptive silicon utilizing organ-
isms. This five-year “enrichment” time was calculated to allow proper adap-
tation in a long period of stress following my experiences in previous works.
After five years of stress the organisms present in different solutions were
exposed to daylight (~500 µmol m-2s-1 PPF 12 hours each day) for one month
following diurnal rhythm. After this macroscopic and microscopic studies of
the growths were done directly and after standard staining and cultural pro-
cedures for different microorganisms as described elsewhere [16,17,18,19].
Results
Growths of Different Microorganisms on ETM
Mycobacterium Smegmatis
On L-J medium tiny white colonies appeared within 24 hours, their size
and number increased gradually till they became confluent on 5th day after
inoculation. After 15 days the colonies were grayish white in color, they
were dry and mammillated. On ETM tiny colonies appeared on second day
after inoculation which became prominent within 5th day and after that
it remained unchanged till 60th day when size of the colonies were sig-
nificantly increased and the original dry colonies became moist. In Ziehl-
Neelsen (Z-N) staining the bacilli grown on ETM showed many clumps
with penetration in the deeper layers of the medium, branchings were fre-
quently seen along with pseudomycelial forms. In Gram’s staining beading
appearance of the bacilli were more on ETM. All these changes were not
seen in the bacilli grown on L-J medium. After repeated subcultures on
ETM growth rate of the bacilli was increased, colonies were white, smooth,
circular and low convex in type and when examined microscopically they
showed marked branching pattern with almost mycelia like structures.
After re-cultivation of this altered growths on L-J medium original appear-
ances were restored.
Mycobacterium Terrae
On L-J medium initial appearance of growths occurred on 5th day after
inoculation as tiny white moist colonies, which began to increase in size and
number from 10th to 12th days and became confluent by 30th day. On ETM
almost similar colonies appeared on 5th day after inoculation and slowly
increased in size up to 60 days. In Z-N staining and Gram’s staining of the
bacilli grown on ETM, bacilli were very much elongated with branchings
showing club shaped ends and sometimes they were arranged in chains.
After repeated subcultures on ETM branchings were more with occasional
mycelial patterns. Original morphological patterns were restored after sub-
culture of the altered growths on L-J medium.
Mycobacterium Triviale
Dry tiny white colored colonies appeared on L-J medium on 5th day after
inoculation which began to increase in size in between 12th to 21st day and
became confluent by 25th day. On ETM although similar but moist colonies
appeared on 5th day after inoculation they remain unchanged even up to
60 days of follow up period. In Z-N staining and in Gram’s staining the
bacilli grown on ETM showed only cocci forms without any evidence of any
branchings or chains which were frequently seen in the bacilli grown on L-J
medium. After repeated subcultures on ETM, very tiny, colonies appeared
within 24 hours showing only coccoid forms in microscopical study.
Mycobacterium Gordonae
Tiny dry yellowish colonies appeared on L-J medium after 3rd day of inoc-
ulation which gradually increased in size, became orange-yellow in color
and were confluent by 10th day. Although similar colonies were observed
on ETM after 3rd day of inoculation there was mild increase of their size up
to 10th day and after that there was no change. In Z-N staining and Gram’s
staining the bacilli grown on ETM were longer with frequent branchings
and also in clumps. After repeated subcultures on ETM growths appeared
with 24 hours, microscopically branchings were more prominent. Original
morphological characters were reverted back when these altered growths
were subcultured on L-J medium.
Bacillus Subtilis
Prominent colonies were seen on NA medium within 24 hours which became
confluent within 48 hours. On ETM tiny colonies appeared within 24 hours
and they became moderately increased in size within 5th day and after which
there was no change. In Gram’s staining of the growths on ETM spores were
less in comparison with the growths on NA medium.
Aspergillus Fumigatus
On SD medium tiny colonies appeared within 24 hours which became green-
ish powdery like along with patches of white cottony growths and white
reverse side within 3rd day, the growths were deep green in color within
25 days. On ETM although tiny growths appeared within 24 hours they were
mildly increased in size and showed licheniform appearance within 25 days
after inoculation. In Lactophenol cotton blue (LCB) staining of the growths
on ETM, it was found that vesicles of conidiophores were extremely scanty
in number when compared with the growths which were observed on SD
medium. When re-cultivated on SD medium original morphological forms
were seen.
Rhizopus Stolonifer
Tiny colonies appeared within 24 hours of inoculation on SD medium which
became white cottony growth with yellowish back within 72 hours, gradually
the color of the reverse side of the growths changed to deep orange yellow
color. On ETM, white cottony growths appeared on 10th day after inocu-
lation and slightly increased in size up to 15th day without any change of
reverse side color of the growths. There was no further change. In LCB stain-
ing plenty large columellae with very thick hyphae were found in growths
on ETM. Repeated cultures on ETM showed mild increase of growths in
size and in number. Original morphological forms were reverted back after
subculture on SD medium.
Electron Microscopy of the Growths of

M. Smegmatis on ETM and on L-J Medium
When growths of M. smegmatis on ETM and L-J medium were studied under
electron microscope many differences were noted as given in Table 45.1.
Growths in Different SM Solutions

Different varieties of organisms grew in different concentrations of SM
solutions- light green color growth in 0.5% SM solution, yellow color growth
in 1% SM solution, orange color growth in 2% SM solution and a scanty whit-
ish color growth in 4% SM solution. In comparison to the control medium
Table 45.1
Growths On ETM On Lowenstein-Jensen Medium
Length Normal Decreased
Thickness Normal Decreased
Plasma membrane Normal Thickened
Surface glycolipid Prominently present Not so prominent
Fibrous rope like structures Scanty in number Present in large numbers
Mesosome Present Present
Dense granules Moderately present Markedly increased
Lipoidal bodies More Less
Metachromatic granules Less More
(tap water only) diatoms were markedly increased (~4 times) in both 0.5%
and 2.0% SM solutions. Phytoplanktons other than diatoms were more in the
control medium than that in silicate solutions (Graph-1). Acid-fast bacteria
belonging to Runyon Group II variety grew abundantly in 1.0% silicate solu-
tions. Aspergillus spp. predominates in 0.5%, 1.0% and 2.0% silicate solutions
while scanty fungi of diverse varieties were found in 4% SM solution.
Discussion
Limited Growth of Some Gram Positive Microorganisms
on Carbon and Nitrogen “Free” Medium
It is very important to note that there should be no model culture medium
mimicking extraterrestrial condition which may be used to study growths
of earthly carbon-based life forms. It is not only due to the fact that there are
extreme variations in composition of extraterrestrial bodies but it is also due
to the low level of our knowledge of the Universe. However, for initiation of
our terraforming attempts on the near extraterrestrial objects of the Solar
System this ETM/ETBM medium may be helpful.
To study the growth patterns of silicon-utilizing organisms on ETM ini-
tially some soil Gram positive microorganisms were selected other than
diatoms, experiments on which is now going on in our laboratories. Gram
positive microorganisms were selected because most of them satisfy the cri-
teria of silicon-utilizing organisms.
It is not that we shall spread this organism on extraterrestrial surfaces and
the organisms will grow and produce the micro-ecosystem instantaneously.
In fact, it will never be so simple. At first we should select most probable
places for their possible growth, e.g. on polar craters and within lava tubes
on the Moon. After spread, the microorganisms may grow on some patchy
Enrichment of Different Phytoplanktons in SM Solutions

80
Green algae
70 Brown algae
Blue green algae
60
Red algae
50
40
%
30
20
10
0
Control 0.5% SM 1.0% SM 2.0% SM 4.0% SM
Figure 45.3
Graph 1: Growth of phytoplanktons in different silicate solutions. SM-Sodium metasilicate.
small areas only; but once they grow on those difficult sites, further enhance-
ment of the growths could be done easily.
Initial experiments with these Gram positive microorganisms isolated
from soil showed that there were limited growths of these microorganisms
on ETM probably with the help of some carry over carbon and nitrogen dur-
ing cultivation procedures. However, increase in growth rate after repeated
subcultures could not be explained at present. In a previous study by us
when silicon level was studied in such grown up cells on carbon “free” sili-
cate medium by electron prove microanalyser following thorough washing
procedures, it was found that silicon in cells grown on carbon “free” silicate
medium was much higher (24.9%) than those grown on conventional carbon
based medium (0.84%) [20]. Experiments on diatoms—which are excellent
stress tolerated silicon-utilizing organisms—are going on and are found
to show better growths on ETM than these tested organisms (unpublished
data). However, these initial findings are encouraging for our future applica-
tion of these groups of organisms on extraterrestrial surfaces for artificial
micro-ecosystem formation.
Enrichment of Silicon-Utilizing Microorganisms in Silicate Solutions

from Environment for Future Use in Initial Terraforming Procedures
In this study silicon-utilizing organisms from the environment were allowed
to grow selectively in large numbers in different SM solutions. This simple
experiment showed us a way to produce silicon utilizing microorganisms in
large quantities from the environment for their possible use on lunar surface
or on other extraterrestrial surfaces. Silicon-utilizing organisms were selected
for initial terraforming process as their important ecotypes particularly dia-

toms have already developed as stable mutants against different kinds of stress
throughout their long stay on earth for more than 200 millions of years.
Constantly changing environment in recent times and a critical change in
sea level as was found before occurrence of all mass extinctions on earth in the
Phanerozoic [21], indicates that our world may be a hostile place to us in com-
ing years. Again there are possibilities of an impact of a meteorite on earth in
near future. Considering of all these aspects it is obvious that mankind should
find out other areas away from earth for habitations.
A Protocol for Use of Silicon-Utilizing Organisms in

Terraforming/Caeliforming on Lunar Surfaces
A simple protocol may be followed to use silicon-utilizing organisms on
lunar surfaces. After providing minimum essential requirements for life on
lunar extraterrestrial situation, these organisms may be utilized. Otherwise
this protocol may be followed directly on a lunar crater or in lava tubes to
allow the organisms to find out a suitable zone for their growth.
Microterraforming Phase
In the initial venture antibiosis between various species to be used on
extraterrestrial surfaces should be avoided. Thus phytoplankton should be
used before zooplanktons. Diatoms of Eu-eurytherm variety of Nitzschia
and Chaetoceros group may be used initially and they should be kept for
3–12 months. Then red algae grown in 2% SM solution should be scattered
and kept for 3–12 months and finally yellow green algae grown in 0.5% sili-
cate solutions may be scattered to boost up the algal inhabitants and it also
should be kept for 3–12 months on the selected site. All selected microorgan-
isms should be tested for any pathogenecity and toxigenecity by standard
procedures before their application. After successful completion of this phase
microbial mats may be developed on lunar surface. Sub-cultivations may
be done if necessary in between steps because active and passive dispersal
mechanism will be less on lunar surface.
Selection of diatoms for the initiation of microterraforming process was
mainly based on their survival in the last mass extinction on earth—the
K-T event, in which only 20–25% extinction occurred in planktonic diatoms
while 80% and 90% extinctions occurred in radiolarians and in foraminifera
respectively [22].
Macroterraforming Phase
In this phase different lichens may be used initially and they should be
kept for 3–12 months. Then important silicon utilizing plants and following
that other organisms (only extremophile variety) like rotifers, tardigrades,
nematodes along with protozoa, fungi and bacteria may be added which will
live in close association of silicon utilizing plants and this process may con-
tinue for 1–5 years, following this food related silicon accumulator plants
may be used for another 1–5 years.
Follow-Up Phase
After the initial terraforming process one should monitor the biomass on
the lunar surface. A follow up analysis of the micro-climate is necessary to
understand changes in the complex variables including temperature, radia-
tion, humidity, “wind,” etc. Although there are various methods of mea-
surement of biomass e.g. drying, ashing, determination of energy content,
carbon analysis, etc., remote sensing data combined with ground based mea-
surements is probably the best method to be used. Carbon partitioning will
be highly effective on lunar surface. Micro-meteorological techniques like
aerodynamic and eddy covariance methods may also be tried. One can also
measure Adenylate Energy Charge (AEC) ratio. This measurement is simple
to perform and is extremely sensitive [23]. As there is no evidence of life in
any of the materials, which were brought from the moon, there is no chance
of obliteration or interference of any in situ “biosphere” on it.
Conclusion
Some Gram positive microorganisms showed limited growth on a silicon
based solid medium without any carbon- and nitrogen-based ingredient.
This indicates that they may be used on extraterrestrial surfaces for initiation
of terraforming process. A simple method for production of stress tolerated
silicon-utilizing microorganisms for use in terraforming process has been
described along with a protocol consisting of orderly arrangement of such
organisms for use on extraterrestrial surfaces. Follow-up studies are neces-
sary to understand the kinetics of such artificial micro-environment on the
extraterrestrial surfaces.
Acknowledgments
I would like to acknowledge Professor Haym Benaroya, Department of
Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering and Director, Center for Structures
in eXtreme Environments, Rutgers University, NJ, USA for allowing me to
deliver my lecture on a related topic at the “Rutgers Symposium on Lunar
Settlements” which was held in between 3 June to 8 June, 2007 at Rutgers
University. I thank Werner Grandl, Architect and Civil Engineer, Tulln,

Austria and Lee Morin, Astronaut Office, Johnson Space Center, for taking
interest in my work and discussions.
References
1. S. Das, A simple differential production method of silicon utilizing organisms
for future use in lunar settlements, Rutgers symposium on lunar settlements,
3–8 June, 2007, Rutgers University. www.lunarbase.rutgers.edu/papers/
Das_paper.pdf
2. H. A. Lowenstam, Minerals formed by organisms, Science 211(1981)1126–1131.
3. M. Hildebrand, B. E. Volcani, W. Gassmann, J. I. Schroeder, A gene family of
silicon transporters, Nature 385 (1997) 688–689.
4. V. R. Phoenix, R. E. Martinez, K. O. Konhauser, F. G. Ferris, Characterization and
implications of the cell surface reactivity of Calothrix sp. Strain Kc97, Applied and
Environmental Microbiology 68 (2002) 4827–4834.
5. V. R. Phoenix, K. O. Konhauser, F. G. Ferris, Experimental study of iron and
silica immobilization by bacteria in mixed Fe-Si systems: implications for
microbial silicification in hot-springs, Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 40 (2003)
1669–1678.
6. S. V. Lalonde, K. O. Konhauser, A. L. Reysenbach, F. G. Ferris, Thermophilic
silicification: the role of Aquificales in hot spring sinter formation, Geobiology 3
(2005) 41–52.
7. K. Thamatrakoln, A. J. Alverson, M. Hildebrand, Comparative sequence analy-
sis of diatom silicon transporters: towards a mechanistic model for silicon trans-
port, Journal of Phycology 42 (2006) 822–834.
8. J. F. Ma, K. Tamai, N. Yamaji, N. Mitani, S. Konishi, M. Katsuhara, M. Ishiguro,
Y. Murata, M. Yano, A silicon transporter in rice, Nature 440 (2006) 688–691.
9. N. Kroger, R. Deutzmann, M. Sumper, Polycationic peptides from diatom bio-
silica that direct silica nanosphere formation, Science 286 (1999) 1129–1132.
10. N. Kroger, R. Deutzmann, M. Sumper, Silica-precipitating peptides from dia-
toms. The chemical structure of sulfating-A from Cylindrotheca fusiformis, Journal
of Biological Chemistry 276 (2001) 26066–26070.
11. N. Kroger, R. Deutzmann, C. Bergdorf, M. Sumper, Species specific polyamines
from diatoms control silica morphology, Proceeding of National Academy of
Sciences, USA 97 (2000) 14133–14138.
12. M. Sumper, A phase separation model for the Nanopatterning of diatom bio-
silica, Science 295 (2002) 2430–2433.
13. K. Kurt, Introduction to geomicrobiology, first ed., Blackwell Publishing, 2007,
180.
14. A. J. Milligan, F. M. M. Morel, A proton buffering role for silica in diatoms,
Science 297 (2002) 1848–1850.
15. C. E. Hamm, R. Merkel, O. Springer, P. Kurkoje, C. Maler, K. Prechtel, V. Smetacek,
Architecture and material properties of diatom shells provide effective mechan-
ical protection, Nature 421(2003) 841–843.
16. A. Vonshak, Microalgae: laboratory growth techniques and the biotech-

nology of biomass production. Editors: D. O. Hall, J. M. O. Scurlock, H. R.
Bolhar-Nordenkampf, R. C. Leegood, S. P. Long, In Photosynthesis and produc-
tion in a changing environment: A field and laboratory manual, Chapman & Hall,
London 75 (1994) 347–349.
17. B. A. Forbes, D. F. Sahm, A. S. Weissfeld, Bailey & Scott’s diagnostic microbiology,
eleventh ed., Mosby, St. Louis, 2002.
18. ASTM (American Standard for Testing and Materials), Standard specification
for Substitute Ocean Water (Designation D) 15(1975)1141–1175.
19. APHA-AWWA-WPCF (American Public Health Association; American Water
Works Association; Water Pollution Control Federation), In: L. S. Clesceri, A. E.
Greenberg, R. R. Trussel (Eds.), Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater, 17th ed., 1989.
20. A. N. Chakrabarty, S. Das, K. Mukherjee, S. G. Dastidar, D. K. Sen, Silicon (Si)
utilization by chemoautotrophic nocardioform bacteria isolated from human
and animal tissue infected with leprosy bacillus, Indian Journal of Experimental
Biology, 26 (1988)839–842.
21. A. Hallam, Phanerozoic Sea-level Changes, first ed., Cambridge University Press,
New York, 1992.
22. J. A. Kitchell, D. L. Clark, A. M. Gombos, Biological activity of extinction; a link
between background and mass extinction, Palaios 1 (1986) 504–11.
23. A. M. Ivanovici, R. J. Wiebe, Towards a working ‘definition’ of ‘stress’: a
review and critique. In Stress Effects on Natural Ecosystems, ed. G. W. Barrett,
R. Rosenberg, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1981, 13–27.
693
Haym Benaroya
Professor
Department of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering
Director
Center for Structures in eXtreme Environments
Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey
Rutgers Symposium on Lunar Settlements

3–8 June 2007 Rutgers University
Acknowledgments
There are many people whose efforts have made this Symposium an excel-
lent meeting. Certainly first on this list must be Mrs. Patricia Mazzucco,
whose tireless efforts in working with our vendors and local organizational
matters, as well as with many of the attendees truly made this meeting come
together in such a nice way. We are grateful to Vice President for Academic
Affairs Philip Furmanski for his enthusiasm as well as financial support for
the Symposium. Similarly we are grateful to Rutgers University, the institu-
tion, for being the exciting and dynamic place that it is. Elan Borenstein is
thanked for his significant efforts on creating our website and making sure
we were properly set up for the Symposium. Tushar Saraf is appreciated for
his work in preparing this Abstract Book. Paul Bonness is appreciated for his
efforts at pulling together Symposium materials. Shefali Patel and Helene
Press are thanked for their assistance and support with the Symposium
preparations. Aiesha Jenkins is sincerely thanked for her supportive efforts
during the Symposium. Professor Yogesh Jaluria, Chair of Mechanical and
Aerospace Engineering, is acknowledged for his assistance and support for
this endeavor. Kendra Cameron is thanked for her assistance in helping us
gather promotional items for the attendees. Of course we are truly grateful
to all the presenters who took time and expense to come to Rutgers and offer
us some of their expertise. Finally, a personal thanks to Ana Benaroya, my
daughter, for her illustration of a future lunar settlement that has become our
Symposium logo.
Thank you, Haym Benaroya
695
696 Return to the Moon: Expanding the Earth’s Economic Sphere
© Ana Benaroya 2007
SUN MON TUES WEDS THUR FRI

3 JUNE 07 4 JUNE 07 5 JUNE 07 6 JUNE 07 7 JUNE 07 8 JUNE 07
8:00 8:00 8:30 9:00-9:45
Registration Registration Registration Edwards
8–9
& Opening 8:30-9:15

Ceremonies James
Logan
Harrison 9:15-10:00 9:00-9:45 9:45-10:30 9:00
9 – 10
Schmitt Launius Gerzer Eckert SYMPOSIUM

Bishop SUMMARY
PANEL
Benaroya Howerton Smirnov Han Palaia CLOSING
Grandl 10:40 Rodiek 10:40 10:40 COFFEE THOUGHTS
10 – 11
COFFEE 10:40 COFFEE BREAK BY

BREAK COFFEE BREAK REMAINING
BREAK ATTENDEES
Freeman Pearson Das Heiss Levy Adjournment
11 – 12
Lundquist Smithers Giacomelli Lewandowski

Banerji
LUNCH LUNCH LUNCH LUNCH
Continued
Return to the Moon: Expanding the Earth’s Economic Sphere 697
SUN MON TUES WEDS THUR FRI

3 JUNE 07 4 JUNE 07 5 JUNE 07 6 JUNE 07 7 JUNE 07 8 JUNE 07
1:10-1:50 Bell 1:00-1:45 1:30-2:15 1:15-2:00
1:50-2:30 Sherwood Nield Janes
1–2
Taylor 1:45-2:30
Hart
2:50 Konesky 2:40 2:20-3:00 2:00 Maccone
2–3
(1) Rhoades Rowe

Brandhorst Fisher 3:20 Taylor Konesky (2)
3:40 COFFEE Ruess 3:40 3:40 3:40 COFFEE
3–4
BREAK COFFEE COFFEE BREAK

BREAK BREAK
4PM – 7PM Zacny Dunne Durst Spell Toklu
4–5
COFFEE & Lowman Florek Pimenta Shevchenko

Registration Gulak
Tirat-Gefen
5–6
6–8 6 – 11 6–9 ON YOUR

OPENING SPECIAL ZIMMERLI OWN
6 ++
RECEPTION EVENT BANQUET

EVE
DAY 1: Monday – June 4, 2007
Morning Session
Plenary Speaker
Harrison H. Schmitt, PhD
Apollo Astronaut, U.S. Senator, Entrepreneur
“Return to the Moon—Expanding the Earth’s Economic Sphere”
Day 1 Morning Schedule:

• 8:00–9:00 am Registration and Opening Ceremonies
• 9:00–10:00 am Harrison Schmitt
• 10:00–10:20 am Haym Benaroya
• 10:00–10:40 am Werner Grandl
• 10:40–11:00 am COFFEE BREAK
• 11:00–11:20 am R.D. Richards
• 11:20–11:40 am Marsha Freeman
• 11:40–12:00 pm Charles Lundquist
• 12:00–1:00 pm LUNCH
698
Return to the Moon: Expanding
the Earth’s Economic Sphere
Harrison Schmitt
It has been suggested by the President’s Science Advisor and the

Administrator of NASA that it is time to include the Moon in the “economic
sphere of the Earth.” Both history and comparative analysis indicate that a
privately financed and managed initiative would be the most efficient and
productive approach to returning to the Moon in the foreseeable future and
to accomplishing this long-term economic goal. Any large scale private ini-
tiative focused on a Return to the Moon will have as its ultimate aim a return
on investment from production and sale of lunar resources, in particular
helium-3 for fusion electric power plants on Earth. In addition to helium-3
for fusion power, sales of by-products from its production, such as hydrogen,
water and oxygen to customers in space, will add to bottom line income as
well as to investor return. The same can be said of ancillary services based
on the existence of an investor-financed lunar settlement and the new space
transportation systems required to establish and service that settlement.
699
Lunar Structures
Haym Benaroya
While interest continues to increase with the nation’s return to the Moon by
astronauts for a permanent settlement there, the question of why we need to
do this continues to be asked, even though answers abound. The brief list of
whys follows:
• Safeguarding the species, by locating humans in off-Earth locations

and for planetary defense for asteroid early warning and targeting;
• Attracting young Americans to the study of engineering, science
and mathematics;
• Manifest destiny, competition against China, Europe and other space
faring nations, staking a claim;
• Economic rewards such as resources, extraterrestrial site-specific
benefits for industry, tourism, dual-use technologies;
• Science: astronomy, space and earth sciences, biological sciences;
• The Moon as a base for the development of “space legs” so humans
can go to Mars and beyond, learn more about human and plant
physiology, human psychology, in the space (radiation) and low-g
environment, to learn how to “live off the land” in space;
• Creating an epic and positive vision for humanity as a balance to
ward off societal pessimism, in particular for the coming genera-
tions, much as the New World and the West did during the Age of
Exploration and the Westward Expansion in the United States. I
believe this is the most forceful reason!
Concepts for lunar base structures have been proposed since long before
the dawn of the space age. We will abstract suggestions generated during the
past quarter century, as these are likely to form the pool from which eventual
lunar base designs will evolve. Significant studies have been made since the
days of the Apollo program, when it appeared likely that the Moon would
become a second home to humans. Such studies continue today. While many
ideas are futuristic and exciting, we must recognize the serious engineering
and physiological issues that must be surmounted before a permanent and
manned settlement exists on the Moon, and therefore that the first settlement
is likely to be a very simple set of structures, but still very exciting.
700
Lunar Base 2015: A Preliminary
Design Study
Werner Grandl
The Lunar Base 2015—design study is a concept for the return of humans
to the moon from 2015 to the end of the century. The proposed lunar sta-
tion (Stage 1) is built of 6 cylindrical modules, each one 17m long and 6m
in diameter. 8 astronauts or scientists can live and work in the station. Each
module is made of aluminium sheets and trapezoidal aluminium sheeting
and has a weight of approximately 10.2 tonnes, including the interior equip-
ment and furnishing. The outer wall of the cylinders is built as a double-shell
system, stiffened by radial bulkheads to provide structural redundancy and
for shielding. To protect the astronauts from micrometeorites, radiation and
extreme temperatures, the caves between the two shells of the outer wall are
filled with a 0.6m thick layer of regolith in situ by a small teleoperated digger
vehicle. Using lunar material for shielding the payload for launching can be
minimized. For launching the ARIANE 5 ESC-B rocket or a similar US or
Russian launcher can be adapted. (12 tonnes payload required) For the flight
from earth orbit to lunar orbit the modules can either be propulsed by a small
rocket engine attached to each module or be moved by a “space tug” (one
more flight is necessary). To land the modules on the lunar surface, a teleop-
erated “rocket crane” is used. This vehicle will be assembled in lunar orbit
and is built as a structural framework carrying rocket engines, fuel tanks
and teleoperated crawlers to land and move on the lunar surface. To establish
the basic Stage 1 on the moon 11 flights are necessary: 1 flight- lunar orbiter,
a small manned spaceship; 1 flight- manned lander and docking module for
the orbiter; 1 flight- teleoperated rocket crane; 6 flights- lunar base modules;
1 flight- machinery: teleoperated digger vehicle, regolith ripper-excavator;
1 flight- scientific equipment, lunar rover, etc.
Extended version (future): Due to its modular design the Lunar Base can
be enlarged in stages, finally becoming an “urban structure” for dozens of
astronauts and tourists, always using the same launchers and machinery
with current technology.
701
The New Race to the Moon: Old World
Ideas versus New World Opportunities
R.D. Richards
Excalibur Moon LLC
Ontario, Canada
Between 1969 and 1972, twelve humans walked on another world. After the
most awesome technological and psychological achievement of the human
species, they left, never to return. Why? Was it a useless waste of human
ingenuity on an Olympian folly? What caused humanity to abandon its first
toehold on another world? More importantly, what is the basis to go back?
What new forces and motivators are at play today that make the story a dif-
ferent one than the Apollo dead end?
Today there is a rebirth of interest in going back to the Moon among
many nations. As co-chair of the International Lunar Conference in 2005,
Bob Richards assembled the world’s foremost scientists and policy makers
to discuss humanity’s return to the Moon. However while nations plan and
strategize how to navigate the political minefields and conflicting national
priorities that justify the value of the Moon to the everyday tax payer, there
are some new kids on the block not so constrained. They are the privateers;
visionaries too, however their driving metric for going to the Moon is sus-
tainable business and commerce.
In this talk Bob Richards outlines how a carefully planned private Moon
mission could set in motion the technological, political, legal and regulatory
precedents that will allow humanity to rationally and peacefully embrace
and develop the Moon as the world’s eighth continent.
702
Krafft Ehricke’s Moon: The
Extraterrestrial Imperative
Marsha Freeman
Associate Editor
21st Century Science and Technology
Washington, DC
German-American space visionary Krafft Ehricke is well known for his

statement: “It has been said, ‘If God wanted man to fly, He would have given
man wings.’ Today we can say, ‘If God wanted man to become a spacefaring
species, He would have given man a moon.’ ”
Over the course of more than 30 years, Krafft Ehricke laid the philosophi-
cal basis for man’s exploration of the Solar System, and created exquisitely
detailed plans for the human settlement and industrial development of the
Moon. In 1957, in his “Anthropology of Astronautics,” Ehricke proposed that
only man places limits on himself; that not only the Earth, but the entire Solar
System are man’s rightful field of activity; and that by “expanding through
the universe, man fulfills his destiny as an element of life, endowed with the
power of reason and the wisdom of moral law within himself.”
Krafft Ehricke saw the exploration of space as based on an Extraterrestrial
Imperative; that for mankind to grow and develop, a new “open world” was
needed, not limited to the confines of Earth. Such an effort was not voluntary,
but mandatory, he posited, because a growing world population and increas-
ing standards of living would require new worlds and resources to explore
and exploit. The only alternative would be increasing shortages of strategic
materials and energy, increasing geopolitical conflicts, and, eventually, war.
A multi-decade approach to lunar development was proposed by Ehricke,
who described the Moon as Earth’s Seventh Continent. The most advanced
technologies, based upon the use of nuclear fission power, automated and
robotic systems, laser, and other directed-energy applications, would make
industrial activity on the Moon, as, or more, productive than that on the
Earth. With thriving lunar industries, mankind would no longer be limited
to the resources of his home planet, and would have created the basis for the
next steps in exploration, to Mars.
Krafft Ehricke’s vision, his attention to engineering detail, and his incorpo-
ration of the most advanced technologies becoming available, should inform
the methods being considered today for the approaching intensive robotic
and then manned return to the Moon.
One can only imagine Ehricke’s excitement were he alive today, at seeing
the wide array of nations now planning the exploration and development of
the Moon.
703
Apollo Knowledge Transfer
Charles Lundquist
Skycorp
Huntsville, Alabama
wingod@earthlink.net
Dennis Wingo
Research Institute
University of Alabama, Huntsville
A perplexing social issue is how to convey knowledge and experience from

the Apollo Program in a way that is efficiently helpful to present teams plan-
ning return missions to the moon. Such a transfer of know-how is hard even
when there is a continuity of work-force, but the transfer is exceedingly dif-
ficult when an interval of some forty years must be bridged. Surely historical
documents from the Apollo Program exist in many places and forms that are
accessible with enough effort. Realistically, the present government and con-
tractor team members are so pressed with current issues that they feel they
can devote but little time to primary literature searches. They can be aided
by their social community.
Recognizing its long-standing relationship with the NASA Marshall Space
Flight Center and the Huntsville contractor community, the University of
Alabama in Huntsville, UAH, has accepted a role as a repository for space
information deserving preservation in a publicly accessible archive. One
mode of operation has been acceptance of personal materials donated by
retirees from the Marshall Center and other individuals. Many video oral-
history interviews have been conducted. The collections at UAH related
to lunar exploration include a Saturn V collection, a Lunar Roving Vehicle
Collection, an Apollo mission collection, and documents from the activities
of the Apollo Group for Lunar Exploration Planning, GLEP. The GLEP con-
sidered many factors that influenced landing site selection and investigation
plans for each Apollo mission.
Fortunately, present lunar team members, and students who will become
team members, have grown up in the era of computer data bases and they
are skilled at accessing such information. This suggests that one obvious
aid to them is to provide Apollo knowledge and experience in a computer
searchable format. The Archives and Special Collections Department in the
library at UAH is among many entities that recognized and implemented
this option. While it is prohibitive to immediately scan in full all the available
704
documents, a selection of the most pertinent ones can be provided online.

The others can have an online finding guide and abstracts to allow needed
documents to be identified and retrieved.
An issue faced by all archives, but particularly space archives, is the cir-
cumstance that some old records exist in electronic formats that have become
obsolete. The archiving entity then has the task of transforming these records
into a currently used format, preferably one that facilitates online access.
The authors fully recognize that providing online and in-library access
to information is only one option in preserving and conveying the Apollo
experience. Scholarly surveys of Apollo material is another. Given the scope
of the past, present and future lunar exploration programs, and recognizing
the large number of organizations involved, the information preservation
and transfer task is indeed a challenging social problem.
DAY 1: Monday – June 4, 2007
Afternoon Session
Plenary Speakers
Prof. Larry Bell
Director, SICSA, University of Houston

“Surface Infrastructure Planning and Design Considerations for
Future Human Lunar and Mars Habitation”
Prof. Lawrence A. Taylor
Director, Planetary Geosciences Institute, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences

University of Tennessee, Knoxville
“Surface Infrastructure Planning and Design Considerations for
Future Human Lunar and Mars Habitation”
Day 1 Afternoon Schedule:

• 1:10–1:50 pm Larry Bell
• 1:50–2:30 pm Lawrence A. Taylor
• 2:30–2:50 pm Päivi Jukola
• 2:50–3:10 pm Gregory Konesky
• 3:10–3:30 pm Henry W. Brandhorst
• 3:40–4:00 pm COFFEE BREAK
• 4:00–4:20 pm K. Zacny
• 4:20–4:40 pm Paul D. Lowman Jr.
• 4:40–5:00 pm Bernard H. Foing
• 5:00–5:20 pm Yosef G. Tirat-Gefen
• 6:00–8:00 pm OPENING RECEPTION
706
Surface Infrastructure Planning and
Design Considerations for Future
Lunar and Mars Habitation
Larry Bell
Professor/Director of SICSA
Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture (SICSA)
University of Houston, Texas
This presentation discusses and illustrates ways that planning and design
for habitable structures and human operations on the Moon and Mars dif-
fer in fundamental aspects from terrestrial circumstances on Earth. Key
among these differences are severe launch and landing constraints upon
equipment and element mass and volume; minimal or nonexistent avail-
ability of surface construction and site preparation systems, tools and labor
resources; limited and potentially periodic power tied to solar source condi-
tions; and temperature extremes and dust impacting equipment reliability
and maintainability.
The presentation also offers a variety of facility types and configura-
tions that respond to different design strategies and mission applications.
Included are both conventional and expandable (such as inflatable and tele-
scopic) pressurized structures, each type correlated with special advantages
and limitations. These respective benefits and constraints influence how they
can be landed on the surface, maneuvered and deployed; alternative ways
they can be grouped together to meet evolutionary site development require-
ments, and radiation protection countermeasure options. Examples draw
upon numerous research and design studies undertaken by the Sasakawa
International Center for Space Architecture (SICSA) over a period spanning
more than two decades.
707
In-Situ Resource Utilization
on the Moon: A Marriage of
Science and Engineering
Lawrence A. Taylor
Planetary Geosciences Institute
Earth & Planetary Sciences
University of Tennessee, Knoxville
The establishment of a base on the Moon, with human occupancy, will neces-
sitate the use of the indigenous resources on the Moon. Virtually everything
we know about the Moon and its rocks and soils comes from the science
that evolved from the Apollo Program, continuing today with sample stud-
ies and refinements of earlier remote-sensing data. It is this knowledge of
the physical and chemical properties of lunar regolith that forms the basis
for the engineering endeavors to make it possible to effectively “live off the
land” in our exploration endeavors.
“Science enables Exploration, and Exploration enables Science.” It is this
synergy that must be fully appreciated, realized, and utilized for this mas-
sive lunar endeavor to be successful. The properties of the lunar rocks and
soils that make up the regolith vary widely over the lunar surface. The spa-
tial distributions of the regolith, mainly as to its chemistry, have been forth-
coming from the successful remote-sensing efforts of the Lunar Prospector
and Clementine Missions, using the Apollo samples as ground truths.
Lunar architecture plans are to produce supplies of liquid oxygen (LOX)
and liquid hydrogen on the Moon. The sources of these volatiles on the
Moon are well-known; different processes for recovery of oxygen necessitate
special feedstocks, and our science has already given us much of this knowl-
edge. Regions of ilmenite-rich mare are well known, with such a feedstock
being one of the best for hydrogen-reduction to release oxygen from this
FeTiO3 mineral. The presence of solar-wind particles on the surfaces of all
lunar regolith grains has also been known since Apollo. The step-wise heat-
ing of lunar soil will easily release the hydrogen, helium, carbon, nitrogen,
and other elements from the soil. And because the solar-wind implantation
is a surface phenomenon, the finer fractions of the lunar soil possess the larg-
est amounts of solar wind/mass.
708
In-Situ Resource Utilization on the Moon 709
These examples illustrate the synergies and symbiotic relationships

between lunar exploration, with its largely engineering clientele, and lunar
science, with its effective geologic and geochemical community. The major
endeavor before us is tremendous and will only be possible by the effective
union of these two divisions of knowledge, funding, and expertise. Apollo
came about so successfully and quickly because there was no large division
in personnel and administration between the engineers and scientists. Post-
Apollo evolution of NASA has promoted the separation of these expertises. It
behooves us to start thinking more like “materials scientists,” who epitomize
the effective marriage of engineering and science. Working together, as per
Apollo days, is called for to accomplish our goals of a lunar base within our
lifetimes.
Urban Innovations for the Moon
Päivi Jukola
Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
People as decision-makers in complex systems are the most critical element

for system safety, reliability and performance. Their creativity, adaptability
and problem solving capabilities are keys to effective performance. Design
guidelines that decrease psychological and social stress factors can be critical
to mission success even during short-term lunar missions. The importance of
enjoyable home and work atmospheres, places for sport and cultural activi-
ties, increase during long-term assignments in isolated hostile environments.
Sustainable urban development is a necessity for a larger population working
and living on site. This article explores alternative strategies to create the first
lunar technology park benchmarking similar investment projects on Earth.
According to the study in order to solve the financial, technical and cultural
space exploration challenges it would be beneficial to direct more attention to
human factors, behavioral finance theories and user-oriented design-princi-
ples. The most important customer is the taxpayer. Investors are more eager to
invest when risks, profits and the outcome of the project are simple enough to
understand and persuasively communicated. There is a need for detailed urban
design drawings by architects to engage the public in interactive participation.
Real estate development is a timely process that includes stakeholders from gov-
ernment officials to private investors and end-users, from engineers to architects
and brand identity marketing experts. Feasibility studies and master plans are
valuable tools when evaluating future scenarios for the experimental station con-
cept. However, without timely discussion on international treaties and financial
policies the public at large is less likely to give support for lunar projects.
The most severe environmental conditions cause death to the poorest on
Earth every day. Lack of clean water and air, dust, extreme temperatures,
waste management and energy efficient transportation are similar infra-
structure challenges on the Moon. Sincere determination to solve ecologi-
cal problems on Earth paves the way to environmental innovations in the
lunar gravity. Recent virtual reality and technological innovations that allow
end-users to manipulate elements of interior atmosphere according to one’s
own personal taste are valuable for astronauts in remote locations, or hospi-
tal patients and elderly living in institutions. Research on 3D visual simula-
tion of real world environments and motion flight simulators is useful for
training and virtual tourism to Moon and Mars. Thus, technological transfer
opportunities are significant either way.
710
Settlement Site Selection
and Exploration Through
Hierarchical Roving
Gregory Konesky
While orbital reconnaissance is useful for initial lunar settlement site selec-
tion, it is no substitute for in-situ ground truth, which could be easily accom-
plished with teleoperated roving. The Mars Exploration Rovers (MER)
experience with Sojourner in 1997, and Spirit and Opportunity in 2004 show
how the selection of rover size influences the capabilities and nature of their
respective missions. Smaller rovers can more closely explore a complex
environment and tend to be more nimble, but at a cost of reduced payload
capability. Larger rovers enjoy enhanced payload capabilities, but at a cost of
being somewhat ponderous and difficult to maneuver in complex environ-
ments. The best of these extremes can be optimized by a hierarchical roving
approach wherein a large rover carries a hierarchy of smaller specialized
rovers. The large rover, in addition to serving as a transport for the collection
of smaller rovers to a remote deployment site, also acts as a communica-
tions relay link and power recharge source for the smaller rovers. In a typical
operational scenario, the smaller specialized rovers are deployed at a given
site and execute their collective mission. They are then recovered by the large
carrier rover and transported to the next site. Some of the benefits of hierar-
chical roving include greater situational awareness, redundancy, spatially
distributed capability, and the opportunity for self-rescue. The large rover
can also serve as an anchor point for tethered roving, permitting smaller
rovers to negotiate steep slopes or down-hole exploration that would other-
wise be inaccessible to a wheeled vehicle.
Design and operating experience with a test model carrier vehicle contain-
ing three smaller specialized rovers is discussed, as are the design tradeoffs.
Test results from tethered rover operations are also presented.
711
A Solar Electric Propulsion Mission
with Lunar Power Beaming
Henry W. Brandhorst, Jr.

Space Research Institute
Auburn, Alabama
Julie A. Rodiek
Auburn, Alabama
Michael S. Crumpler
Auburn, Alabama
Mark J. O’Neill
ENTECH, Inc.
Keller, Texas
As the NASA Vision for Space Exploration evolves, a key issue that affects
lunar exploration is the ability to provide electric power at various surface
locations. This power should be available through daylight times as well as
at night. It is the purpose of this paper to describe an electric propulsion
mission to the moon that will use laser power beaming to provide power to
multiple locations on the lunar surface.
The major benefit of solar electric propulsion (SEP) is that more payload
can be delivered to the moon for less cost than by chemical means. In addi-
tion, SEP allows orbital adjustment to permit a range of characteristics to
fit the mission requirements at small fuel expenditures. However, one dis-
advantage of SEP is that it takes longer to reach the moon, but this is not a
limiting factor for this case. This paper will describe a solar electric propul-
sion mission to the moon, insertion into an elliptical orbit and beaming laser
power to the surface.
Many options exist for orbits around the moon that could be used for power
beaming. Beaming power from the L1 point leads to a beaming distance of
about 56,000 km. The constraints on laser power beaming over this distance
lead to substantial losses. If a Molniya-type, highly elliptical orbit were cho-
sen for the power beaming location, the apogee may be only about 12,000 km
712
A Solar Electric Propulsion Mission with Lunar Power Beaming 713
which substantially reduces beaming distance, hence losses. However the

length of time the lunar surface site is in view becomes important in order to
keep the mass of the energy storage system on the surface small. In the same
way, circular orbits of varying heights will encounter the same view time
issue. So maximum elevation of the beaming spacecraft, the precession of
orbits around the moon and the perturbations of lunar gravity all combine to
complicate the analysis, and the results of these options will be presented.
For both the laser beaming spacecraft and the lunar surface receiving pho-
tovoltaic array, the Stretched Lens Array (SLA) on the SquareRigger platform
design will be used. For the orbiting spacecraft, triple junction cells will be
used in the array. A single cell test module with a triple junction cell and
overall efficiencies of 29% has been demonstrated for this case. For the sur-
face array, GaAs cells will be used to receive the beamed laser power. Testing
of GaAs solar cells with a ~800 nm laser under the SLA has yielded efficien-
cies over 45% at room temperature.
This equates to over 800 W/kg and 800 W/m2 at a 70–75ºC operating tem-
perature that is typical of a solar array in GEO. Temperature of an array
orbiting the moon will depend upon its altitude and view angle of the lunar
surface. Of course, the lunar surface temperature will markedly impact the
surface array and those results are included in this study. As cell efficiency
increases, the amount of waste heat decreases thus leading to an overall
temperature reduction for a lunar surface array. This paper will present the
results using one and two beaming spacecraft that will beam power only
when the target site(s) are in darkness and the satellite is in sunlight. The
impact of the Van Allen trapped radiation belts on the solar array power out-
put will also be presented. The amount of power delivered to the surface is
dependent upon the power level of the SEP spacecraft and will be presented
for a nominal 100 kW BOL array.
Drilling and Excavating
Technologies for the Moon
K. Zacny
J. Craft
S. Frader-Thompson
K. Davis
B. Glass
NASA Ames Research Center
Moffett Field, California
C. Stoker
NASA Ames Research Center
Moffett Field, California
Reaching the cold traps at the lunar poles and directly sensing the subsur-
face regolith is a primary goal of lunar exploration, especially as a means of
prospecting for future In Situ Resource Utilization efforts. As today’s mis-
sions to space are highly cost driven, flight systems must deal with modest
limits to mass and power. This means that robotic systems must become
more “intelligent” and capable of performing difficult tasks autonomously.
For the past 20 years Honeybee Robotics has been developing various drills
and other excavating systems for extraterrestrial applications (Mars, Moon,
asteroids, etc.). These systems differ based on the required depth of penetra-
tion, size, mass, required power and the level of autonomy. There is no doubt
that any drill system can be scaled down in size and mass, however, the most
difficult part is drill autonomy.
Deep drilling with limited power is certainly a difficult task to automate, how-
ever, not impossible. This has been proven by two robotic drill systems the MARTE
and the DAME drills. Together, these drills have proven the technologies neces-
sary for low-powered, fully autonomous deep drilling on any planet or moon.
The presentation will focus on describing various drill technologies with a
wide range of autonomy, as well as reporting drilling tests in lunar soil simu-
lants. In addition an innovative method of mining lunar top soil currently
being investigated by Honeybee will also be presented.
714
Malapert Mountain: A Recommended
Site for a South Polar Outpost
Paul D. Lowman, Jr.

NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Greenbelt, Maryland
The Moon’s poles have emerged as scientifically and strategically valuable

areas for a new lunar program as proposed by President George W. Bush in
2004. The Clementine missions showed that there are large areas of perma-
nently-shaded terrain at both poles, but the southern one is more concen-
trated and well-defined. Consequently most interest has been focused on
the South Polar Region and specifically on the crater Shackleton because it
is thought to be in continual sunlight, and is close to the hydrogen-bearing
shaded areas. However, Malapert Mountain appears to have several advan-
tages over Shackleton.
It was shown by D. Schrunk and B. Sharpe that Malapert Mountain
is sunlit 90% or more of the lunar year, whereas Lunar Orbiter 4 pictures
show that the rim of Shackleton is only partly illuminated at any one time.
Furthermore, the illuminated area varies over the lunar year, and no one site
is continually sunlit.
Malapert Mountain is old, pre-Nectarian terrain, probably with a thick
regolith saturated with implanted hydrogen and helium. It offers a broad
and smooth landing area, demonstrably in continuous microwave visibility
of Earth (for tracking and communications). It is close to permanently-shaded
areas to the south, which should be easily reached by a vehicle driven down
the south flank of Malapert Mountain.
Malapert Mountain, in summary deserves careful study in light of mission
safety, scientific importance, and evaluation of lunar resource.
715
SMART-1 Highlights and
Lunar Settlements
Bernard H. Foing & SMART-1 Team
SMART-1 is the first of Small Missions for Advanced Research and Technology
as part of ESA science programme “Cosmic Vision.” Its objective is to demon-
strate Solar Electric Primary Propulsion (SEP) for future Cornerstones (such as
Bepi-Colombo) and to test new technologies for spacecraft and instruments.
The spacecraft had been launched on 27 Sept. 2003, as Ariane-5 auxiliary pas-
senger, and spiraled out towards lunar capture on 15 November 2004. It then
spiraled down towards lunar science orbit (300-3000 km) until March 2005.
The SMART-1 mission orbited the Moon for a nominal period of six months,
with 1 year extension until end of mission impact on 3 September 2006.
The spacecraft has carried out a complete program of technology and
science measurements. There is an experiment (KaTE) aimed at demon-
strating deep-space telemetry and telecommand communications in the X
and Ka-bands, a radio-science experiment (RSIS), a deep space optical link
(Laser-Link Experiment), and the validation of a system of autonomous
navigation (OBAN). For lunar science, the payload includes a miniaturized
high-resolution camera (AMIE) for lunar surface imaging, a near-infrared
point-spectrometer (SIR) for lunar mineralogy investigation, and a very com-
pact X-ray spectrometer (D-CIXS) with a new type of detector and micro-
collimator which will provide fluorescence spectroscopy and imagery of the
Moon’s surface elemental composition.
We shall also present the highlights of lunar science results from SMART-1
payload, featuring many innovative instruments and advanced technolo-
gies with a total mass of some 19 kg. SMART-1 lunar science investigations
include studies of the chemical composition of the Moon, of geophysical pro-
cesses (volcanism, tectonics, cratering, erosion, deposition of ices and vola-
tiles) for comparative planetology, and high resolution studies in preparation
for future steps of lunar exploration. The mission addresses several topics
such as the accretional processes that led to the formation of rocky planets,
and the origin and evolution of the Earth-Moon system.
We shall discuss ongoing SMART-1 collaborations with upcoming mis-
sions, lessons for the future exploration, and results relevant to preparing a
human lunar settlement.
716
Validation of Mission Critical Power and
Control Systems for Lunar Settlement
Yosef G. Tirat-Gefen
Aerospace Division, Castel Research Inc.
and George Mason University
Blacksburg, Virginia
Julio C. G. Pimentel
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
Laval University
Quebec, QC, Canada
A future settlement on the Moon would use a massive number of semi-

automated or fully-automated complex mission-critical systems dealing with
issues in areas as diverse as environmental control, air quality management,
radiation protection, and biomedical monitoring. These systems will be very
expensive and difficult to test. In addition to that, no validation methodology
would completely preclude hardware-in-the loop testing of many of these sub-
systems. Power and control subsystems will be the backbone of many of these
safety-critical systems. Therefore, the system degradation in the presence of
transient or permanent faults should be fully accessed before final deploy-
ment. Also, the time and testing budget spent to set up and to fine-tune these
systems will affect the overall economic feasibility of a mission. This work
discusses the use of real time simulation for testing of power and control sys-
tems to be deployed in a lunar settlement. This simulation technology is capa-
ble of hardware-in-the loop validation. In other words, the system under test
is able to operate in parallel and real-time with the simulator, where the latter
drives and receives signals from the former through its analog and digital
interfaces. Preliminary applications include subsystems in power electronics
and biomedical monitoring. The simulator is based on a low cost reconfigu-
rable computing infrastructure (e.g. embedded processors and field program-
mable gate arrays—FPGAs) and it is capable of having simulation steps on
the order of 0.5 microseconds, which is enough to model several key elec-
tromechanical and power system modules. This work presents the simulator
architecture and its implementation. We conclude with a discussion of how
this technology could be leveraged with other approaches in safety-critical
validation such as fault modeling and formal verification methods.
717
DAY 2: Tuesday – June 5, 2007
Morning Session
Plenary Speakers
James S. Logan, MD, MS
Space Medicine Associates, Belcamp, MD

“The Elephant in the Room: Biomedical Show-Stoppers
for Long Duration Human Lunar Habitation?”
Roger D. Launius, PhD
Chair, Division of Space History

National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution
“Why Go to the Moon? The Many Faces of Lunar Policy”

• 8:00–8:30 am Registration
• 8:35–9:20 am James S. Logan
• 9:20–10:05 am Roger D. Launius
• 10:05–10:25 am Alex Howerton
• 10:25–10:45 am Julie Rodiek
• 11:00–11:40 am Jerome Pearson
• 11:40–12:00 pm Gweneth A. Smithers
• 12:00–1:00 pm LUNCH
718
The Elephant in the Room:
Biomedical Showstoppers for Long
Duration Lunar Habitation?
James S. Logan
Space Medicine Associates
Belcamp, Maryland
The Vision for Space Exploration (VSE) envisions “permanent human pres-
ence” on the moon, first by establishing an “outpost” capable of supporting
seven-day missions in 2020, then incrementally extending mission duration
to as long as six months. NASA’s Global Exploration Strategy team distilled
the reasons for returning to the moon into six major themes (www.nasa.
gov). The first theme is “Human Civilization: Extend Human Presence to the
Moon to Enable Eventual Settlement,” a truly daring goal considering the
relative paucity of human lunar experience.
Six Apollo missions (1969–1972) cumulatively logged slightly less than
300 hours on the lunar surface including 81 total hours of lunar EVA. Since
each Lander had a two-person crew, human beings now have almost 600
man-hours of lunar surface experience, approximately 162 of which are lunar
EVA. Although the final and longest mission (Apollo 17) spent a little more
than three days on the moon, the average lunar time per astronaut was only
2.08 days and the average lunar EVA time per astronaut was only 13.5 hours.
While significant, these exposure times are not compelling from a biomedi-
cal perspective.
In contrast the current lunar concept of operations (CONOPS) consists of
a crew of four placed on the lunar surface for variable durations living in
a habitation “element” performing frequent lunar EVA—two teams of two
crewmembers doing 6–8 hour EVAs every other day for six days (on the
seventh day the crew presumably rests). It is astonishing to realize the VSE
CONOPS will surpass cumulative Apollo time on the moon early on day 7
of the first mission and surpass cumulative Apollo lunar EVA time by the
middle of week two.
Even if NASA can return to the moon for significantly less than the cost
of Apollo ($105–160 billion in inflation-adjusted 2007 dollars), the magni-
tude of the investment merits early, frequent and exhaustive analyses of VSE
strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats.
719
720 The Elephant in the Room
Three questions are germane to assessing potential threats.

First, if the goal of VSE is long-term lunar habitation or even settlement, are
there biomedical showstoppers that could potentially threaten the VSE or the
current CONOPS? Second, in the past 35 years (since the return of Apollo 17),
what have science and our operational space experience taught us that could
better qualify or quantify potential threats? Third, what are the implications
of the answers to the above on the viability and eventual success of the VSE
or of permanent human lunar settlement itself?
Why Go to the Moon?: The
Many Faces of Lunar Policy
Roger D. Launius
Division of Space History
National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution
Washington, DC
What is it about the Moon that captures the fancy of humankind? A silvery
disk hanging in the night sky, it conjures up images of romance and magic.
It has been counted upon to foreshadow important events, both of good and
ill, and its phases for eons served humanity as its most accurate measure of
time. This paper discusses the Moon as a target for Human exploration and
eventual settlement. This paper will explore the more than 50-year efforts
to reach the Moon, succeeding with space probes and humans in Project
Apollo in the 1960s and early 1970s. It will then discuss the rationales for
spaceflight, suggesting that human space exploration is one of the least com-
pelling of all that might be offered. The paper will then discuss efforts to
make the Moon a second home, including post-Apollo planning, the Space
Exploration Initiative, and problems and opportunities in the 2004 Vision for
Space Exploration.
721
The Human Factor
Alex Howerton
Business Development Manager
NASTAR Center
Returning to the Moon is a noble and timely goal. There are many insti-
tutional and engineering challenges that have to be addressed, but no less
important, and ultimately most important, are the human factors of the
equation. If a successful Return to the Moon program is to be instituted, the
human equation should be blended in at the outset.
The NASTAR Center is the National Aerospace Training and Research
Center, located north of Philadelphia. Amongst other activities, we evalu-
ate, train, and adapt people for spaceflight. This includes pilots, crews, and
passengers, both government-sponsored and private. In addition, we sup-
port research into human factors and aeromedical issues of space launch
physiology.
The NASTAR Center can support a Return to the Moon program in at least
three distinct ways:
• We can model the specific flight profile, including G exposure, of any

flying vehicle, including the proposed CEV for President Bush’s VSE.
Pilots can train for launch with the precise sensory inputs, including
G exposure, they will actually experience upon launch and reentry.
• We offer training to private individuals planning for sub-orbital
flights. The more people that experience spaceflight, the more will
experience what Frank White has called “The Overview Effect.”
This can lead to deeper general public support for all space activity,
including the Return to the Moon proposal.
• We can support research and data collection into the human fac-
tors involved in the Return to the Moon program, including optimal
flight characteristics, ergonomics, biomedical monitoring, aeromedi-
cal issues, and related projects.
Both from a technical point of view as well as a cultural/political point of

view, The Human Factor has to be addressed early, as an integral part of any
plan to Return to the Moon. This can help assure the long-term success of
such a venture.
722
Performance Projections for Solar Array
Power Options on the Lunar Surface
Henry W. Brandhorst, Jr.

Auburn, Alabama
Julie A. Rodiek
Auburn, Alabama
Mark J. O’Neill
ENTECH, Inc.
Keller, Texas
Michael Eskenazi
ATK-Space, Inc.
Goleta, California
In NASA’s ambitious vision for space exploration, return visits to the moon
are the initial focus. The Lunar Architecture Team has concluded that the
first objective is a polar outpost site, the Shackleton Crater rim being a notable
option. This is due to the high percentage of sunlight throughout the year,
greater than 70%, allowing solar power to become the major power source.
Lunar solar arrays should have the following characteristics: high effi-
ciency, light weight, high packaging density and be able to withstand the
broad temperature swings on the moon. In addition, for those robotic mis-
sions that will explore the permanently dark polar craters, it is possible that
beamed laser power may be an option to radioisotope powered rovers. Of
course beamed laser power may also be applicable to providing power over
the nighttime.
This study will demonstrate the capability of the Stretched Lens Array
on the SquareRigger platform (SLASR) as the basis. The Stretched Lens
Array (SLA) developed by ENTECH is a space solar array that uses refrac-
tive concentrator technology to collect and convert solar energy into useful
electricity. At the present time this design has the following characteristics:
specific power – 300 W/kg, areal power density – 300 W/m2, stowed power
– 80 kW/m3 and capable of high voltage (>600 V) operation.
723
724 Performance Projections for Solar Array Power Options
One critical aspect of this study is the operating temperature on the moon
and how it affects performance projections. Although a polar region seems
certain for the first outpost, this study will take into account the wide tem-
perature swings on the equator, and demonstrate that solar power is appli-
cable for all lunar outpost sites. For equatorial sites the orientation of the
solar array and the possible need to reduce the surface background will be
included. Several surface treatments have been described in the past and
will be used in this study.
The projected performance of a 25–30 kW lightweight, high efficiency
SLASR array using multijunction solar cells expected to be available in 2010
time frame will be determined for a lunar polar region with high daylight
during the year, an equatorial location during the day and an array in a per-
manently shadowed crater relying on laser illumination. The latter array will
have GaAs solar cells matched to a nominal 800 nm wavelength laser and be
sized for about 500 W.
Energy storage issues will also be discussed along with how much power
can be delivered to the lunar surface. A detailed plan of how to build up a
lunar base incrementally will be demonstrated. Power projections will show
that the SLA is a lightweight, reliable, and cost effective power option for all
locations on the lunar surface.
The Vision for Lunar Exploration:
Results from the 2005 International
Lunar Conference
R.D. Richards
Co-Chair, ILC 2005
Optech Inc.
Ontario, Canada
The 2005 International Lunar Conference on the Exploration and Utilization

of the Moon took place in Toronto on September 18–23, 2005. Leading sci-
entists and space industry professionals from around the world gathered
in Toronto to discuss and plan the world’s return to the Moon. ILC 2005
featured presentations of senior representatives from NASA, ESA, and CSA
as well as the commercial sector to work toward a collaborative international
lunar exploration framework.
ILC 2005 was the 7th conference of the International Lunar Exploration
Working Group (ILEWG), a public forum sponsored by the world’s space
agencies to support “international cooperation towards a world strategy
for the exploration and utilization of the Moon—our natural satellite”
(International Lunar Workshop, Beatenberg (CH), June 1994).
The event was a catalyst and forum for senior stakeholders responsible for
laying the framework for international space exploration. ILC 2005 cultivated
ideas and inputs of scientists, engineers, policy makers, program managers
and entrepreneurs from many nations and put these ideas into motion with
concrete plans and roadmaps for a human and robotic future embracing the
Moon, Mars, and beyond.
This paper summarizes the proceedings of ILC 2005 and the resulting dec-
laration of the world’s collaborative Vision for Lunar Exploration.
725
Lunar Frontier Transportation Options
Jerome Pearson
Star, Inc.
John Oldson
Star Inc.
Harry Wykes
Star, Inc.
An integrated transportation system is proposed from the lunar poles to the

equator, to L1, to Earth orbit, using a lunar space elevator, a system of lunar
tramways and highways, and electric vehicles. The system could be used
to supply lunar equatorial, polar, and mining bases with non-time-sensitive
cargo, and could transport large amounts of lunar resources to Earth orbit for
construction, radiation shielding, and propellant depots. We present options
for long-range lunar surface transport, including “cars, trucks, and trains,”
along with their infrastructures of “roads, highways, and tramways” that
can provide the interface between the local transportation around a lunar
base and the space transportation of rockets and space elevators. The Apollo
Lunar Rovers proved that wheeled vehicles could move fairly efficiently over
the unprepared lunar surface, and they demonstrated a battery-powered
range of nearly 50 kilometers. However, they also demonstrated the prob-
lems of lunar dust. For building dustless highways, it appears particularly
attractive to create paved roads by microwaving the lunar dust into a hard
surface. For tramways, it would be possible to erect towers to support high-
strength ribbons that would carry cable cars over the lunar craters; the rib-
bon might even be fabricated from lunar materials. Such a transportation
system could connect the polar mines with the equatorial lunar space eleva-
tor base, send cargo capsules up the lunar space elevator to beyond the L1
Lagrangian point, and from there rockets could take the cargo capsules with
lunar resources into Earth orbit for building space habitats and space hotels
for cislunar space development. We examine the power and energy storage
requirements for lunar surface vehicles, the design and effectiveness of lunar
tramways, and the materials requirements for the support ribbons of lunar
726
Lunar Frontier Transportation Options 727
tramways and lunar space elevators. This transportation system concept is

adapted from an invited presentation at the Moonbase Workshop in January
in Washington, DC, sponsored by the High Frontier and Jamestown on the
Moon organizations, and is based on the results of a NIAC-funded study on
the lunar space elevator. A 4-minute video is also available.
A One-Piece Lunar
Regolith-Bag Garage Prototype
Gweneth A. Smithers
NASA
Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Alabama
Mark K. Nehls
NASA
Mary A. Hovater
NASA
Steven W. Evans
NASA
J. Scott Miller
Qualis Corp.
Roy M. Broughton, Jr.

Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama
David Beale
Fatma Killinc Balci

Shelter structures on the moon, even in early phases of exploration, should

incorporate lunar materials as much as possible. We designed and constructed
a prototype for a one-piece regolith-bag unpressurized garage concept, and,
in parallel, we conducted a materials testing program to investigate six can-
didate fabrics to learn how they might perform in the lunar environment. In
728
A One-Piece Lunar Regolith-Bag Garage Prototype 729
our concept, a lightweight fabric form is launched from Earth to be landed

on the lunar surface and robotically filled with raw lunar regolith.
In the materials testing program, regolith-bag fabric candidates included:
VectranTM, NextelTM, Gore PTFE FabricTM, ZylonTM, TwaronTM, and
NomexTM. Tensile (including post radiation exposure), fold, abrasion, and
hypervelocity impact testing were performed under ambient conditions,
and, within our current means, we also performed these tests under cold
and elevated temperatures. In some cases, lunar simulant (JSC-1) was used in
conjunction with testing. Our ambition is to continuously refine our testing
to reach lunar environmental conditions to the extent possible.
A series of preliminary structures were constructed during design of the
final prototype. Design is based on the principles of the classic masonry
arch. The prototype was constructed of KevlarTM and filled with vermicu-
lite (fairly close to the weight of lunar regolith on the moon). The structure
is free-standing, but has not yet been load tested. Our plan for the future
would be to construct higher fidelity mockups with each iteration, and to
conduct appropriate tests of the structure.
Afternoon Session
Plenary Speakers
Brent Sherwood
Manager, Opportunities Development
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory
“What Will We Actually Do on the Moon?”
Prof. Terry Hart

Professor, Lehigh University and past NASA Astronaut
“Working in Space”

• 1:00–1:45 pm Brent Sherwood
• 1:45–2:30 pm Terry Hart
• 2:40–3:00 pm Carlton L. Rhoades
• 3:00–3:20 pm Gary C. Fisher
• 3:20–3:40 pm Florian Ruess
• 4:00–4:20 pm M. Dünne
• 4:20–4:40 pm Jason R. Florek
• 4:40–5:00 pm Yuriy Gulak
• 6:00–11:00 pm SPECIAL EVENING EVENT (NEW YORK
HARBOR TOUR)
730
What Will We Actually Do on the Moon?
Brent Sherwood
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Pasadena, California
Descriptions are provided for eleven specific, representative lunar activity

scenarios selected from among hundreds that arose in 2006 from the NASA-
sponsored development of a “global lunar strategy.” The scenarios are: pave
for dust control; establish a colony of continuously active robots; kitchen
science; designer biology; tend the machinery; search for pieces of ancient
Earth; build simple observatories that open new wavelength regimes; estab-
lish a virtual real-time network to enable public engagement; institute a
public-private lunar development corporation; rehearse planetary protection
protocols for Mars; and expand life and intelligence beyond Earth through
settlement of the Moon. Evocative scenarios such as these are proposed as a
communications tool to help win public understanding and support of the
Vision for Space Exploration.
731
Working in Space
Terry Hart
Professor, Lehigh University and Former NASA Astronaut
Since the first cosmonauts and astronauts walked in space, we have been
climbing a continuing learning curve of how people can work productively
in space. The effects of weightlessness and the physical limitations of pres-
sure suits and spacecraft designs continue to challenge crews as ever-more
sophisticated tasks are being accomplished.
And while we have come a long way in our ability to work in space, much
needs to be done if we are to return to the moon with a permanent pres-
ence and venture on to Mars. Such long-duration missions will put new chal-
lenges on engineers and crews to adjust to the physical and psychological
demands of these missions. With international cooperation, these challenges
will be met and crews will learn to work effectively as we establish a perma-
nent presence in space.
732
The Moon: First Line of Asteroid Defense
Carlton L. Rhoades
Millions of asteroids orbit the sun and, during each orbit, may intersect Earth
orbit. Hundreds of thousands of these are of the “small” 50 to 100 meter size
that could provide another Meteor Crater example. The same event at that
site today would put at risk Interstate 40, the Burlington Northern and Santa
Fe railroad, major electrical power transmission lines, a major natural gas
transmission line, and over 10,000 people. Other effects would include over-
loading of alternate routes between Greater Los Angeles and the Midwest,
and interruption of the electrical and gas service to the large areas served.
The cost to recovery could be in the tens of billions. The event at or near a
metropolitan center anywhere in the United States would be a catastrophe
with orders of magnitude greater casualties and costs. Less than one per-
cent of these “small” asteroids have been identified. Those identified as Earth
impactors must have an orbit alteration to mitigate the threat.
The Moon is the ideal platform to expedite identification of Earth orbit
intersecting asteroids. The Lunar sky obstructed only by the Earth, the Sun,
the zodiacal light, and the local horizon can be searched 24/7.
This paper will expand on development of a Moon based, remotely oper-
ated, asteroid search system. The expansion will consider use or upgrades
of existing subsystem elements before considering new subsystem elements.
The expansion will consider shielded and pressurized accommodations for
use by occasional on site personnel. The elements are:
Determine optimal search qualities and select site(s) having those

qualities.
Determine requirements for the system including Logistics, Search,
and Support Equipment.
Design and construct the Logistics, Search, and Support Equipment.
Transport Logistics Equipment to selected site(s) and prepare the site(s)
for use.
Transport the Search and Support Equipment to the selected site(s) for
installation and checkout.
733
Horizontal or Vertical
Cylindrical Habitat?
Gary C. Fisher
The Mars Foundation
Bryn Athyn, Pennsylvania
For the purposes of creating in situ habitable spaces for a Lunar settlement,
cylinder-shaped structures covered with regolith present the best near-term
option over alternatives, such as: spherical or domed shaped structures,
excavated structures, lined lava tubes, and regolith covered masonry vaulted
arches.
Cylindrical structures have various options besides length and diameter.
For example: hemispherical or flat end caps; rigid or inflatable? Another
option is whether you create a true cylinder, or go with a more ellipsoid
or flattened cylinder. The primary consideration, however, is whether to
stand the cylinder up vertically on an end, or lay it down horizontally on
its side. This paper is primarily concerned with deciding between these two
options.
While this paper is part of the ongoing research of the Mars Foundation to
design the first permanent settlement on Mars, the subject matter is equally
relevant to a Lunar base or settlement.
734
Structural Reliability Considerations
for Lunar Base Design
Florian Ruess
Benjamin Braun
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) recently

announced to build a permanent lunar base by the year 2020 [1]. The erection
of such an outpost on the Moon is not only a question of how to choose the
most suitable structure for a lunar habitat as summarized and presented in
[2]. But also the risk and safety of such structures need to be assessed in an
appropriate manner. For the design on Earth, standards and codes (e.g. the
family of American Standards or Eurocodes) exist that help the designer to
analyze and design a safe structure. However, special uncertainties exist in
lunar base design which can be assessed as a first step only on the basis of
a decision analysis, namely a structural reliability analysis. It offers a way
to allocate the available resources both most efficiently and in a sufficiently
safe manner. Fundamentally, uncertainties can arise from an inherent ran-
domness in loads and resistances, inadequate knowledge (e.g. influence of
radiation on material properties) and statistical uncertainty due to sparse
information. Such uncertainties imply the need to use statistical and proba-
bilistic tools in the analysis and design process. The basic principles of struc-
tural reliability analysis [3], [4] are introduced here with special regard to the
design of second and third generation lunar habitats. A further key aspect in
designing robust structures for the lunar surface is redundancy i.e. compo-
nent failure should not govern system failure. In this respect the reliability
analysis is finally discussed on the level of the overall structural system.
1. Dale, S.: Exploration Strategy and Architecture. Opening Keynote, 2nd Space
Exploration Conference, Houston, Texas, December 4–6, 2006.
2. Ruess, F.; Schaenzlin, J.; Benaroya, H.: Structural Design of a Lunar Habitat.
Journal of Aerospace Engineering 19 (2006), No. 3, pp. 133–157.
3. Thoft-Christensen, P.; Baker, M.J.: Structural Reliability and its Applications.
Springer Verlag, Berlin (1982).
4. Ditlevsen, O.; Madsen, H.O.: Structural Reliabilty Methods. John Wiley & Sons,
Chichester (1996).
735
AstroHab: A Multidisciplinary Payload
for a Lunar Precursor-Mission
M. Dünne
OHB-System AG
Bremen, Germany
K. Slenzka
OHB-System AG
Bremen, Germany
For humans to live in extreme environments such as Moon and Mars

requires sustainable closed ecological life support systems (CELSS) as well
as knowing more about the impact of different environmental conditions
(mainly gravity, magnetism, and radiation) on biological processes in larger
time scales.
Essential steps before longer explorative missions are investigations in
extreme environments on Earth, in LEO (ISS) and also a series of missions
to the Moon. Developed support technology can be verified without having
exceeded the point of no return of astronauts. A first precursor-mission to
the Moon will demonstrate the efficiency of developed life support technolo-
gies and increasing the knowledge about existing environmental conditions
on the Moon (which are more stable and relevant than at the ISS) as well of
their impact on biological and other processes.
OHB-System, Bremen, Germany, is currently analyzing in the Mona Lisa
Initiative of German Space Agency DLR such a first precursor-mission to
push the lunar settlement significantly. Analysis is performed together with
a scientific team, whose members come from several disciplines. R&D activi-
ties were started to develop main elements of CELSS. The general concept
for AstroHab—the autonomous biological payload for this first precursor-
mission—was developed. AstroHab will consist of a biosolar energy supply
unit as first CELSS-element as well as an experiment bioreactor and a sensor
unit, which will monitor the environmental conditions at the landing site as
well as further experiment conditions in the bioreactors.
Additional to contributing to humans’ ambition of exploring existing fron-
tiers, activities serve as a technology and scientific driver in general.
An overview of AstroHab and the status of current R&D activities will be
given.
736
Extension of Terrestrial Excavation
Mechanics to Lunar Soil
Jason R. Florek
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Rutgers University
Piscataway, New Jersey
This presentation focuses on extending models for cutting and moving ter-
restrial soil for use with lunar soil. This area is of particular importance since
nearly all lunar base designs call for some form of regolith shielding for pro-
tection against radiation and micrometeorite impact. Before such shielding
can be constructed, the forces associated with digging and excavating rego-
lith must be well understood.
It has been shown that Earth-based analyses do not directly translate for use
with lunar soil. Required forces do not just simply scale by one-sixth due to
the reduced lunar gravity. Furthermore, papers that make similar extensions
typically assume a single value for the important lunar soil properties (e.g.,
cohesion or internal friction angle). Most studies do not take into account the
variability of these parameters with depth or the uncertainty associated with
the property values. In contrast, those studies that account for this variability
tend to ignore how the parameters relate with one another. For example, the
aforementioned properties are both related to soil density, while failure sur-
face angle is a function of the rake and friction angles. Published parameter
studies tend to make these quantities independent of one another.
As such, here, appropriate ranges of parameter values are considered for
input to various two- and three-dimensional excavation models. Parameter
dependencies and uncertainties are also accounted for, resulting in a more
realistic calculation of the forces required to cut and move lunar soil.
Comparisons are made between these forces and those required to move
lunar simulants in both a 1 g and 1/6 g environment. Additionally, recom-
mendations are made for which contributing factors can be ignored in a sim-
plified analysis.
737
Heat Pipes: How to Increase the
Capillary Heat Transfer Limit?
Y. Gulak
CSXE, Rutgers University
Heat pipes are popular heat transport devices in the aerospace and ground-
based applications that provide high efficiency in transferring the thermal
energy. They operate on a closed two-phase cycle, in which the heat of evap-
oration of the working fluid is carried out between the heat source and the
heat sink. Typically, heat pipes are light-weight and do not require external
power.
The performance of low and moderate temperature heat pipes might be
limited due to several well-known factors, the most important of which are
the capillary and boiling limitations. In the talk, we discuss the possibility of
maximizing the capillary transfer limit by designing the wick whose poros-
ity is allowed to vary along the heat pipe length. An optimal porosity distri-
bution is then calculated as a solution of a non-smooth optimization problem
for zero, Moon, and Earth gravity heat pipe’s working conditions.
738
DAY 3: Wednesday – June 6, 2007
Morning Session
Plenary Speaker
Prof. Rupert Gerzer

Director of the Institute of Aerospace Medicine
German Aerospace Center (DLR), Cologne-Porz
“Travel Medicine: Medical Suggestions for Trips to Moon and Mars”

• 8:30–9:00 am Registration
• 9:00–9:45 am Rupert Gerzer
• 9:50–10:10 am Sheryl L. Bishop
• 10:10–10:30 am Igor Smirnov
• 11:00–11:20 am Satadal Das
• 11:20–11:40 am Gene Giacomelli
• 11:40–12:00 pm Prasanta Banerji
• 12:00–1:00 pm LUNCH
739
Travel Medicine: Medical Suggestions
for Trips to Moon and Mars
Rupert Gerzer
Director, Institute of Aerospace Medicine
German Aerospace Center
Cologne, Germany
Going to Moon and staying on a Moon habitat for an extended time period
or even going to Mars poses several challenges for medicine: keeping the
crews healthy despite weightlessness or reduced gravity, keeping them moti-
vated, protecting them from hazards like radiation or fine dust, supporting
them during emergencies and providing an effective and affordable habitat
including closed loop regeneration systems.
Presently, astronauts on a long term mission in weightlessness are sup-
posed to do physical exercise for about 150 min per day in order to counter-
act negative weightlessness effects. Still, they have problems post flight like
orthostatic intolerance and bone and muscle loss. Thus, novel countermea-
sures are needed. One such method might be artificial gravity: a short arm
centrifuge with a radius shorter than 3 m could be very useful. The astronaut
– with head in the centre – would spin, and at the same time, he/she could do
additional exercise like leg vibration and/or ergometer or treadmill training.
Due to the gravity vector, especially the lower body would be accelerated,
thus strongly stimulating the vascular system in the lower body and training
vascular resistance to pressure. At the same time working and being vibrated
would give a combined stimulus to the musculoskeletal and cardiovascular
systems. Thus, such a method might be able to reduce daily training to less
than an hour and be more effective than present methods.
Special emphasis should be given to radiation protection. Both, external
shielding by new materials and technologies and internal shielding by sup-
porting molecular radiation protection mechanisms of the human body are
necessary. This will also include selection of those astronauts who are most
likely to have high physiological resistance to cancer.
The biggest challenge in medicine for the future of human spaceflight is
the development of a “digital astronaut” system that involves an intelligent
storage of personal medical information of the respective astronaut on the
one side, and up-to-date medical knowledge on the other side, and that is
able to give individualized support in case of an emergency. Such systems
are needed in terrestrial medicine as well, will enable individual support of
740
Travel Medicine: Medical Suggestions for Trips to Moon and Mars 741
people wherever needed and improve homecare of aged people and long
term patients dramatically.
Habitats for astronauts will make the development of affordable bioregen-
eration systems important. Results can also be applied on earth for many
applications.
In summary, medical care for astronauts on long term missions in space or
on stations on Moon or Mars requires the development of many new tech-
nologies and applications that are also urgently needed on earth. Due to the
many unresolved tasks, we should initially focus on the development of sys-
tems that help to keep astronauts on such missions healthy and thus contrib-
ute to the task to improve the possibilities for human presence in space.
Here to Stay: Designing for
Psychological Well-Being for Long
Duration Stays on Moon and Mars
Sheryl L. Bishop
University of Texas
Galveston, Texas
Current psychological and sociocultural considerations for Moon and Mars

bases are embedded within a complex matrix of long duration issues that
have been demonstrated to significantly impact on human behavior and per-
formance. Planning for psychological health for long duration stays rather
than short duration task accomplishment profiles is further complicated by
the need to address both flight issues as well as station issues. Long duration
Moon missions will allow us to develop and test effective structural and pro-
cedural countermeasures for group and individual well-being that address
both in-flight and planetside factors related to: 1) a reliance on technology for
life support and performance; 2) physical and social isolation and confine-
ment; 3) high risk and associated cost of failure; 4) high physical/physiologi-
cal, psychological, psychosocial, and cognitive demands; 5) human-human,
human-technology, and human-environment interfaces; and 6) requirements
for team coordination, cooperation, and communication.
The fundamental challenge to developing effective countermeasures for
long duration missions is that space missions are not truly psychologically
comparable to any other undertaking humans have ever attempted differ-
ing most notably in the enormous distance to travel, the unique separation
from the rest of humanity and the extraordinary environmental demands.
Most current support strategies used to foster crew morale and psychologi-
cal well-being were developed on Mir and ISS and rely on intensive ground-
based support which may be ineffective for missions whose profiles will be
as characterized by the length of stay as it is the list of tasks to accomplish.
A broad spectrum of social psychological and behavioral research has con-
tributed to the emerging realization that many of the negative psychological
factors of long duration Moon/Mars missions (e.g., prolonged isolation, con-
finement, exposure to unpredictable and unknown extreme environment,
reliance on closed loop environmental system) could be mitigated by design-
ing habitats that thoughtfully countered some of these impacts. Instead of
a focus on mere survivability, efforts to promote and sustain elements that
742
Here to Stay 743
contribute to human thriving appears to be far more productive. The inter-

section of psychology and psychosocial factors with habitat design allows us
to implement psychological support in a non-intrusive, holistic environmen-
tal modality that is preventive in orientation rather than palliative. The pres-
ent paper discusses those psychological factors amenable to a thoughtful
and proactive integration into support systems and countermeasure envi-
ronmental elements, including enabling technologies on the horizon that
would significantly contribute to the successful psychological adaptation of
long duration space inhabitants.
MRET Activated Water and Its
Successful Application for Prevention
Treatment and Enhanced Tumor
Resistance in Animal Oncology Models
Igor Smirnov, PhD

Global Quantech, Inc.
San Marcos, California
Objectives:
The goal of this investigation was to study the effect of MRET water for the
prevention and treatment of two kinds of oncology diseases on mice (labo-
ratory models of Ehrlich’s ascites tumor and Sarcoma ascites form). MRET
Water is produced with the help of patented (US Patent No. 6,022,479), non-
chemical Molecular Resonance Effect Technology (MRET). The anomalous
electrodynamic characteristics and viscosity of MRET water provide some
evidence regarding the possible effect of MRET water on electrical activity
and proper function of the cells.
Methods:
The ability of animals for tumor resistance was studied in the experiments
conducted on 500 mice (22 groups with 20 mice in each and 10 groups with 5
mice in each group) with the help of the following methodology: a) study of
possible anti-tumor effectiveness of “preventive” administration of different
fractions of MRET water; mice received MRET water during 2 weeks before
tumor cell transplantation and after transplantation; b) study of possible anti-
tumor effectiveness of “therapeutic” administration of different fractions of
MRET water; mice received MRET water after tumor cell transplantation;
c) investigation of functional citotoxic activity of lymphocytes containing
natural killer cells (NK-cells) isolated from spleens of mice (without tumors)
which received MRET water; lymphocytes were incubated with tumor target
cells.
Results:
The experimental results confirm that consumption of all types of MRET
water leads to the significant inhibition of tumor growth and suppression of
mutated tumor cells. The best results were observed in the groups of mice
on MRET water activated for 30 minutes (optimal regime). The resulting
decrease of the Total Number of Viable Tumor Cells was 76% in “preventive
744
MRET Activated Water and Its Successful Application 745
treatment” group and 55% in “therapeutic treatment” group. The observed

average survival time of mice which received optimal activated water in
“preventive treatment” regime increased by 61.7% compare to the control
group. The increase of cytotoxic index in both regimes (21 days and 14 days
of application of activated water for mice without tumors) by 26% and 10%
respectively was observed only in the groups of mice under MRET water
activated for 30 minutes.
Conclusions:
The significant positive effect of MRET activated water on tumor resistance
of animals was observed in the process of this investigation in vivo in all
groups of mice on different fractions of activated water. The significant anti-
tumor effect of MRET Activated distilled water on mice was close to the
action of the chemotherapy agents and allowed to avoid the side effects that
typically follow chemotherapy treatment of oncology. The application of
activated water can be a quite promising approach for non-drug stimulation
of NK-cells immunization vaccines.
A Simple Differential Production
Method of Silicon Utilizing Organisms
for Future Use in Lunar Settlements
Satadal Das
Roy Research Centre
Peerless Hospital & B.K.
Kolkata, India
Silicon utilizing organisms are probably the fittest living creatures having
a capacity of survival in extraterrestrial situations where they can tolerate
more environmental stress and strain than their equals on Earth. One can
also classify them according to their silicon utilizing capacity very easily.
Silicon utilizing organisms can thrive in sodium metasilicate (SM) solu-
tion as high as up to 4% concentration. To confine common silicon utilizing
organisms from the environment for future use in lunar settlements one has
to prepare SM solutions of four different concentrations: 0.5%, 1%, 2% and
4%. After preparation of such solutions in plastic containers one has to keep
them in a greenhouse for as long as 5 years. Different varieties of organisms
will grow in different concentrations- from a light green color growth in 0.5%
SM solution, yellow color growth in 1% SM solution, orange color growth in
2% SM solution and a scanty whitish color growth in 4% SM solution. Besides
many unknown microorganisms, algae are present in every solution but are
of different kinds. Diatoms of diverse varieties are found in profound num-
bers in 0.5% and 2% SM solutions; plenty nocardioforms are also found in 1%
SM solution and scanty fungi are usually present in 4% SM solution.
During growth of silicon utilizing organisms in SM solutions there are
many biochemical changes in the medium. While hardness of the water
cannot be measured in silicate solutions, pH is almost neutral in 2% solu-
tion, while it is always higher even after 5 years in other silicate solutions.
Chlorides are very high in 4% solution. There is about 50% increase of sulfate
and 25-50% increase of nitrate in all the SM solutions, marked increase and
decrease (both about 4 times) amount of iron in 2% and 4% solutions respec-
tively. These changes are probably due to disparity growth of organisms in
different concentrations of silicate.
A simple protocol may be followed to use these silicate-utilizing organ-
isms in lunar settlements. After providing minimum essential requirements
for life in lunar extraterrestrial situation, these organisms may be utilized. In
746
A Simple Differential Production Method 747
the initial venture antibiosis between various species should be prevented.

Thus phytoplankton should be used before zooplanktons. Diatoms of
Eu-eurytherm variety of Nitzschia and Chaetoceros group may be selected
initially. Then golden algae grown in 2% and then in 0.5% SM solutions may
be scattered to boost up the algal inhabitants. Then important silicon uti-
lizing plants (specific silicon utilizing strains) like horsetails, grasses, lilies,
silver vase, spider plant and following that organisms (only extremophile
variety) like rotifers, tardigrades, nematodes, protozoa, fungi and bacteria
may be added which will live in close association of small silicon utilizing
plants and this process may continue. As it is not practicable to carry all
essential nutrients for lunar settlements, creation of such biosphere is essen-
tial for future survival of inhabitants in lunar settlements.
Development of a Lunar
Habitat Demonstrator
Phil Sadler
CEO
Sadler Machine Company
Tempe, Arizona
Gene Giacomelli
Director
University of Arizona
Controlled Environment Agriculture Center
Tucson, Arizona
Lane Patterson
Graduate Student
Agricultural & Biosystems Engineering
Tucson, Arizona
Roberto Fufaro
Asst. Research Professor
Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
Tucson, Arizona
The NSF Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station is recognized as one of the best
analogs for a future Lunar or Martian surface effort. The station and crew
of over 50 individuals being physically isolated for 8 months at the cold-
est and most remote environment on Earth is a valuable asset with a high
degree of mission fidelity for future Lunar and Martian surface efforts. We
at the University of Arizona’s Controlled Environment Agriculture Center
(UA-CEAC), in cooperation with Sadler Machine Co. (SMC) have constructed,
delivered (in 2004), and continue to remotely support operation of the South
Pole Food Growth Chamber (SPFGC) for the NSF’s Office of Polar Programs
civilian operations contractor, Raytheon Polar Services Company. The SPFGC
provides the isolated winter crew with a continuous supply of a multitude
of fresh hydroponic grown produce and salad crops from an artificially lit
(24 square meter) growth chamber located inside the station building. From
748
Development of a Lunar Habitat Demonstrator 749
lessons learned from this effort we developed the Cable Culture growing
system for use in future inflatable membrane structure Lunar and Mars
greenhouse modules, while trying to achieve the lowest ESM number. In
2005 UA-CEAC/SMC fabricated a conceptual Mars Greenhouse to demon-
strate the deployment and operation of this Cable Culture growing system.
With the change in focus from a Mars Mission to a Lunar Base, we are con-
structing 4 demonstration Lunar Greenhouse modules to further develop
the Cable Culture growing system and demonstrate water recycling and air
revitalization using ALS/CELSS technology. This life support/greenhouse
component is highly integrated with the total habitat and required us to
develop an entire conceptual Lunar habitat, which is in progress. Our con-
ceptual Lunar habitat consists of six module trains radiating from a central
hub and is designed to be deployed autonomously with crops growing by
the time the human crew arrives.
Possible Use of Ultra-Diluted
Medicines for Health Problems
During Lunar Missions
Prasanta Banerji
PBH Research Foundation
Kolkata, India
Satadal Das
Kolkata, India
Gobinda Chandra Das

Kolkata, India
Pratip Banerji
Kolkata, India
Conventional medicines are probably not suitable for addressing health

problems in lunar missions due to the fact that they are not utilized by the
system properly in their optimum dose which is necessary in space.
Thus one should investigate whether ultra-diluted medicines, with proven
efficacy, may be used without these problems in space. Ultra-diluted medi-
cines are non-toxic, with extended shelf-life, non-addictive, with negligible
weight and volume, low cost, and easily administrable. We have classified
ultra-diluted medicines for use in lunar missions into different groups
according to their roles in different health problems. These classifications
have been done as per their proven actions, on various health problems
matched with our long experience on different patients with similar health
problems, in the earthly environment.
Following our classification we prepared one combination medicine
(PBHRF-1), which may be administered to the astronauts from one week
before the start of the mission, containing Lycopodium clavatum 30c,
Symphytum officinalis 200c, Berberis vulgaris 200c, Nicotiana tabacum 200c,
Fluoricum Acidum 200c, Coffea arabica 200c, Ruta graveolens 6c, Calcarea
Phosphorica 3X, Kali Muriaticum 3X, and Ferrum Phosphoricum 3X. These
750
Possible Use of Ultra-Diluted Medicines 751
medicines are incorporated in lactose globules (5 grain ~ 0.324 g) and are to

be taken 3 to 4 doses per a day.
This combination medicine will prevent or alleviate different health prob-
lems in space such as: “fluid shift” (stuffy nose, headache, puffy face, facial
edema), bone loss, renal stone formation, destruction of anti-gravity mus-
cles, early motion sickness in space, protection from radiation, destruction
of RBC, immunosuppression (due to reduced action of lymphocytes), mental
stress, insomnia etc. Similarly, another medicine, PBHRF-2 (a combination
of Aconite napellus 200c and Crataegus oxyacantha 3X in same dosage) may
be used to prevent health problems such as cardiac deconditioning during
return to earth. These ultra-diluted medicines can be used easily in space
as they are least affected by gravity, radiation, and thermal changes during
space missions.
Afternoon Session
Plenary Speaker
George C. Nield
Deputy Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation
FAA/AST-2
“Commercial Spaceports—An Overview and Status Update”

• 1:30–2:15 pm George C. Nield
• 2:20–3:00 pm William J. Rowe
• 3:00–3:40 pm Tom Taylor
• 4:00–4:20 pm Steve M. Durst
• 4:20–4:40 pm Chester S. Spell
• 4:00–4:20 pm M. Dünne
• 4:40–5:00 pm Manny Pimenta
• 6:00–9:00 pm BANQUET at Zimmerli Museum
752
Commercial Spaceports:
An Overview and Status Update
George C. Nield
Deputy Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration/AST-2
Washington, D.C.
Although near-term missions to the moon are likely to be conducted by

NASA or comparable government agencies from other nations, commercial
entities will one day provide the majority of the necessary transportation
services. Even today, non-federal spaceports play an important role in sup-
porting our country’s space programs. The purpose of this presentation is to
review the statutory authority for the regulation of spaceports, to summa-
rize the applicable federal regulations, and to provide a status update on the
activities of current and proposed commercial launch and reentry sites.
753
Moon Dust May Simulate Vascular
Hazards of Urban Pollution
William J. Rowe
Former Assistant Clinical Professor of Medicine
Medical University of Ohio at Toledo
A long duration mission to the moon presents several potential cardio-

vascular complications. To the risks of microgravity and hypokinesia, and
the fact that pharmaceuticals cannot be always depended upon in the space
flight conditions, there is a possible additional risk due to inhalation in the
lunar module of ultra fine dust (<100nm). This may trigger endothelial dys-
function by mechanisms similar to those shown to precipitate endothelial
insults complicating ultra fine urban dust exposure. Vascular constriction
and a significant increase in diastolic blood pressures have been found in
subjects inhaling urban dust within just two hours, possibly triggered by
oxidative stress, inflammatory effects, and calcium overload with a potential
magnesium ion deficit playing an important contributing role. Both Irwin
and Scott on Apollo 15 experienced arrhythmias, and in Irwin’s case associ-
ated with syncope and severe dyspnea with angina during reentry. After the
mission both had impairment in cardiac function, and delay in cardiovas-
cular recovery, with Irwin in addition having stress test-induced extremely
high blood pressures, with no available stress test results in Scott’s case for
comparison. It is conceivable that the chemical nature or particle size of the
lunar dust is sufficiently variable to account for these complications, which
were not described on the other Apollo missions. This could be determined
by non-invasive endothelial-dependent flow-mediated dilatation studies in
the lunar environment at various sites, thereby determining the site with the
least endothelial vulnerability to dysfunction. These studies could be used
also to demonstrate possible intensification of endothelial dysfunction from
inhalation of ultra fine moon dust in the lunar module.
754
Lunar Commercial Logistics
Transportation
Walter P. Kistler
President
Lunar Transportation Systems, Inc.
Bob Citron
CEO
Tom Taylor
Vice President
Las Cruces, New Mexico
This paper offers a commercial perspective to new lunar transportation and

proposes a logistics architecture that is designed to have sustainable growth
over 50 years, financed by private sector partners and capable of cargo
transportation in both directions in support of lunar resource recovery. The
paper’s perspective is from an author’s perspective of remote sites on Earth
and some of the problems experienced in logistics that didn’t always work.
The planning and control of the flow of goods and materials to and from the
Moon’s surface may be the most complicated logistics challenge yet to be
attempted. The price paid if a single system does not work well is significant.
On the Alaskan North Slope, we had four different logistics transportation
systems and none worked successfully all the time. The lessons learned will
be discussed and solutions proposed. The industrial sector has, in the past,
invested large sums of risk money, $20 billion for example, in resource recov-
ery ventures like the North Slope of Alaska, when the incentive to do so was
sufficient to provide a return on the risk investment. Stimulating an even
larger private investment is needed for the Moon’s resource development.
The development of the Moon can build on mankind’s successes in remote
logistics bases on Earth and learn from the $20 billion in private sector funds
used to recover oil assets above the Arctic Circle.
The Moon is estimated to be 50 times more remote than Prudhoe Bay,
Alaska, the early transportation to the Moon is 100 to 1,000 times more
755
756 Lunar Commercial Logistics Transportation
expensive than to the Arctic and the lunar environment is more severe than
the Arctic, but some of the logistics lessons learned in the Arctic can poten-
tially work again on the Moon. The proposed commercial lunar transporta-
tion architecture uses new innovations for modularity and flexibility leading
to reduced development and logistics costs, faster development schedule, and
better evolvability. This new trade lunar route for mankind utilizes existing
Expendable Launch Vehicles (ELVs) available and a commercially financed
small fleet of new trans-lunar and lunar lander vehicles. This architecture is
based on refueling a fleet of fully reusable spacecraft at several locations in
cislunar space, which creates a two-way highway between the Earth and the
Moon. This architecture offers NASA and other exploring nations more than
one way to meet their near term strategic objectives with commercial space
transportation, including sending small payloads to the lunar surface in a
few short years, sending larger payloads to the lunar surface in succeeding
years, and sending crews to the Moon and back to the Earth by the middle of
the next decade. Commercially, this new lunar logistics route permits capa-
bility and technology growth as the market grows, offers affordable trans-
portation for the commercial sector and the later recovery of lunar resources.
After NASA moves on to other destinations in our solar system, commercial
markets and this “in place” commercial logistics system can service, stimu-
late and sustain a lunar commercial market environment.
An Analysis of the Interface
between Lunar Habitat Conditions
and an Acclimatized Human
Physiology as Defined by the
Digital Astronaut Program
Richard L. Summers
University of Mississippi Medical Center
Jackson, Mississippi
Thomas G. Coleman
University of Mississippi Medical Center
Jackson, Mississippi
Background:
The physiologic acclimatization of humans to the lunar environment is com-
plex and requires an integrative perspective to fully understand the require-
ments for settlement habitat conditions. A large computer model of human
systems physiology (Guyton/Coleman/Summers Model) provides the
framework for the development of the Digital Astronaut used by NASA in
the analysis of biologic adaptive mechanisms. The model provides a means
for the examination of the interface between a lunar adapted human physiol-
ogy and potential habitat environments.
Methods:
The current model Digital Astronaut Program contains over 4000 equations/
variables of biologic interactions and encompasses a variety of physiologic
processes of interest to humans during spaceflight. The model is constructed
on a foundation of basic physical principles in a mathematical scheme of
interactions with a hierarchy of control that forms the overall model struc-
ture. Physiologic relationships derived from the evidence-based literature
are represented as function curves within this structure. Different physi-
ologic systems and body organs are connected through feedback and feed-
forward loops in the form of algebraic and differential equations to create a
global homeostatic system. The model also contains a biologic-environment
interface with external conditions such as temperature, barometric pressure,
atmospheric gas content and gravity. During computer simulation studies,
757
758 An Analysis of the Interface
the predicted physiologic responses to a habitat environmental change are

tracked over time.
Results:
Computer simulations using the model have been found to accurately pre-
dict the physiologic transients seen during entry into, prolonged exposure
to, and return from the microgravity and bed rest environments. Computer
simulation studies suggest that humans with a lunar adapted physiology
would be more vulnerable and less tolerant to extreme changes in habitat
temperature, humidity and atmospheric oxygen content as compared to an
equivalent earth-based setting.
Conclusions:
An analysis of the interface between proposed lunar habitat conditions
and an acclimatized human physiology as defined by the Digital Astronaut
Program may be important to reduce potential health risks. This system can
be used as a tool in the technical planning and design of lunar settlements.
The Mental Health Implications of
Working in a Lunar Settlement
Chester S. Spell
School of Business—Camden
Rutgers University, Camden, New Jersey
One of the feasibility issues of a lunar settlement concerns the effect of work-
ing in such an environment on people. The focus here is on the long-term
implications for the mental health of the base workforce and how working
in isolation for extended periods might influence their overall depression
and anxiety levels. This is important because a wealth of research in the psy-
chological, management and occupational health literature has found clear
correlations between mental health of workers and productivity (National
Mental Health Association, 2005) and that poor mental health over the long
term is associated with cardiovascular disease and other physical problems
(Suls & Bunde, 2005).
Most of the prior research on mental health and working conditions has
not examined situations similar to the isolated and otherwise extreme work-
ing conditions of a lunar settlement. The research that exists concerns envi-
ronments like remote mining towns in Australia, where for decades it has
been known that women suffer high rates of neurotic problems (Sharma &
Rees, 2007). A study of workers at McMurdo Station in Antarctica and the
Amundson-Scott South Pole Station revealed higher levels of depression
after one year of working in the confined and isolated conditions (Palinkas,
Johnson, & Boster, 2004).
Recent research (Spell & Arnold, in press) found that anxiety and depres-
sion of individuals working in teams was related to what co-workers thought
about their working conditions, above and beyond their own feelings. In other
words, attitudes can spread among group members like a “social contagion”
and potentially lead to reduced mental health among other team members.
While this research was not conducted in an isolated environment, under
such conditions it is likely that social interaction among team members is
even more critical since team members are the only source of support. While
relatively scant attention has been paid to this issue, the studies to date sug-
gest that the link between isolation and worker mental health may be a criti-
cal one for a lunar base.
759
Malapert Base
Manny Pimenta
President, Lunar Explorer
The design and construction of the first large scale Lunar base is explored.
Current designs for Lunar outposts tend to focus on the near-term Return
To The Moon missions and are therefore limited in capacity, scope and
vision.
The ultimate stated goal of all space activity should be the evolution of
Humanity into a Space Faring civilization. The clear demarcation point that
we have achieved Space Faring Civilization status is the establishment of the
first large scale, permanent off planet colony. The logical location for this first
space colony is the Moon.
Malapert Base is intended to show what is technologically possible to
achieve within the next two decades in terms of our first true extra terres-
trial colony.
It is further intended as a bold, compelling, and inspiring vision of our
future in Space; one which will connect with individuals in a deep personal
way, giving them a stake in its achievement and opportunities to contribute
and participate.
Malapert will be based on existing or near, term technologies, and it is
intended as an economically self-sufficient venture—a critical requisite for
permanency.
The only critical path assumption made is that the cost of launching mate-
rial to LEO will be drastically reduced to some arbitrary enabling level within
the next 10 to 15 years.
760
DAY 4: Thursday – June 7, 2007
Morning Session
Plenary Speakers
Bradley Edwards
Carbon Designs, Incorporated
“Space Elevator for the Moon”
Paul Eckert
International and Commercial Strategist, Boeing IDS—Space Exploration
“Attracting Private Investment for Lunar Commerce: Toward
Economically Sustainable Development”

• 9:00–9:45 am Bradley Edwards
• 9:45–10:00 am Paul Eckert
• 10:00–10:20 am Seon Han
• 10:20–10:40 am Joseph E. Palaia
• 11:00–11:20 am Klaus P. Heiss
• 11:20–11:40 am Francois Lévy
• 11:40–12:00 pm B.E. Lewandowski
• 12:00–1:00 pm LUNCH
761
Space Elevator for the Moon
Bradley C. Edwards
Black Line Ascension
Seattle, Washington
The Apollo program was one of man’s most impressive achievements.

However, in spite of this the program failed to become self-sustaining. Since
Apollo our technology has advanced in many areas but we have been unable to
reduce the cost of getting to space. Considering these realities the Moon/Mars
initiative has an ambitious set of goals. The United States has tried extremely
similar programs before (1970s, 1989) and failed. This paper summarizes a
NASA proposal for an exploration program based on an innovative Earth-to-
space transportation system, the space elevator. This program would enable
inexpensive (over 90% savings on launch costs), high-capacity (3000 tons/year)
delivery of cargo and crews to the moon, Mars and other solar system desti-
nations. The proposed program has the potential to create a sustainable and
affordable program for exploring the solar system. The spin-off from this pro-
gram will be commercially valuable infrastructure with existing, ready cus-
tomers, international interest and endless possibilities for scientific studies.
In the proposed program costs are broken down into system and delivery
costs. From Koelle’s lunar model, a lunar laboratory with an average crew of
69 would cost $57B over 40 years. Delivery costs run $20B in capital expense
and $1B/year in operating costs for two space elevators capable of deliver-
ing 3000 tons per year to the moon. This capacity is more than sufficient
for the lunar laboratory scenario. The large mass capacity of the elevator
will allow crewed components to be over-designed, and carry ample pro-
pellant surpluses, allowing for greater mission flexibility, robustness, safety
and ultimately, sustainability. In our proposed effort, redundant fuel, sup-
plies, habitats, rovers, parts and CEVs can be placed in geosynchronous and
lunar orbits and on the lunar surface to provide multiple back-ups for the
exploration endeavors. In addition, we have investigated the possibility of
a commercial revenue generation from the excess launch capacity. Program
expenditures are estimated to be $68B primarily spent between 2005 and
2023 but with revenue generation these can be reduced substantially.
762
Attracting Private Investment for
Lunar Commerce: Toward Economically
Sustainable Development
Paul Eckert
Space Exploration, IDS, The Boeing Co.
Arlington, Virginia
Established and startup companies are collaborating in an international

consortium designed to promote the growth of space commerce, extend-
ing from Earth to the Moon. Firms engaged over the past two years have
included The Boeing Company, Lockheed Martin Corporation, Northrop
Grumman Corporation, Honeywell International, Raytheon Company,
Mitsubishi Corporation, and Alcatel Alenia Space, as well as startups includ-
ing Transformation Space Corporation and Lunar Transportation Systems.
These companies have recognized that entrepreneurial innovation by startup
companies–profitably applying existing technology to meet customer needs
in a marketplace–is at least as important as efforts to develop new technolo-
gies in the laboratory. The global industry consortium is also working to
encourage development of truly commercial, self-sustaining space activity
involving non-government customers, rather than simply extending govern-
ment contracting. Because government and established company resources
are usually insufficient to ensure the initial viability of new firms, early
funding must generally come from angel investors—wealthy individuals for
whom creating a legacy of innovation is often more important than making
a profit. Personal relationships are a far more potent means of gaining the
interest of such individuals than are more impersonal methods. In addition,
description of new space-related opportunities should be in terms investors
can understand. It is particularly important to attract investment for rela-
tively low-cost commercial Earth-to-orbit transportation systems serving the
International Space Station (ISS), because such systems may constitute the
first step toward development of commercial Earth-to-moon (i.e., cislunar)
transportation capabilities. Affordable and reliable cislunar transportation
services are among the most important factors enabling sustainable lunar
development. International interoperability of systems is an equally vital
factor in assuring commercial sustainability.
763
Design of a Space Elevator
Seon Han
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Texas Tech University
Lubbock, Texas
The purpose of this work is to present the design issues that must be consid-
ered in designing a space elevator from dynamic standpoint. A space eleva-
tor is modeled as a long cable that is anchored on the Earth. The dynamic
forces that the elevator is subject to are the tidal forces due to the Sun and
the Moon, the gravitational attraction from the Earth, and the environmen-
tal load due to wind modeled as a point load near the bottom of the eleva-
tor. In this study, the two counterweights are added. The first one is placed
at the outer end, and the second at geosynchronous orbit. The first one is
added so that a shorter cable can be used, and the second to make the system
stable. The basic design parameters are the total length of the cable which
subsequently determines the counterweight, the counterweight at the geo-
synchronous orbit, the cross-sectional area, and the constant stress level if
the cross-sectional area is tapered.
In this work, both the tapered and un-tapered cables are considered. It was
suggested in the past that the cross-sectional area be tapered (largest cross-
sectional area at geosynchronous orbit) so that the stress level along the cable
is constant. This is done so that any material can support its own weight
under gravity. However, not any material with tapered area can be used
because the required taper ratio (the area at geosynchronous orbit equals the
area at Earth’s surface) can be unreasonably large for materials with low spe-
cific strength and low constant stress level. Carbon nanotubes have a high
specific strength so that taper ratio for the carbon nanotubes can be as low
as 1.5, and they are strong enough so that un-tapered cable can support itself
under gravity.
So far, the dynamics of a space elevator have rarely been considered in
its design. Considering from statics and quasi-statics points of view, the
cross-sectional area and stress level may be determined from the desired
carrying capacity of the elevator. The static analysis provides no criterion for
setting the counterweight at the geosynchronous orbit and the cable length
except that it must extend beyond geosynchronous orbit. One obvious limit-
ing factor is that it is difficult to send a large counterweight into space using
traditional rockets. Other design constraints on the basic design parameters
come from dynamics. In this work, three criteria will be considered:
764
Design of a Space Elevator 765
1. The fundamental frequencies must be such that they are well away
from the forcing frequencies.
2. The dynamic load due to moving elevator must not induce
resonance.
3. The fundamental frequency when an elevator car is parked along
the cable must be away from the forcing frequencies.
Stepping Stones to Mars Settlement
Joseph E. Palaia IV
VP Operations/R&D and Co-Founder
4 Frontiers Corp.
Hudson, Florida
The 4 Frontiers Corporation is an emerging space commerce company

focused on Mars settlement as well as other inner solar system development.
Early activities include the development of profitable space technologies
(including those applicable to the lunar domain), consulting for key manu-
facturers and government agencies, and engaging in public entertainment
and education. These expanding activities will lead to the creation of a Mars
settlement mockup/tourist attraction which will introduce the public to the
company’s vision as well as its space technology innovations. Early emphasis
will be placed on developing those technologies having common application
to both the Lunar and Mars systems.
766
Private Property Rights and the
Economic Exploration of the Moon:
Hammurabi, Tyrolean Homesteads
and the Outer Space Treaty
Klaus P. Heiss
Executive Director
High Frontier, Inc.
There is a common objective by all participants in the discussion of the Outer

Space Treaty (“OST”) and related issues: assured benefits to all mankind. The
question is: how does one best assure this. The answer advanced herein is the
affirmation and assurance of unencumbered private property—rather than
central, national or global committee planning constructs of national (some-
times secret) and international Space bureaucracies, with economic oppor-
tunities postponed ad infinitum. Precedents are given throughout history,
chief amongst them the Code of Hammurabi and the Tyrolean Höferecht
tradition of homesteading.
Mankind has a moral obligation to bring about economic and beneficial
uses of Space so that indeed mankind can benefit, as without such uses
nobody will benefit. The historically proven way is through private property
rights.
We have the further moral obligation to bring about the earliest possible
settlement of and in Outer Space, if only for the “Precautionary Principle”
increasingly advocated by some in other contexts, so as to assure the very
survival of mankind, given the great unknown cataclysmic disasters that
periodically hit Earth over eons past. Herein we should follow the example
set by Jamestown and the spectacular economic development of the North
American continent—in contrast to the barren latifundi of aristocratic, royal
or nationalized precedents elsewhere.
The purpose of “laws” is to enable useful human activities, not to prohibit
or prevent them. Indeed, law and order are the very foundations of freedom
and free markets, including the enforcement of laws, if necessary by force:
the enforcement of freely entered contracts is the enabling instrument of the
working of markets and the freedoms to which all of us aspire and which
some of us already cherish.
767
Indoor Air Quality Implications
of 222Rn from Lunar Radon
F. Lévy
MS Student
Civil, Architectural & Environmental Engineering Department
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, Texas
J. Fardal
Austin, Texas
Recently, interest has grown in resuming lunar exploration with the pos-
sible establishment of long-term bases. Due to payload costs and the scale
of permanent bases, there is a compelling need to employ in situ resources,
leading to extensive use of lunar soil, or regolith, in such bases. Regolith is
prone to 222Rn exhalation. We modeled two scenarios for radon exhalation
in regolith-based lunar construction. We examined the potential for human
health risks due to 222Rn decay-product exposure in such closed, hermeti-
cally sealed environments where lunar inhabitants would potentially have
direct, long-term contact with regolith. We found the potential for significant
health concerns, but more detailed data on the physical properties of regolith-
aggregate concrete and its 222Rn exhalation rates is required to accurately
determine radon emanation and diffusion coefficients.
768
Human Power Generation to Augment
Lunar Settlement Power Sources
B.E. Lewandowski
Bioscience & Technology Branch
NASA Glenn Research Center
Cleveland, Ohio
K.J. Gustafson
Department of Biomedical Engineering
Case Western Reserve University
Cleveland, Ohio
D.J. Weber
Dept of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation
University of Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Electrical power is a critical issue as the lunar settlement is designed and

developed. A plentiful power source is necessary in order to carry out the
mission, but at the same time, uploading consumable power sources must
be minimized due to the significant cost. This conflict in requirements
will be particularly evident at the initial stages of settlement development.
Dependence on vehicle power will be the greatest prior to when a permanent
power grid can be established at the settlement. Even as permanent power
is established, there will continue to be a need for mobile power sources.
Examples of items needing mobile power include electronic sensors within
EVA suits, mobile communication devices and power tools. Recharging
methods will be needed for the power sources of these mobile devices.
A significant amount of energy is dissipated by the human body as it
interacts with the environment. For example, heat is radiated from the skin.
Mechanical energy is dissipated into the ground during walking and into
structures and equipment that is touched. Arm and leg joints in motion
house kinetic energy. During each breath the weight of the chest wall is
displaced over a distance and air is expired at a higher temperature and
pressure than the surrounding atmospheric air. It is possible to harness this
dissipated energy and convert it into electricity through low mass energy
conversion methods, such as thermoelectric, electromagnetic, piezoelectric
and electrostatic methods. Humans are also capable of doing work on objects
769
770 Human Power Generation to Augment Lunar Settlement Power Sources
and can generate electricity through hand cranking and shaking motions,
during bicycling and by manipulating objects in other ways.
Some examples of Earth based human power generation concepts include
heel strike generators [1; 2] and inductive backpack generators [3] that har-
vest energy during walking or running. Research exists on the conversion
of human kinetic motion to electricity [4; 5] and bicycle power generators
are commercially available products [6]. An activity performed in space by
the astronauts that is well suited for energy harvesting with these meth-
ods is exercising. Astronauts exercise in space to counteract the deleterious
effects of the reduced gravity environment, such as loss of bone and muscle
mass and reduction of aerobic capacity [7]. Energy harvesting methods such
as heel strike generators and generators embedded into the exercise equip-
ment could be used to generate significant amounts of power. This power
could augment the consumable power sources that must be expensively
uploaded by extending their life time or by increasing their reliability, or it
could be used to recharge the power sources of mobile electronic devices.
This additional power would be particularly useful during the initial stages
of lunar settlement development.
1. Kymissis, J., Kendall, C., Paradiso, J., and Gershenfeld, N., “Parasitic power
harvesting in shoes,” Wearable Computers, Second International Symposium,
1998, pp. 132–139.
2. Shenck, N. S. and Paradiso, J. A., “Energy scavenging with shoe-mounted piezo-
electrics,” Micro, IEEE, Vol. 21, No. 3, 2001, pp. 30–42.
3. Rome, L. C., Flynn, L., Goldman, E. M., and Yoo, T. D., “Generating electricity
while walking with loads,” Science, Vol. 309, No. 5741, 2005, pp. 1725–1728.
4. Niu, P., Chapman, P., Riemer, R., and Zhang, X., “Evaluation of motions and
actuation methods for biomechanical energy harvesting,” Power Electronics
Specialists Conference, IEEE 35th Annual, Vol. 3, 2004, pp. 2100–2106.
5. von Buren, T., Lukowicz, P., and Troster, G., “Kinetic energy powered
computing—an experimental feasibility study,” Wearable Computers, Seventh
International Symposium on, 2003, pp. 22–24.
6. Anonymous, 2007, http://www.windstreampower.com/
7. Buckey, J. C., Space Physiology, Oxford University Press, New York, 2006.
DAY 4: Thursday—June 7, 2007
Afternoon Session
Plenary Speaker
Harry W. Janes
Research Professor, Cook College, Rutgers University
“Bioregenerative Life Support: Closing The Life-Support Loop: What Is Stopping Us?”

• 1:15–2:00 pm Harry W. Janes
• 2:00–2:30 pm Claudio Maccone
• 3:00–3:20 pm
• 3:20–3:40 pm Gregory Konesky
• 4:00–4:20 pm Y. Cengiz-Toklu
• 4:20–4:40 pm V. V. Shevchenko
• 6:00– ON YOUR OWN
771
Bioregenerative Life Support: Closing the
Life-Support Loop: What Is Stopping Us?
Harry W. Janes
Research Professor
Department of Plant Biology and Pathology
Rutgers University
New Brunswick, New Jersey
Life support designs for short-term manned space flight missions have relied
primarily on storage of materials before launch, physicochemical technologies,
and on re-supply. Longer missions leading to manned exploration of the solar
system with bases established on the moon and missions to Mars require a
life support system that cannot be based solely on these physicochemical tech-
nologies. When re-supply is impossible and long-term storage is impractical,
these technologies simply cannot regenerate food from waste. Therefore, any
life support system for extended missions must include green plants capable of
generating food, oxygen and potable water. Additionally, systems to degrade
waste and re-supply minerals must be developed around and integrated with
the plant growing system. These systems will require use of microorganisms
and will probably be aided by physicochemical processes. The goal of biore-
generative life support is to emulate in space the life-sustaining processes of
earth. The challenge in developing this system is to not only understand the
subsystems involved but to blend them in such a way that we can create a
model of earth’s system that is both reliable and small.
For long-term space exploration, where stand-alone habitat systems are
absolutely required, the U.S. has recently halted the process of developing
the enabling technologies. For almost 30 years, NASA has funded bioregen-
erative life-support research for space applications, but because of recurring
policy and funding changes, the agency has not been able to bring to frui-
tion breakthroughs that are needed for sustained human survivability in
isolated or extreme environments. Management decisions have resulted in
a disjointed program with frequent stops, restarts, and direction changes.
Faculty from seven leading universities, with over 150 years of advanced
life support experience are currently developing the Habitation Institute as
a multi-institutional scientific partnership with the objective of advancing
the basic research necessary to develop the technologies required for long-
duration space travel.
772
Protecting the Farside of the Moon
for the Benefit of all Humankind
Claudio Maccone
International Academy of Astronautics
Torino (Turin), Italy
The need to keep the Farside of the Moon free from man-made RFI (Radio
Frequency Interference) has long been discussed by the international sci-
entific community. In particular, in 2005 this author reported to the IAA
(International Academy of Astronautics) the results of an IAA “Cosmic
Study” where he reached the conclusion that the center of the Farside, spe-
cifically crater Daedalus, is ideal to set up a future radio telescope (or phased
array) to detect radio waves of all kinds that it is impossible to detect on
Earth because of the ever-growing RFI. In this paper we propose the creation
of PAC, the Protected Antipode Circle. This is a large circular piece of land
about 1820 km in diameter, centered around the Antipode on the Farside and
spanning an angle of 30 deg in longitude, in latitude and in all radial direc-
tions from the Antipode, i.e. a total angle of 60 deg at the cone vertex right at
the center of the Moon. There are three sound scientific reasons for defining
PAC this way:
1. PAC is the only area of the Farside that will never be reached by
the radiation emitted by future human space bases located at the L4
and L5 Lagrangian points of the Earth-Moon system (the geometric
proof of this fact is trivial);
2. PAC is the most shielded area of the Farside, with an expected atten-
uation of man-made RFI ranging from 15 to 100 dB or higher;
3. PAC does not overlap with other areas of interest to human activity
except for a minor common area with the Aitken Basin, the southern
depression supposed to have been created 3.8 billion years ago dur-
ing the “big wham” between the Earth and the Moon.
773
The International Lunar
Observatory Association (ILOA)
2007 and Lunar Settlement
Steven M. Durst
Space Age Publishing Company
Kamuela, Hawaii
Originating in Hawaii near the center of the Pacific hemisphere, the ILOA
in 2007 has been endorsed by and seeks membership from institutes, indi-
viduals and enterprises to realize, place and operate a multifunction astro-
physical observatory near the Moon’s south pole as early as 2010. The ILOA
also seeks to help support a follow-on human service mission to that facility
and to parellel robotic village facilities that constitute the emerging lunar
base settlement. The ILOA is an Earth–Moon interglobal enterprise with pro-
jected membership from major spacefaring powers Canada, China, India,
Japan, Europe, Russia, Brazil, Crescent Moon Countries, United States and
others representing the great majority of the planet’s people.
Primarily an observatory for radio, submillimeter, infrared and visible wave-
length astrophysics, for other non-astronomical observations, and for some geo-
physical science, the ILO also will function as a solar power station (with silicon
photovoltaic research), communications center (with varied commercial broad-
cast possibilities), site characterizer (solar wind, radiation, temperature, duration;
micrometeorites, ground truth), property claim agent, virtual dynamic nexus,
toehold for lunar base build-out and settlement, and Hawaii astronomy booster.
Facilitating the continuing rise of excellence for Mauna Kea observatories
through interglobal interaction, the ILOA is incorporating in Hawaii as a 501 (c)
(3) non-profit to serve as the enabling, executive, governing, directing vehicle for
the ILO. ILOA initial assets consist of, at least, four professional technical feasibil-
ity research studies, space/lunar flight-tested instruments, industrial partner ser-
vice advances, two international astronomy center MOUs, ILOA News, Hawaii/
Mauna Kea office maintenance, and directors’ employment through financial
reserves. ILOA 2007 progress and developments will be updated through at
least six major ILOA presentations in China, America, India, and Europe, includ-
ing the ILOA Founders Meeting on Hawaiì Island 4–8 November and the
ILOA Founders Meeting Preliminary Session at the International Astronautical
Congress in Hyderabad 26 September. Supporting humanity’s ascent to multi-
world species and to interstellar, galaxy exploration, the ILOA has a promising
outlook and future well worth advancing and pursuing.
774
ILEWG Roadmap from Precursors
to Lunar Settlements
Bernard H. Foing
ILEWG Executive Director
Noordwijk, Netherlands
We discuss the rationale and roadmap from robotic precursors to lunar

settlements.
We report on recent activities, and on previous ILEWG conferences, rec-
ommendations and declarations, including from the last ILEWG 8th confer-
ence at Beijing in July 2006. We shall cover issues debated by task groups
within the ILEWG forum:
Science opportunities: Clues on the formation and evolution of rocky

planets, accretion and bombardment in the inner solar system, com-
parative planetology processes (tectonic, volcanic, impact crater-
ing, volatile delivery); records of astrobiology, survival of organics;
astronomy and space science; past, present and future life; early
Earth samples
New instrumentation: Remote sensing miniaturised instruments;
surface geophysical and geochemistry package; instrument deploy-
ment and robotic arm, nano-rover, sampling, drilling; sample finder
and collector.
Technologies for robotic and human exploration: Mecha-electronics-
sensors; tele control, telepresence, virtual reality; regional mobility
rover; autonomy and navigation; artificially intelligent robots, com-
plex systems, man–machine interface and performances.
Living off the Land: Establishment of permanent robotic infrastruc-
tures; environmental protection aspects; solutions to global Earth
sustained development; life sciences laboratories; support to human
exploration; permanent lunar settlements.
775
Lunar Optical Data Links
Gregory Konesky
Ongoing future lunar activities and settlement efforts will require substan-
tial bandwidth both for the transmission and reception of large volumes of
data, imagery, communications, remote teleoperation, etc. High bandwidth
lunar optical data links can be broadly grouped into two categories: inter-
lunar site, and Moon-to-Earth.
Inter-lunar site optical communications benefit from the absence of atmo-
spheric effects that plague terrestrial counterparts with attendant absorption,
scattering, beam wander, and pulse spreading. However, lunar dust presents
its own set of concerns due to its highly abrasive nature, wide particle size
distribution, and strong electrostatic attraction to surfaces. Long distance
communication is limited, after local topology, by the surface curvature of
the Moon, whereas atmospheric effects predominate in terrestrial optical
links. Various design examples of inter-lunar optical data links, for both sta-
tionary and mobile sites, are presented as are dust mitigation approaches
and the general rigors of the lunar environment.
A Moon-to-Earth optical data link can be established using only a 1 Watt
laser on the Moon, transmitted through a 1 meter aperture (at 830 nm) and
received on the Earth also by a 1 meter aperture, and yet produce a net posi-
tive link margin. In practice, however, a smaller aperture would be used
on the Moon, and supplanted by a larger aperture on the Earth for obvi-
ous economic reasons. Terrestrial atmospheric effects are fortunately lim-
ited to only the last few kilometers of beam propagation and can be largely
negated, within limits, by adaptive optics. Alternatively, optical data link
reception can be affected in Earth orbit. The design tradeoffs between these
two approaches are considered in terms of the overall system complexity
and link availability. Design examples of Moon-to-Earth optical links with
various transmitter powers, apertures, and operating wavelengths are con-
sidered in terms of link budget. The origins of atmospheric effects on beam
propagation will be considered, as will the extent to which these can be dealt
with by adaptive optics. Demonstrated design examples of adaptive optic
systems, and their applicability to a Moon-to-Earth data link are discussed.
Difficulties of an Earth-to-Moon optical data link are also considered.
776
Comparison between Terrestrial
and Lunar Mining
Y. Cengiz Toklu
Mechatronics Engineering Department,
Bahcesehir University
Istanbul, Turkey
One big issue in lunar settlement is the supply of all types of necessities
on the Moon. The difficulties in supply from the Earth make it obligatory
to build and operate plants on the Moon to produce most of the necessities
using lunar resources as raw material. This makes mining on the Moon an
operation of primordial importance.
Mining on the Moon will have its own characteristics as compared to min-
ing on the Earth. The first difference will come from the fact that substances
are likely to be more uniformly distributed on the surface of the Moon as
compared to the Earth. Thus it is probable that there will not be different
mines for different raw materials and almost all substances will be extracted
from the same source with serial or parallel processes. The other differences
between lunar mining and terrestrial mining will originate mainly from
environmental differences like those in gravitation, and existence and non-
existence of atmosphere.
These differences will result in new advances in mining technologies,
mining equipments and extraction processes which, at the end, will affect
positively the way of life on the Earth and elsewhere.
777
Lunar Resources for Rescue of
Mankind in XXI Century
V. V. Shevchenko
Sternberg Astronomical Institute
Moscow University
Moscow, Russia
At the outside of the atmosphere, the Earth receives about 1/2,200,000,000

of the solar radiation, about 1.8 x 1017 J/s (joule per second) or 180 x1015 W.
About 50% of the incoming solar energy is received by the Earth’s environ-
ment. It equals about 90 x 1015 W or 90000 TW. The essential increasing of
the additional energy will destroy system of our environment completely. In
results of many ecological investigations it has been found that the permissi-
ble level of the energy production inside Earth’s environment is about 0.1% of
solar energy received by Earth’s surface. The value is about 90 TW (90 x 1012
Watt). Any estimation of future electricity requirements depends on the
assumptions of the population growth and energy usage. An analysis of the
known data indicates that simple representation of the population growth
tendency is an exponential regression. In near future expected world’s popu-
lation will become level at about 10 billion people. From different sources the
world energy use per capita at present corresponds to about 1.7 kW of power
per person and general world energy consumption is about 3.3 x 1020J/y or
~10 TW of capacity. The general prognosis shows that total energy use (and
production) in the world will increase by a factor of two (to about 20 TW) by
2040. If this tendency is preserved, the total energy production in the world
will approach about 55 TW by the end of the century. A more complicated
calculation has been carried out in which allowance is made for the effect of
energy usage growth (per capita) with time. Simple estimates are that in the
2050 timeframe the world will require nearly 40 TW of total capacity, and
more than 110 TW will be required in 2100. It means the permissible level of
the energy production inside Earth’s environment will be exceeded in the
near future. But it is obvious that the processes destroying Earth’s environ-
ment in global scale will begin before it—after middle of century. Hence,
the first result of the practical actions for rescue of the Earth’s environment
must be obtained not later than in 2020–2030. The only way to resolve this
problem consists in the use of extraterrestrial resources and industrializa-
tion of the space. The nearest available body—source of space resources and
the space industrial base is the Moon. The most known now space energy
778
Lunar Resources for Rescue of Mankind in XXI Century 779
resource is lunar helium-3. Very likely, the lunar environment contains new
resource possibilities unknown now. So, the lunar research space programs
must have priority not only in fundamental planetary science, but in practi-
cal purposes too.
Possible Applications of
Photoautotrophic Biotechnologies
at Lunar Settlements
I.I. Brown
Jacobs Sverdrup ESCG
D. Garrison
S. Sarkisova
J.A. Jones
NASA Johnson Space Center
C.C. Allen
D.S. McKay
D. Bayless
University of Ohio
A major goal for the Vision of Space Exploration is to extend human presence
across the solar system. With current technology, however, all required con-
sumables for these missions (propellant, air, food, water) as well as habitable
volume and shielding to support human explorers will need to be brought
from Earth. In situ production of consumables (In Situ Resource Utilization-
ISRU), such as propellants, life support gas management, as well as habi-
tat and support system construction materials, will significantly facilitate
human hopes for exploration and colonization of the solar system, especially
in reducing the logistical overhead such as recurring launch mass.
The life support, fuel production and material processing systems cur-
rently proposed for spaceflight are not completely integrated. The only biore-
generative life support system that has been evaluated on a habitat scale by
780
Possible Applications of Photoautotrophic Biotechnologies 781
NASA employed only traditional crop production. This has been proposed
as a segment for bioregenerative life support systems, even though the effi-
ciency of higher plants for atmospheric revitalization is generally low. Thus,
with the release of the NASA Lunar Architecture Team lunar mission strat-
egy, the investigation of air bioregeneration techniques based on the activ-
ity of photosynthetic organisms with higher rates of CO2 scrubbing and O2
release appears to be very timely and relevant. Future systems for organic
waste utilization in space may also benefit from the use of specific microor-
ganisms. This janitorial job is efficiently carried out by microbes on Earth,
which drive and connect different elemental cycles. It is possible that biore-
generative environmental control and life support systems will be capable
of converting both organic and inorganic components of the waste at lunar
settlements into edible biomass.
The most challenging technologies for future lunar settlements are the
extraction of elements (e.g. Fe, O, Si, etc) from local rocks for life support,
industrial feedstock and the production of propellants. While such extrac-
tion can be accomplished by purely inorganic processes, the high energy
requirements of such processes drive the search for alternative technologies
with lower energy requirements and sustainable efficiency. Well-developed
terrestrial industrial biotechnologies for metals extraction and conversion
could therefore be the prototypes for extraterrestrial biometallurgy.
Despite the hostility of the lunar environment to unprotected life, it seems
possible to cultivate photosynthetic bacteria using closed bioreactors illumi-
nated and heated by solar energy. Such reactors might be employed in criti-
cal processes, e.g. air revitalization, element extraction, propellant (oxygen
and methane) and food production. The European Micro-Ecological Life
Support System Alternative (MELiSSA) is an advanced idea for organiz-
ing a bioregenerative system for long term space flights and extraterrestrial
settlements.
We propose additional development and refinement of the MELiSSA sys-
tem by the employment of Spirulina strains with increased productivity of
essential amino acids, immunomodulators as well as by the addition of bio-
metallurgy and fuel production to the life support cycle. Such a synthesis
of technological capability, as embodied in a lunar surface ISRU bioreactor,
could decrease the demand for energy, transfer mass and cost of future lunar
settlement.
Scaling and Sizing Aspects for
Resource Utilization Devices
to Support Development of the
Moon and Mars Exploration
Bee Thakore
International Space University
With the new wave of exploration targeted at extending lunar missions to

support humans and preparing towards a permanently occupied human
outpost, the role of in-situ resources utilization (ISRU) is becoming appar-
ent. Several studies have indicated that use of ISRU devices may provide
significant cost effectiveness over a given time of operation. With the lack
of demonstration mission, one link still remains to be investigated further:
what is the best means for such devices to be scaled up to cater with an
increased demand of products.
This paper mainly focuses on use of space resources to harness oxygen,
hydrogen and water on the Moon, as the processes, technologies and eco-
nomics for these near-term ’derived products’ are better understood.
Strategies for extending a new-sufficient supply of space resource derived
products to those that can be commercially mined is not the main focus,
but are included for comparison of increased energy, mobility and operating
robustness required. Finally, a role of such a strategy in preparing a demon-
stration mission for Moon and that for an ISRU device for large scale water
production on Mars is discussed.
782
International Cooperation
Models for the Development of
Settlements on the Moon
Ryan Zelnio
George Mason University
It is widely recognized that the development of a lunar settlement cannot be

done by the United States alone due mainly to the costs associated with such
a large endeavor. However, getting the international community to join such
an effort will be a challenging endeavor. This paper examines four frame-
works for international cooperation that have been used in past international
space endeavors. Frameworks examined will include cooperative models
like CEOS, GEOS, & ILEWG, augmented models like Cassini, interdepen-
dence models like the International Space Station and integrated models like
Intelsat and the European Space Agency. Examples of each framework used
in prior cooperative international space ventures will be examined with a
discussion on their pros and cons. This paper shall then discuss the applica-
tion of the frameworks to lunar development.
There have been many changes in the political landscape since the last
major space cooperative project, the ISS, has been put together in the early
1990s. Russia’s economic and industrial base is now on much better footing,
the technology maturity of the Europe Union and Japan is much greater than
it was before, and China has emerged as space power. What this means and
how it impacts future cooperative models will be discussed.
783

Lunar Settlements PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lunar Settlements PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lunar Settlements PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What are some of the critical processes that photosynthetic bacteria in bioreactors could be employed for?

What are some of the critical processes that photosynthetic bacteria in bioreactors could be employed for?

What is the MELiSSA system and how could it be further developed for use in space?

What is the MELiSSA system and how could it be further developed for use in space?

Lunar

Boca Raton London New York

CRC Press is an imprint of the

© 2010 by Taylor and Francis Group, LLC

No claim to original U.S. Government works

Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper

International Standard Book Number: 978-1-4200-8332-3 (Hardback)

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Lunar settlements / editor, Haym Benaroya.

Visit the Taylor & Francis Web site at

and the CRC Press Web site at

Section I The Past and Future............................................. 1

2. Rutgers 2007 Symposium on Lunar Settlements......................................9

3. Krafft Ehricke’s Moon: The Extraterrestrial Imperative....................... 19

4. Looking Back at Apollo/Saturn:

5. Apollo Knowledge Transfer: Preserving and Transferring the

Section II Lunar Development.......................................... 73

8. The Future Role of Human Resource Management in

9. Lunar Commercial Logistics Transportation......................................... 101

10. Rocks to Robots: Concepts for Initial Robotic Lunar Resource

Section III Outer Space Habitat Design......................... 153

12. Multidisciplinary Approach for User Reliability................................. 155

13. Anthropology: Physical and Cultural Adaptation in Outer

16. Psychology: Natural Elements as a Well-Being Stimuli in Outer

17. Perspectives: Multidisciplinary Approach for User Well-Being.......225

Section IV The Human Condition.................................. 231

18. An Analysis of the Interface between Lunar Habitat Conditions

19. Mental Health Implications of Working in a Lunar Settlement........ 241

21. Here to Stay: Designing for Psychological Well-Being for Long

22. Indoor-Air Quality Implications of 222RN from Lunar Regolith....... 277

23. PAC: Protected Antipode Circle at the Center of the Farside of

24. Developing the Moon with Ethics and Reality.....................................305

Section V Planning and Analogues................................ 319

25. Lunar Base Living: Beyond the Pioneering Stage................................ 321

26. Assessment of Lunar Exploration Objectives........................................ 325

27. A Self-Sufficient Moon-Base Analogue.................................................. 355

28. Terrestrial Analogs Selection Considerations for Planetary

29. Surface Infrastructure Planning and Design Considerations for

30. Settlement Site Selection and Exploration through Hierarchical

31. Integrated Lunar Transportation System............................................... 415

Section VI Lunar Bases.................................................... 431

32. Lunar Base Site Preparation......................................................................433

33. A Review of Technical Requirements for Lunar Structures:

35. Design and Construction of a Modular Lunar Base............................. 509

36. Advanced Systems Concept for Autonomous Construction and

37. A Reliability-Based Design Concept for Lunar Habitats.................... 533

38. Cratering and Blowing Soil by Rocket Engines during Lunar

39. Lunar Habitats Protection against Meteoroid Impact Damage......... 577

40. Deployment of Greenhouse for Long-Term Lunar Base..................... 593

Section VII Lunar Soil Mechanics...................................615

41. A Constitutive Model for Lunar Soil....................................................... 617

42. Geotechnical Engineering Properties of Lunar Soil Simulants........ 637

43. Extension of Terrestrial Excavation Mechanics to Lunar Soil........... 649

4 4. Lunar Concrete............................................................................................. 667

45. Silicon-Utilizing Organisms May Be Used in Future