Roadmap for research and infrastructure development for growing crops in space for human sustenance and life support, from the ISS to Mars. Credits: Grace L. Douglas, Raymond M. Wheeler and Ralph F. Fritsche
Space settlement advocates know that we will have to take our biosphere with us to space to produce food, provide breathable air and recycle wastes. Completely closing the system, i.e. recycling everything is a huge technological challenge, especially on a small scale like what is planned for settlements in free space or on the surfaces of the Moon or Mars. Fortunately, there are plenty of raw materials in the solar system for in situ resource utilization so we can live off the land, so to speak, until our bioregenerative life support system efficiencies improve.
Early research into crop production in space has been performed on the ISS. But the road ahead for space agriculture in the context of life support systems needs careful planning to pave the way toward biologically self-sustaining space settlements. A team of scientists at NASA is working on a roadmap toward sustainability with a step-by-step approach to bioregenerative life support systems (BLSS) that will provide food and oxygen for astronauts during the space agency’s mission plans in the decades ahead. In a paper in the journal Sustainability they identify the current state of the art, resource limitations and where gaps remain in the technology while drawing parallels between ecosystems in space and on Earth, with benefits for both.
Simulation and modeling of BLSS concepts is important to predict their behavior and help inform actual hardware designs. A team at the University of Arizona performed a study recently analyzing the inputs and outputs of such a system to improve efficiencies and apply it to food production on Earth in areas challenged by resource limitations and food insecurity. Sustainable ecosystems for supporting humans on and off Earth have similar goals: minimizing growing space, water usage, energy needs and waste production while simultaneously maximizing crop yields. The team presented their findings in a paper presented at the 50th International Conference on Environmental Systems held last July. In the study, a model of an ecosystem was created consisting of various combinations of plants, mushrooms, insects, and fish to support a population of 8 people for 183 days with an analysis of total growing area, water requirements, energy consumption and total wastes produced. The study concluded that “In terms of resource consumption, the strategy of growing plants, mushrooms, and insects is the most resource-efficient approach.”
At the same conference, an update was provided on a Scalable, Interactive Model of an Off-World Community (SIMOC). SIMOC was described in a previous post on the Space Analog for the Moon and Mars (SAM) located at Biosphere 2 in Arizona. SIMOC is a platform for education meeting standards for student science curriculum. Pupils or citizen scientists can customize human habitats on Mars by selection of mission duration, crew size, food provisions as well as choosing types of plants, levels of energy production, etc.. Users gain an understanding of the complexity of a BLSS and the tradeoffs between mechanical and biological variables of life support for long duration space missions. There is much to be learned on the limitations and stability of closed biospheres, as discussed last year.
Image of Biosphere 2, a research facility to support the development of computer models that simulate the biological, physical and chemical processes to predict ecosystem stability. Credits: Biosphere 2 / University of Arizona
A BLSS based on plant biology could be augmented with dark ecosystems, the food chain based on bacteria that are chemotrophic, i.e. deriving their energy from chemical reactions rather then photosynthesis, which could significantly reduce the inputs of energy and water.
A concept for a lunar farm called Lunar Agriculture, Farming for the Future was published in 2020 by an international team of 27 students participating in the Southern Hemisphere Space Studies Program at the International Space University.
Layout of a potential subsurface lunar farm. Credits: International Space University and University of South Australia
As a treat to cap off this post, a retired software engineer and farmer named Marshall Martin living in Oklahoma provided his perspective on crops in space on The Space Show recently. A frequent caller to the program, this was his first appearance as a guest where, like the NASA team mentioned earlier, he recommends a phased approach to space farming starting with small orbital facilities, testing inputs and outputs as we go, to ensure the economics pay off at each stage of our migration off Earth. He even envisions chickens and goats as sources of protein and milk, although the weight limitations for inclusion of these animals in space-based ecosystems may not be possible for quite some time. Its unlikely that cows will ever make it to space but cultured meat production is a real possibility for the carnivores among us which is being studied by ESA.
Cattle in the cargo bay of the Firefly-class transport spaceship Serenity. Cows probably won’t make it to space because of weight, volume and resource limitations but cultured meat is a real possibility. Image from the television series Firefly. Credits: Josh Whedon/ Mutant Enemy, Inc. in associations with Twentieth Century Fox Television
Illustration of orbital debris recycling. Instead of deorbiting after a few missions, debris removal spacecraft can refuel themselves with metal propellant using the Micro Space Foundry extending the lifespan and lowering costs. Credits: CisLunar Industries
CisLunar Industries is developing an innovative way to clean up Earth orbit by recycling spent rocket stages and other orbital debris using their Micro Space Foundry (MSF). In a March 2 presentation to the Future In-Space Operations telecon, CisLunar CEO Gary Calnan described the technology and markets for the MSF, development of which was funded by an SBIR/STTR grant from NASA. There is a vast untapped value chain of metals high above our heads. Over the last 60 years as satellites have been launched into space, the used upper stages have been cluttering up low Earth orbit and beyond. But the trash has value because it is useful material in orbit that has already incurred the launch cost.
The system works by robotically cutting aluminum feedstock off of derelict satellites and then processing the metal through the MSF using electromagnetic levitation furnace technologies originally proven on the ISS for virtually contactless metal recycling and reuse in a weightless environment. The MSF spits out rods of “fuel” to feed a Neumann Thruster on the debris removal spacecraft, which can then be powered to deorbit the target satellite and move on to its next destination. Rinse and repeat. The architecture has the potential to change the economics of the cislunar economy by harvesting a valuable in situ resource while cleaning up Earth orbit at the same time.
The Neumann Thruster, invented by Dr. Patrick “Paddy” Neumann, is an electric propulsion system for in-space use which is a highly adjustable, efficient and scalable method for moving satellites where they are needed. The Neumann Drive uses solid metal propellant and electricity to produce thrust via a pulsed cathodic arc system analogous to an arc welder. Neumann, who created the company Neumann Space to commercialize his invention, explains the physics behind the thruster in a video of an early prototype.
CisLunar Industries has other applications planned for the MSF in an emerging in-space ecosystem. In addition to extruding metallic rods as propellant, the system can fabricate long tubes for large-scale space structures or wires for additive manufacturing enabling an in-space commodities value chain and creating demand for processed metals.
Conceptual illustration of the MSF core processing unit, utilizing a modular design to enable lower cost flexible deployment and multiple products in an emerging cislunar economy. Credits: CisLunar Industries
So how mature is the technology? CisLunar has already demonstrated component validation in the lab taking the system to TRL 4. You can see a video documenting the experiment at timestamp 35:54 here. A parabolic flight to run an experiment in simulated weightlessness is scheduled for later this year. Actual in-space end-to-end demonstration with a Neumann Thruster is planned in 2024 via an agreement with Australian space services company Skykraft.
Diagram depicting the layout of the Photonic Laser Thruster (PLT). Credits: Young K. Bae, Ph.D.
SSP reported last year on the promise of an exciting new Photonic Laser Thruster (PLT) that could significantly reduce travel times between the planets and enable a Phonic Railway opening up the solar system to rapid exploration and eventual settlement. The inventor of the PTL, Dr. Young K. Bae has just published a paper in the Journal of Propulsion and Power (behind a paywall) that refines the mathematical underpinnings of the PLT physics and illuminates some exciting new results. Dr. Bae shared an advance copy of the paper with SSP and we exchanged emails in an effort to boil down the conclusions and clarify the roadmap for commercialization.
Illustration of a Photonic Railway using PLT infrastructure for in-space propulsion established at (from right to left, not to scale) Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Pluto and beyond. Credits: Young K. Bae.
In the new paper, Dr. Bae refines his rigorous analysis of the physics behind the PLT confirming previous projections and discovering some exciting new findings.
As outlined in the previous SSP post linked above, the PLT utilizes a “recycled” laser beam that is reflected between mirrors located at the power source and on the target spacecraft. Some critical researchers have argued that upon each reflection of the beam off the moving target mirror, there is a Doppler shift causing the photons in the laser light to quickly lose energy which could prevent the PLT from achieving high spacecraft velocities. The new paper conclusively proves such arguments false and confirming the basic physics of the PLT.
There were two unexpected findings revealed by the paper. First, the maximum spacecraft velocity achievable with the PLT is 2000 km/sec which is greater than 10 times the original estimate. Second, the efficiency of converting the laser energy to the spacecraft kinetic energy was found to approach 50% at velocities greater than 100 km/s. This is surprisingly higher than originally thought and is on a par with conventional thrusters – but the PLT does not require propellent. These results show conclusively that once the system is validated in space, the PLT has the potential to be the next generation propulsion system.
I asked Dr. Bae if anything has fundamentally changed recently in photonic technology that will bring the PLT closer to realization. He said that the interplanetary PLT can tolerate high cavity laser energy loss factors in the range of 0.1-0.01 % that will permit the use of emerging high power laser mirrors with metamaterials, which are much more resistant to laser induced damage and are readily scalable in fabricating very large PLT mirrors.
With respect to conventional thrusters, he said the PLT can be potentially competitive even at low velocities on the order of 10 km/s, especially for small payloads. This is because system does not use propellant which is very expensive in space and because the PLT launch frequency can be orders of magnitude higher than that of conventional thrusters. Dr. Bae is currently investigating this aspect of the system in terms of space economics in depth.
The paper acknowledges that one of the most critical challenges in scaling-up the PLT would be manufacturing the large-scale high-reflectance mirrors with diameters of 10–1000m, which will likely require large-scale in-space manufacturing. Fortunately, these technologies are currently being studied through DARPA’s NOM4D program which SSP covered previously and Dr. Bae agreed that they could be leveraged for the Photonic Railway.
Artist’s concept of projects, including large high-reflectance mirrors, which could benefit from DARPA’s (NOM4D) plan for robust manufacturing in space. Credits: DARPA
I asked Dr. Bae about his timeline and TRL for a space based demo of his Sheppard Satellite with PLT-C and PLT-P propellantless in-space propulsion and orbit changing technology. He responded that such a mission could be launched in five years assuming there were no issues with treaties on space-based high power lasers. There is The Treaty on the Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space but I pointed out that the U.S. has not signed on to this treaty. Article IV of the Outer Space Treaty states that “…any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction…” can not be placed in orbit around the Earth or in outer space. Dr. Bae said “We can argue that the [Outer Space] treaty regulation does not apply to PLT, because its energy is confined within the optical cavity so that it cannot destroy any objects. Or we can design the PLT such that its transformation into a laser weapon can be prevented.”
He then went on to say: “For space demonstration of PLT spacecraft manipulation including stationkeeping, I think using the International Space Station platform would be one of the best ways … I roughly estimate it would take $6M total for 3 years for the demonstration using the ISS power and cubesats. The Tipping Point [Announcement for Partnership Proposals] would be a good [funding mechanism] …to do this.”
Once the technology of the Photonic Railway matures and is validated in the solar system Dr. Bae envisions its use applied to interstellar missions to explore exoplanets in the next century as described in a 2012 paper in Physics Procedia.
Conceptual illustration of the Photonic Railway applied to a roundtrip interstellar voyage to explore exoplanets around Epsilon Eridani. This application requires four PLTs: two for acceleration and two for deceleration. Credits: Young K. Bae
Be sure to listen live and call in to ask Dr. Bae your questions about the PLT in person when he returns to The Space Show on March 29th.
Conceptual overview of the lunar Rosas Base derived from a SpaceX Starship tipped on its side and covered with regolith. Credits: International Space University, Space Studies Program 2021 Team*. The name of the base is in memory of Oscar Federico Rosas Castillo
During Elon Musk’s recent Starship update from Boco Chica, Texas he said that he was “highly confident” that Starship would reach orbit this year. He also predicted that the cost of placing 150 tons in LEO could eventually come down to as low as $10 million per launch, and that “…there are a lot of additional customers that will want to use Starship. I don’t want to steel their thunder. They’re going to want to make their own announcements. This will get a lot of use, a lot of attention….”
“Once we make this work, its an utterly profound breakthrough in access to orbit….the use cases will be hard to imagine.” – Elon Musk
One such potential use case was worked out in detail by a team* of students last year during the International Space University’s (ISU) Space Studies Program 2021 held in Strasbourg, France. Called Solutions for Construction of a Lunar Base, the project used the version of Starship currently under development by SpaceX for the Human Landing System component of NASA’s Artemis Program as the basis for a habitat on the Moon. The concept was also described in a paper at the 72nd International Astronautical Congress in Dubai last October. The mission of the project was:
“To develop a roadmap for the construction of a sustainable, habitable, and permanent lunar base. This will address regulatory and policy frameworks, confront technological and anthropological challenges and empower scientific and commercial lunar activities for the common interest of all humankind.”
The team did an impressive job working out solutions to some of the most challenging issues facing humans living in the harsh lunar environment like radiation, micrometeorites, and hazardous lunar dust. They also dealt with human factors, physiological and medical problems anticipated under these conditions. Finally, the legal aspects as well as a rigorous financial analysis was conducted to support a business plan for the base in the context of a sustainable cislunar economy. The report is lengthy and challenging to summarize but here are some of the highlights.
A decommissioned Starship forms the primary core component of the outpost having its fuel tanks converted to living space of considerable volume. This has precedent in the U.S. space program when NASA modified an S-IVB stage of a Saturn V to create Skylab. The team envisions extensive use of a MOdular RObotic Construction Autonomous System (MOROCAS) outfitted with specific tools to perform a variety of activities autonomously which would reduce the need for extravehicular activities (EVA) thereby minimizing risks to crew. The MOROCAS would be utilized to tip the Starship on its side, pile regolith over the station for radiation protection and a range of other useful functions.
Medical emergencies were considered for accidents anticipated for construction activities in the high risk lunar environment. The types of injuries that could be expected were assessed to inform plans for needed medical equipment and facilities for diagnosis and treatment.
As discussed by SSP in a previous post, hazards from lunar regolith must be mitigated in for any activities on the moon. The solutions proposed included limiting dust inhalation through monitoring and smart scheduling EVAs, the use of dust management systems utilizing electrostatic removal mechanisms and intelligent design of equipment. In addition, landing sites and travel routes would be prepared either through sintering of regolith or compaction to prevent damage to structures by rocket plumes.
Funding of the Rosas Base was envisioned to be implemented via a public/private partnership administered by an international authority called the Rosas Lunar Authority (RLA). The RLA management would be structured as an efficient interface between participating governments while being capable of responding to policy and legal challenges. It would rely on public financing initially but eventually shift to private financing supplemented by rental of the base to stakeholders and interested parties.
Finally the team examined the value proposition driving establishment of the base. Sociocultural benefits, scientific advancements and technology transfer would be the primary driving factors. Initial market opportunities would be targeted at the scientific community in the form of data and lunar samples. Follow-on commercial activities that would attract investors could include launch services to orbit, cislunar spacecraft services, propellent markets in lunar orbit and LEO, communications networks in cislunar space and commercial activities on the surface such as supplies of transportation and mining equipment, habitats, and ISRU facilities.
The surface of the Moon provides exciting opportunities for scientific experimentation, medical research, and commerce in the cislunar economy about to unfold in the next decade. The unique capabilities of Starship and the solutions proposed in this report support a sustainable business model for a permanent outpost like the Rosa Base on the Moon.
Conceptual illustration of an emerging cisluar economy. Credits: International Space University, Space Studies Program 2021 Team*
SSP featured a post in 2020 on the promise of lava tubes as ideal natural structures on the Moon or Mars in which space settlements could be established. Some are quite voluminous and could contain very large cities. Lava tubes provide excellent protection from radiation, micrometeorite bombardment and temperature extremes while being very ancient and geologically stable.
How would a city be established inside a lava tube? What would it be like to live and work there? Brian P. Dunn paints a scientifically accurate picture of such a future in Tube Town – Frontier, a hard science fiction book visualizing life beneath the surface of the Moon. Dunn recently appeared on The Space Show where he provided tantalizing details on his book scheduled to be published later this year. You can also get a taste of the story through excerpts available on his website.
I’ve had the opportunity to get an advanced copy of his book and will be providing feedback to Dunn prior to publication. He agreed to an interview via email, summarized below, answering some of my initial questions:
SSP: Your first chapter of the book takes place in 2028 and starts out with teleoperated “SciBots” networked together in swarms to explore and prospect for resources at the Moon’s south pole. They are battery powered and need to periodically recharge at stations at the base of solar power towers at the Peaks of Eternal Light, similar to what Trans Astronautical Corp. is planning with their Sunflower system. This time frame seems overly optimistic given that NASA’s Artemis program won’t return astronauts to the Moon until the mid 2020s and Jeff Foust reported recently that a second landing won’t take place until 2 years later. Would it be more realistic to move out the timeline 5-10 years?
BPD: As Kathy Lueders at NASA has said, our strategy with both Moon and Mars is ‘Bots then Boots’. There is much scientific and ISRU work that can be done before the humans arrive. (See the article on my blog “The Mother of All CLPS Missions.”) With the Moon’s close proximity and communications satellites, we can teleoperate rovers much easier than on Mars. Regarding the SLS/Artemis timeline, I don’t believe it will ever reach full fruition. The Artemis/Gateway architecture is too expensive and too slow. There is a paradigm shift happening now as the concept of large, re-usable, re-fuel able, high payload, quick launch cadence rockets is being proven out with SpaceX’s Starship.
SSP: After discovery of the lava tube in which Tube Town is eventually established, the public “was clamoring for more” and the “excitement of the discovery of the tube breathed new life into lunar and space exploration”. I know that I would be excited, and most space cadets would be as well, but why would the general public be so supportive of space exploration because of the discovery of a lava tube on the Moon? A recent poll found that a majority of people think that sending astronauts to the moon or Mars should be either low or not a priority.
BPD: Now that we’re starting to get the rockets, the American public will soon see landers and rovers return to the Moon. This time it will be in HD TV. At some point Americans will return to the Moon. This will be must-see TV. Taikonauts will eventually land on the Moon. This will definitely light a fire under the Americans. Interest in the Moon and lunar exploration will go up. The problem will be sustaining interest (We have an incredibly short attention span). After the world record TV event, interest will wane. We will only be able to put a few astronauts in small habitats on the surface for short periods of time. Upon discovery of an intact lava tube people will know that we could actually build a town on the Moon. Even better than that guy described in that book… what was it called?
SSP: Tube Town is operated by an umbrella organization of national space programs led by NASA called the International Space Program. How do you envision this cost sharing structure getting started?
BPD: Although much cheaper than a comparable sized surface base, outfitting a lava tube for human habitation will not be cheap. Much of the materials can be made in situ, such as aluminum sheeting for the floors and airlocks, waterless concrete, steel for pressure vessels to hold volatile gasses, but much will need to come from Earth such as Factory machines, computers, electronics, medical equipment, etc.
In Tube Town, this cost is spread among the space programs of 27 countries of the International Space Program (NASA, ESA plus 9 countries that signed the Artemis Accords).
US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, India, Brazil, Israel, United Arab Emirates, and the 17 member countries of the European Space Agency (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom). Notable holdouts were China (CNSA) and Russia (Roscosmos).
The ISP is a cost and opportunity sharing umbrella organization for building and maintaining a large Moon base and robotic creation of a Mars base and the first crewed mission to Mars.
NASA would be the lead partner of the ISP, but project decisions were approved and administered by the ISP Board of Directors consisting of the member countries of the organization with weighted voting rights proportionate to their contribution. Many countries wanted to get in on the ground floor of a new space economy but couldn’t afford to duplicate the resources and infrastructure that already existed at NASA. With their combined buying power, the ISP could source rockets, landers, robotics, space suits, etc. from the most efficient and innovative private suppliers. In return, ISP countries received habitation services (shelter, atmosphere, food, water) and discounted rates for:
leasing habitation space in the Tube for scientific or commercial enterprise,
buying propellant and other in situ resources, and
payload return to Earth
ISP construction costs of the Tube are initially off-set by lunar tourism and bespoke mining. Tourism licenses are issued by the ISP to private companies. The contracts include revenue sharing, ISP Code of Conduct compliance and Space Heritage sites preservation requirements. In exchange, the licensees get transportation, medical emergency and habitation services on the Moon.
In Tube Town, the first ISP tourism licensee is with Lunar Experience, LLC. LE licensed 50 seats for a seven Earth day stay. They ran two tours per Earth month to take advantage of the Nearside lunar day (in early days, most of the popular attractions were on the Nearside). LE agreed to give away 25% of the seats to people who could not afford the price. So, of the 50 seats per trip, 12 were free and 38 were paying customers. Assuming a ticket price of $5m for a trip to the Moon for a week, a flight made $190m. The revenue sharing agreement with the ISP was 60/40 (LE 60%, ISP 40%) so for that $190m flight, LE earned $114m and ISP $76m. If only two trips were completed per month, the yearly income would be LE $1.3B and ISP $912m. The ticket price would double to watch the uncrewed launches to Mars and the price would triple to be a part of history to witness the crewed launch to Mars.
In addition, the ISP or commercial customers could take advantage of very reasonable freight rates to backhaul refined payload on the returning tourist rockets to Earth. When would the price become affordable for regular people? Probably after the third tube is discovered. I could see an ISP member like UAE opening a large lava tube exclusively as a vacation resort.
SSP: The main product produced by Tube Town’s factory is spacecraft for Mars exploration and the eventual establishment of an outpost on the Red Planet. Presumably, at least at first, not all electronic components can be made on the Moon so will have to be imported from Earth via a space-based supply chain. Elon Musk is designing Starship to go directly to Mars from Earth. Why does building spacecraft on the Moon for a Mars mission make economic sense when compared to “going direct” like Starship, and why isn’t Starship mentioned in the book?
BPD: The book is a work of fiction so I try not to use real names or products. Although I think Starship is the first of its class of big, reusable rockets, I also think the concept will be replicated (like airliners) and hopefully there will be several options in the Earth to Moon supply chain. If you can make a big re-usable rocket on a beach in Texas, you can make one inside a nice lava tube on the Moon. We will also need to get lots of bots and machinery to Mars before the humans. This can also be manufactured on the Moon. When you launch, you don’t have to fight the giant gravity well of Earth (12.6 km/s vs 2.6 km/s) and you may not even have to re-fuel to head for Mars. Huge payloads will be much more economical from the Moon.
Artist conception of a spacecraft manufacturer inside a lava tube. Credit: Riley Dunn
SSP: Tube Town has a Farm devoted to food production, waste re-cycling, and ice processing. However, without insects or wind pollination it is not possible to grow desirable fruits and vegetables like apples, squash, melons and many more. You devised an innovative way to pollinate the plants. Tell us about that!
BPD: Nearly all of the technology described in the book is based on existing technology, whether in the lab or in production. Harvey’s pollinating space bees are based on a combination of miniature drone-delivered soap bubble pollination and AI image recognition software.
SSP: In your book, the Apollo 11 landing site becomes a tourist destination. What steps are taken to preserve this fragile heritage site?
BPD: I think the Apollo 11 site is the must-see tourist attraction on the Moon. Part of that attraction is that you can still see the boot prints of the astronauts in the regolith. On the moon, boot prints are forever- unless another human destroys them. It only takes one knucklehead.
In my book, a regolith wall is built around the site to protect from plume drift from vehicles. The entrance is a good distance away from the site. Access into the site is in a plexiglass pod that is suspended above the surface. A cable system mounted on tall towers maneuvers pods of tourists through the site from above, giving them a close-up encounter, yet not disturbing the artifacts nor the regolith.
There should be multiple Space Heritage Sites on the Moon consisting of artificial artifacts from multiple countries and natural wonders like Schroter’s Valley. They should be identified and preserved by the tourist licensees that will profit from them.
Vallis Schröteri (Schroter’s Valley), believed to be volcanic in origin, is the largest sinuous rille on the Moon seen here as imaged by Apollo 15. Credits: NASA via Wikipedia
SSP: Tube Town has a centrifuge in the Rec Section to provide artificial gravity for residents to maintain their physical health, but very little detail is provided. How often do residents use this facility, on average, and is it’s radius optimized to minimize Coriolis forces? You might consider this well thought out design for a centrifuge.
BPD: I love this design for a lunar lava tube environment! The Rec section of Tube Town is over 400m wide so this is the perfect place for a floor mounted Dorais Gravity Train. In my book, this would be used for scientific study of the effects of artificial gravity treatment in a low gravity environment. They would do studies on both animals, plants and humans. I see crewmembers and tourists using the gravity train as a health spa and treatment against ‘gravity sickness’.
SSP: There are a couple of resident dogs in Tube Town and one them actually becomes pregnant. This has huge implications for biomedical research on mammalian reproduction in lunar gravity and in particular, determination of the gravity prescription for healthy human gestation. In my opinion, determination of the gravity prescription is one of the most significant questions to be answered for long term space settlement. Tell us about how this research is carried out in Tube Town in an ethical manner?
BPD: The studies would start with mice. Only when and if the studies show that mammalian reproduction in low gravity is safe, would the crew move up to higher level mammals. If safe, the female dog would be taken off the canine birth control medication she is on. BTW, all the ISP crewmembers and commercial residents must agree to be on birth control medication while living on the Moon. Many may choose to freeze eggs or sperm on Earth before a long deployment in space.
SSP: Where on the Moon should we look for lava tubes?
BPD: Nearly all of the volcanic activity of the Moon was on the Nearside, not the Farside. So we should definitely concentrate on the Nearside. We can see lots of collapsed lava tubes on the surface of the Moon, the intact ones are probably in the same regions.
My suggestion is to look for them where we would like to find them, in other words, lets look in strategic lunar base locations where there is water and power and easy access to other useful minerals (like metals).
I’m sure NASA knows better than me, but my target priorities would be:
North Pole – because its near water and solar power and metals (the Northern Oceanus Procellarum and the highlands between the maria).
South Pole – because its near water and solar power. The South Pole-Aitken basin is a large impact crater but apparently there was some later volcanic activity so it is possible to find tubes in the South Pole area but they may be smaller in size and length than the ones in the Maria.
Marius Hills (southwest of Schroter’s Valley in Oceanus Procellarum) – because there is lots of volcanic activity and collapsed tubes and it is near minerals and metals.
SSP: Thanks Brian for your exciting vision of our future on the Moon and for the opportunity to get a sneak peek. I’m enjoying the story of Tube Town and wish you much success with the release of the book.
Conceptual illustration depicting the deployment sequence of a LEO Moon-Mars dumbbell partial gravity facility serviced by SpaceX’s Starship. Left: Starship payloads being moored by a robot arm. Center: 1.6 m ID inflatable airbeams (yellow) play out from spin access and mate with dumbbell end modules. Rectangular solar arrays deploy by hanging at either end as spin is initiated via thrusters at Mars module. Right: Full deployment with Starship and Dragon docked at spin axis hub. Credits: Joe Carroll via The Space Review
There may be no single human factor more important to understand on the road to long term space settlement than determination of the gravity prescription (GRx) for healthy living in less than Earth normal gravity. What do we mean by the GRx? With over 60 years of human space flight experience we still only have two data points for stays longer than a few days to study the effects of gravity on human physiology: microgravity aboard the ISS and data here on the ground. Based on medical research to date, we know that significant problems arise in human health after months of exposure to microgravity. To name a few, osteoporosis, immune system degradation, diminished muscle mass, vision problems due to changes in interocular pressure and cognitive impairment resulting memory loss and lack concentration. Some of these problems can be mitigated with a few hours of daily exercise. But recovery upon return to normal gravity takes considerable time and we don’t know if some of these problems will become irreversible after longer term stays. We have virtually no data on human health at gravity levels of the Moon and Mars, as shown in this graph by Joe Carrol:
The more important question for permanent space settlements is can humans have babies in lower gravity? If we go by the National Space Societies’ definition, an outpost will never really become a permanent space settlement until it is “biologically self-sustaining”. We evolved over millions of years at the bottom Earth’s gravity well. How will amniotic fluid, changes in cell growth, fetal development and human embryos be affected during gestation under lower gravity conditions on the Moon or Mars? There are already indications that problems will arise during mammalian gestation, at least in microgravity as experienced aboard the ISS.
To answer these questions, Joe Carroll suggests the establishment of a crewed artificial gravity research facility in LEO which he described last month in an article in The Space Review. He proposes a Moon-Mars dumbbell with nodes spinning at different rates to simulate gravity on both the Moon and Mars, which covers most of the planetary bodies in the solar system where settlements would be established if not in free space. The facility could be launched and tended by SpaceX’s Starship once the spacecraft is flight worthy in the next few years in parallel with Elon Musk’s plans to establish an outpost on Mars. Musk may even want to fund this facility to inform his long term plans for communities on Mars. If his goal is for the humanity to become a multiplanetary species, surely will want to know if his settlers can have children.
Carroll’s design connects the Moon and Mars modules with radial structures called “airbeams” which will allow crew to access the variable gravity nodes in a shirtsleeve environment. The inflatable members are composed of polymer fiber fabric which can be easily folded for storage in the Starship payload bay. Crews would be initially launched aboard Dragon until the Starship is human rated.
“Eventually, rotating free-space settlements will get massive enough to use other shapes, but dumbbells plus airbeams seem like the key to useful early ones.”
The paper addresses details on key operating concepts, docking procedures, emergency protocols, and the implications for long term settlement in the solar system.
There may even be a market for orbital tourism to experience lower gravity that could make funding for the facility attractive to space venture capitalists, especially if it is located in an equatorial orbit shielded from ionizing radiation by the Earth’s magnetic fields. As the technology matures, older tourists may even want to retire in orbital communities that offer the advantage of lower gravity as their bodies become frail in their golden years.
Humankind’s expansion out into the solar system depends on where we can survive and thrive in a healthy environment. If ethical clinical studies on lower mammals in a Moon/Mars dumbbell clears the way for a healthy life in lunar gravity then we can expand out to the six largest moons including our own plus Mars. If the data shows we need at least Mars gravity, then the Red Planet or even Mercury could be potential sites for permanent settlement. But if nothing below Earth normal gravity is tolerable, especially for mammalian gestation, it may be necessary to build ever larger rotating O’Neillian free space settlements to expand civilization across the solar system. There are vast resources and virtually unlimited energy if we need to do that. But it will take considerable time and careful planning to establish the vast infrastructure needed to build these settlements. If human physiology is constrained by Earth’s gravity then space settlers will want to know this information soon so that the planning process can be integrated into space development activities about to unfold on the Moon and beyond. If Musk finds out that Mars inhabitants cannot have children and wants to establish permanent communities beyond Earth, would he change course and switch to O’Neillian free space settlements?
“If we do need sustained gravity at levels higher than that of Mars, it seems easier to develop sustainable rotating settlements than to terraform any near-1g planet.”
Listen to Joe Carroll answer my questions about his Moon/Mars dumbbell facility from earlier this month on this archived episode of The Space Show.
Conceptual illustration of the Lunar OXygen In-situ Experiment (LOXIE) Production Prototype. Credits: Mark Berggren / Pioneer Astronautics
Here’s a novel way to produce both oxygen and steel in situ on the Moon and eventually on Mars. Under a NASA SBIR Phase II Sequential Contract, Pioneer Astronautics along with team members Honeybee Robotics and the Colorado School of Mines are developing what they call Moon to Mars Oxygen and Steel Technology (MMOST), an integrated system to produce metallic iron/steel and oxygen from processed lunar regolith.
In a presentation at a meeting of the Lunar Surface Innovation Consortium last month, Mark Berggren of Pioneer Astronautics gave an update on the team’s efforts. Progress has been made on several key processes under development as part of the overall manufacturing flow. Output products will include oxygen for either life support or rocket fuel oxidizer and metallic iron for additive manufacturing of lunar steel components.
MMOST process flow diagram. Credits: Mark Berggren / Pioneer Astronautics
The immediate next steps for the MMOST development program will be continual refinement of each process module, protocols for minimization of power requirements, demonstration of LOXIE in a vacuum environment and then optimization of mass, volume and power specifications for a scaled-up system toward flight readiness hardware.
Potential follow-on activities may include a robotic sub-scale LOXIE lunar flight experiment that could be sent to the Moon via a Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) lander. As part of the Artemis program crews could possibly demonstrate a pilot unit to validate manufacturing in the lunar environment. If successful, a full scale MMOST commercial system could come next in support of lunar base operations as part of a cis-lunar economy.
A fully autonomous self replicating factory in space requires significant advancements in artificial intelligence, robotics, and other fields. Such facilities are mainly theoretical at this point and may not be feasible for many decades. But if humans could “guide” the operation remotely via computer control, a colony on the Moon could be started relatively soon. This could be the proving ground for establishing such facilities on other worlds which Shubov believes could be set up on Mercury, Mars and in the Asteroid Belt eventually leading to exponential growth allowing humanity to expand out into the solar system and beyond. He suggests that rather then using the usual definition of self-replication in which a factory would make a duplicate copy of itself, until this capability is realized, a better figure of merit would be the “doubling time”. This is how long it takes to double the facility’s mass, energy production, and machine production.
I reached out to Dr. Shubov about this article and discovered that he has been busy with a variety of scholarly papers on several technologies needed for space settlement. He agreed to a wide ranging interview via email about these topics and his vision of our future in space.
SSP: Thank you Dr. Shubov for taking the time for this interview. With respect to your work on Guided Self Replicating Factories (GSRF), there are already companies developing semiautonomous robots for in situ resource utilization on other worlds. OffWorld, Inc. states that “We envision millions of smart robots working under human supervision on and offworld, turning the inner solar system into a better, gentler, greener place for life and civilization.” Their business model is focused on developing a robotics platform for mining and construction on Earth, then leveraging the technology for use in space. Do you think this is a good approach to get started?
MS: Thank you Mr. John Jossy for taking interest in my work!
In my opinion, remotely guided robots will be very effective for construction of a colony on the Moon. These robots could be guided by thousands of remote operators on Earth. They would be linked to Earth’s Internet via Starlink which is already being deployed by Elon Musk via SpaceX. Starlink will consist of thousands of satellites linked by lasers and providing broadband Internet on Earth. About 1,646 satellites are already orbiting the Earth.
Hopefully, it would be possible to produce [an] Earth-Moon Internet Connection of about a Terabit per second. That would enable people on Earth to remotely operate hundreds of thousands of robots.
Using these robots on Asteroids and other planets of Solar System will be much more difficult due to low bandwidth and high delay of communication. For example, latency of communication between Earth and Mars is 4 to 21 minutes.
SSP: Obviously, establishing outposts on other worlds where astronauts could teleoperate robots to build a GSRF would eliminate the latency problem, which you address in your paper.
You’ve envisioned four elements of a GSRF: an electric power plant, a material production system (ore mining, beneficiation, smelting), an assembly system in which factory parts are shaped and fabricated, and a space transportation system. With respect to the space transportation system you cover both launch vehicles and in-space propulsion systems. The space transportation element of a GSRF, although vital for its implementation, seems to be an external part of the system. In fact, you stated that “Initially, spaceships will be built on Earth. Fuel for refueling spaceships will be produced in space colonies from the beginning.” So, when calculating the doubling time of a GSRF, we are not including the production of space transportation systems, correct?
MS: In my opinion, [the] space transportation system may become part of GSRF at later stages of development. How soon space transportation becomes a part of GSRF depends on the speed of development of different technologies.
If inexpensive space launch from Earth becomes available, then there will be less reliance on self-replication and more reliance on transportation of materials from Earth. In this case, space transportation system will not be part of GSRF for a long time.
If rapid growth of a Space Colony by utilization of in situ resources is possible, then many elements of space transportation system would be produced at the colony. In this case, [the] space transportation system will become a part of GSRF relatively soon.
SSP: You suggest that an important product produced by a GSRF in the Asteroid Belt would be platinum group metals to be delivered to Earth, and that they would help finance expansion of space colonization. Some space resource experts, including John C. Lewis, believe that “…there is so vast a supply of platinum-group elements in the NEA [Near Earth Asteroids] … that exploiting even a tiny fraction of them would cause the market value to crash, bringing to an end the economic incentive to mine and import them.” Some suggest the market for these precious metals may be in space not on Earth. When you say “delivered to Earth” what markets were you envisioning to generate the profits needed to finance the GSRF?
MS: In my opinion the main applications of platinum group metals would be in industry. First, PGM are very important as chemical reaction catalysts. In particular, platinum is used in hydrogen fuel cells and iridium is a catalyst in electrolytic cells. It is likely that demand for platinum, iridium and other PGM will grow along with hydrogen economy. Second, platinum and palladium is used in glass fiber production.
Third, Iridium-coated rhenium rocket thrusters have outstanding performance and reusability. Rhenium is also used in jet engines. These thrusters will also provide a market for iridium and rhenium metals.
SSP: As the need for PGM grows exponentially in the future, especially with energy and battery production needs on Earth in the near future, the environmental impacts of mining these materials on Earth may be another reason to source these materials off world.
Mining water to produce hydrogen for rocket fuel is a theme throughout your writings. In a paper submitted to the arXix.org server last month entitled Feasibility Study For Hydrogen Producing Colony on Mars, you propose that a technologically mature Martian factory could produce and deliver at least 1 million tons of liquid hydrogen per year to Low Earth Orbit. Does placing a hydrogen production facility on Mars for fuel used in near-Earth space make sense from a delta-v perspective? You acknowledge that initially it will be cheaper and easier to access the Moon’s polar ice to produce hydrogen. But in the long term, Near Earth Asteroids (NEA) or even the Asteroid Belt are easier to access and they include CI Group carbonaceous chondrites which contain a high percentage (22%) of water. Can you reconcile the economics of sourcing hydrogen on Mars over NEAs?
MS: Delivery of Martian hydrogen into the vicinity of Earth may be necessary only when the space transportation technology is relatively mature. In particular, as I mention in my work, Lunar ice caps contain between 48 million and 73 million tons of easily accessible hydrogen. Until at least 16 million tons of Lunar hydrogen is used, hydrogen from other sources would not be needed.
As I calculate in my work, delta-v for transporting hydrogen from Low Mars Orbit to LEO is 3.5 km/s accomplished by rocket engines plus about 3.2 km/s accomplished by aerobreaking. This would be economic if vast amounts of electric energy will be produced on Mars easier than on asteroids. An important and renewable resource on Mars is the heat sink in the form of dry ice. This may enable production of vast amounts of electric energy by nuclear power plants.
Even if delivery of hydrogen from Low Mars Orbit to Earth turns out to be economically infeasible, hydrogen depots in near-Mars deep space would still play a very important role in transportation to and from Asteroid Belt as well as [the] Outer Solar System.
SSP: Your first choice of a power source for the colony on Mars is an innovative heat engine utilizing dry ice harvested from the vast cold reservoirs at the planet’s polar caps. You suggest that the initial heat source for this sublimation engine be a nuclear reactor. Why not simply use the nuclear reactor to produce electricity? Nuclear reactors coupled to high efficiency Stirling engines for electricity generation like NASA’s Kilopower project have very high power density per unit weight and the technology will be relatively mature soon. Your second choices are solar and wind which are not as reliable as a nuclear power source, especially with reduced solar flux at Mars’s orbit and the problem caused by dust in the atmosphere. Why was a more mature nuclear power technology for direct electricity production not considered?
MS: Thank you. As I understand now, a regular nuclear reactor with a heat engine using water or ammonia as a working fluid is the best choice for energy production on Mars. Dry ice should only be used as a heat sink and not as working fluid. Given the very low temperature and ambient pressure of Martian dry ice, it is likely that power plants will have thermal efficiency of at least 50%.
Almost all components of Martian power stations can be manufactured from in situ resources. Only the reactors themselves and the nuclear fuel will have to be delivered from Earth.
SSP: A booming space transportation economy will need cryogenic fuel depots to store hydrogen for rocket fuel in strategic locations throughout the inner solar system. You’ve got this covered in your recent paper Hydrogen Fuel Depot in Space. Some start ups like Orbit Fab have already started work in this area, albeit on a smaller scale, and United Launch Alliance integrated cryogenic storage into their Cislunar-1000 plans a few years back, but this initiative seems to have slowed down due to delays in ULA’s next generation Vulcan launch vehicle. In this paper you calculate the required energy to refrigerate hydrogen in one smaller (400 tons) and another larger (40,000 tons) depot. In both cases, a sun shield is required to block sunlight to prevent boil off. You don’t mention the method of power generation to provide energy for the refrigeration units. Could the sun shield have a dual use function by incorporating photovoltaic solar cells on the sun facing side to generate electricity to power the refrigeration system?
Diagram depicting a cryogenic liquid hydrogen storage depot with 40,000 ton capacity. Credits: Mikhail Shubov
MS: Power for the refrigeration system will be provided by an array of solar cells placed on the sun shield. As I mention in my work, the 400 ton depot requires 80 kW electric power for the refrigeration system, while the 40,000 ton depot requires 840 kW electric power. This power can be easily provided by photovoltaic arrays.
SSP: SpaceX has proven what was once believed impossible: that rockets could be reused and that turnaround times and reliability could approach airline type operations. Although we are not there yet, costs continue to come down. In your paper entitled Feasibility Study For Multiply Reusable Space Launch System you calculate that with your proposed system in which the first two stages are reusable and the third stage engine can be returned from orbit, launch costs could be reduced to $300/kg. Musk is claiming that with the projected long term flight cadence, eventually Starship costs could be as low as $10/kg. Even if he is off by a factor of 10 that is still lower than your figure. What advantages does your system offer over Starship?
MS: The main advantage of the Multiply Reusable Space Launch System is the relatively light load placed on each stage. As I mention on p. 10, the first stage has delta-v of 2.6 km/s and the second stage has delta-v of 1.85 km/s. The engines have high fuel to oxidizer ratio and a low combustion chamber temperature of 2,100oC. These relatively light loads on the rocket airframes and engines should make these rockets multiply reusable similar to airliners. The launch system should be able to perform about 300 space deliveries per year.
Hopefully Elon Musk would succeed [in] reducing launch costs to at least $100 per kg. Unfortunately, many previous attempts at drastic reduction of launch costs did not succeed. Hence, we may not be sure of Starship’s success yet.
SSP: You state in several of your papers that:
“A civilization encompassing the whole Solar System would be able to support a population of 10 quadrillion people at material living standards vastly superior to those in USA 2020. Colonization of the Solar System will be an extraordinary important step for Humankind.”
Why do you think that colonization of the solar system is important for humanity and when do you think the first permanent settlement will be established on the Moon or in free space? Here I use the National Space Society’s definition of a space settlement:
‘ “A space settlement” refers to a habitation in space or on a celestial body where families live on a permanent basis, and that engages in commercial activity which enables the settlement to grow over time, with the goal of becoming economically and biologically self-sustaining as a part of a larger network of space settlements. “Space settlement” refers to the creation of that larger network of space settlements. ‘
MS: In my opinion colonization of Solar System will bring unlimited resources and material prosperity to Humankind. The human population itself will be able to grow by the factor of a million without putting a strain on the available resources.
As for the time-frame of establishment of human settlements on the Moon and outer space, I have both optimistic and pessimistic thoughts. On one hand, Humankind already possesses technology needed to establish rapidly growing space settlements. This means that Solar System colonization can start at any time. On the other hand, such technology already existed in 1970s. This technology is discussed in Gerard K. O’Neill’s 1976 book “The High Frontier: Human Colonies in Space”. Thus, space colonization can be indefinitely delayed by the lack of political will. Hopefully space colonization will start sooner rather then later.
Credits: Gerard K. O’Neill / Space Studies Institute Press
The NERVA solid core nuclear rocket engine. Credits: NASA
James Dewar believes it is time to reconsider the solid core nuclear thermal rocket, like what was developed in the 1960s under the NASA’s Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application (NERVA) Project, as a high thrust cargo vehicle for opening up the solar system and for solving problems here on Earth. A tall order, as he explained in his appearance on The Space Show (TSS) October 26, because nuclear propulsion within the atmosphere and close to the Earth was taken off the table by NASA over 60 years ago and research on nuclear rockets was put on ice after 1973 until recently. Dewar worked on nuclear policy at the Atomic Energy Commission and its successor agencies, the Energy Research and Development Administration and the Department of Energy. He has documented his views in a paper linked on TSS blog.
What is old could be new again. NERVA had a very light high power solid core reactor with Uranium 235 fuel in a graphite matrix creating nuclear fission to heat hydrogen to produce rocket thrust. The specific impulse (efficiency in conversion of fuel to thrust) of the first iteration of NERVA was about 825 seconds, or almost twice that of chemical rockets. More efficient versions were on the drawing board. The compact design (35×52-inch core) lends itself to low development costs and would be inexpensive to fabricate and operate. It has the potential to lower launch costs significantly and research could pick up where it left off nearly 50 years ago.
So why is NASA announcing development of new nuclear thermal propulsion systems for missions to Mars in the distant future? The reactor cores like those used in Project NERVA are known technologies that can it be adapted for other useful applications and it can be done safely on Earth. There could be a large niche market for energy production in remote rural areas such as Alaska or Canada, or supplementing base load utilities during power disruptions due to severe weather events. With their high operating temperatures, these reactors can replace fossil fuel power generation for manufacturing industries that require process heat such as steel/aluminum or chemical production, which cannot be powered efficiently by wind or solar energy. There may also be a cost advantage and environmental benefit to replacing carbon based fuels for powering maritime oceangoing vessels.
“Even the Greens may support it…What if a reestablished program included making a nuclear propelled 1000-foot tanker sized skimmer to rid the oceans of plastic?”
Additionally, a nuclear reactor of this type could service manufacturing centers in both space and on Earth. It could inexpensively launch satellites and provide power for environmental and solar weather stations to monitor and protect Earth’s health. Dewar even thinks that the solid core nuclear reactor could be used to address the growing global problem of industrial waste by melting it down to its chemical constituents and then separating out commercially valuable components from the actual waste prior to permanent disposal. The low launch costs of the nuclear rocket may actually make disposal of waste off Earth economically feasible. Whole clean industries could spring up around these process centers. So this type of reactor could address many national goals and objectives rather than just crewed missions to Mars or deep space.
But what about the elephant in the room? Safety, radiation and fear of all things “nuclear”? Would the public support ground based testing if a NERVA type solid core nuclear thermal rocket program were restarted? Dewar covers this in detail in his book The Nuclear Rocket, Making Our Planet Green, Peaceful and Prosperous. As reported by the EPA in 1974, “…It is concluded that off-site exposures or doses from nuclear rocket engine tests at [the] NRDS [Nuclear Rocket Development Station] have been below applicable guides.”
What about regular launches of a nuclear rocket in the Earth’s atmosphere? First, the launch range proposed would be in an isolated ocean area over water to eliminate the possibility of failure or impact in populated regions. Second, the nuclear core would be enclosed in a reentry vehicle type cocoon for safe recovery in the event of an accident. Third, the nuclear engine is envisioned as an upper stage and would not be “turned on” until boosted high in the stratosphere, thus emission of gamma rays and neutrons from the fission reaction would not be any different then the radiation already impinging on our atmosphere from cosmic and solar radiation.
“…the best way to banish fear is for citizens to profit from the program.”
There is also the potential for the U.S. and its citizens to profit from this venture. Dewar suggests a governance framework for creating a public/private corporation in which the private sector is in charge, but leases assets from NASA and DOE. The government would support the venture via isolated testing sites, providing technical advice, supplying the uranium fuel and security to guard against potential nuclear proliferation. The public/private partnership would be set up to incentivize citizen participation through stock purchases and distribution of dividends in addition to providing jobs and funding the missions.
“Another source of funding would exist beyond the government or private billionaires: the public now has access”
Dewar concludes his paper with an inspirational statement: “…a new space program emerges based on science, not emotion, one that maximizes the technology for terrestrial applications, one that neuters the rocket equations and democratizes the space program, allowing citizens to participate and profit, and one that ever integrates Earth into the Solar System.”
Diagram depicting the market sectors of the nascent in-space economy. Credits: Erik Kulu / Factories in Space
Erik Kulu, a Senior Systems Engineer in the satellite industry, has a passion for emerging technologies…especially those in the in-space manufacturing field. He’s created the largest public database of companies active in the emerging in-space economy. Called Factories in Space, it tracks companies engaged in microgravity services, space resources, in-space transport services, the economies of LEO, cislunar space, the Moon and much more.
Kulu provides an overview of commercial microgravity applications for both terrestrial and in-space use. His listing and analysis of potential business ventures provides a comprehensive summary of unique profitable commodities manufactured in microgravity, including fiber optics, medical products, exotic materials and many more.
Breakdown of the in-space manufacturing sector of the space economy. Credits: Erik Kulu / Factories in Space
“This is the missing piece to speed up development for the exciting Star Trek-like future. I believe in-space manufacturing will be the kickstarter and foundation.”
In a recent industry survey examining the commercial landscape of space resources in 2021, Kulu renders a statistical breakdown of the currently evolving development stages of in-space manufacturing companies, levels of funding by market sector, timing of company founding and geographical location of the main players. His analysis shows a marked increase in the formation of companies from 2016 – 2018 dropping off over the last 3 years.
Prominent founding peak of space resource companies in 2018 with drop at end of the last decade. Credits: Erik Kulu / Factories in Space
I asked Kulu about what he thought caused the downward taper because it seemed to have started before the COVID-19 pandemic, and so was probably unrelated. He agreed, and offers this explanation:
“Primarily, I think the decline is a mix of following:
There was a boom of some sorts, which has slowed down in terms of very new startups. Similar graphs [indicate the same trend] for nanosatellite, constellation and launcher companies. Funding boom is continuing though.
As many of those space fields do not have obvious markets, some potential new actors might be in wait mode, because they want to see what happens financially and technically to existing companies.
Startups could be in stealth mode or very early stage and as such I have not become aware of them yet. They will likely partially backfill.”
“While there was a decline, I forecast Starship and return to the Moon will kick off another wave in about 2-3 years.”
Kulu also tracks NewSpace commercial satellite constellations, small satellite rocket launchers and NewSpace funding options through his sister site NewSpace Index. But he doesn’t stop there. The world’s largest catalog of nanosatellites containing over 3200 nanosats and CubeSats can be found in his Nanosats database.
Learn more about how Erik Kulu got started tracking the in-space economy in this interview from earlier this year over on Filling Space. And be sure and tune in live to The Space Show next month when I cohost with David Livingston for his debut appearance, exact date to be determined. You can call the show and ask Erik questions directly. Check TSS Newsletter, updated weekly, for the show date once its set. This post will be updated when the schedule is finalized, so readers can check back here as well.
