Posted on

TESSARAE for orbital biolabs and more

Conceptual illustration of an orbital biolab constructed using TESSERAE architecture. Credit: Aurelia Institute

At last year’s International Conference on Environmental Systems (ICES), Aurelia Institute Vice President of Engineering Annika Rollock presented a paper on development of an orbital TESSERAE habitat to conduct biotechnology research. TESSERAE (Tessellated Electromagnetic Space Structures for the Exploration of Reconfigurable, Adaptive Environments) covered previously on SSP, was conceived and developed by Ariel Ekblaw, cofounder and CEO of Aurelia as part of her doctoral thesis at MIT. A TED Talk by Ekblaw from last April provides more detail on the concept with footage of prototypes demonstrated in space on the International Space Station (ISS).

The paper “Development of a Flight-Scale TESSERAE Habitat Concept for Biotechnology Research Outpost Applications” by Rollock, Max Pommier, William J. O’Hara, and Ekblaw, presents preliminary findings from a case study on the TESSERAE habitat which aims to bridge traditional space station architectures with future-oriented, adaptive designs. Legacy space habitats, such as the ISS, rely on monolithic hulls or cylindrical modules constrained by launch vehicle fairings, limiting scalability and geometric flexibility. TESSERAE offers a departure from these norms by using flat-packed, tile-based modules that self-assemble in orbit to form a truncated icosahedron. This structure, commonly known as a “buckyball” sharing the same shape as the carbon molecule buckminsterfullerene (C60) named after architect and inventor R. Buckminster Fuller due to its resemblance to his geodesic dome designs, will enable larger volumes and novel configurations when connected together.

The authors provide more detail on the concept referencing a trade study presented at ICES 2023 by the Aurelia Institute, which reviewed historical and contemporary space architecture to identify gaps and opportunities. They underscore the need for habitats that are both innovative and grounded in proven engineering principles. The paper serves as a “dynamic snapshot” of the ongoing TESSERAE case study as of spring 2024, inviting collaboration rather than presenting a finalized design. It envisions a platform based on TESSERAE as a commercial biotechnology research outpost in Low Earth Orbit (LEO), aligning with NASA’s Commercial LEO Destinations (CLD) goals and the burgeoning market for microgravity-enabled research. The paper highlights subsystem analyses for environmental control, thermal management, and power, alongside novel interior layouts informed by user research and terrestrial architecture best practices.

The authors make the case that self-assembling structures like TESSERAE could revolutionize human spaceflight by enabling adaptive environments that support diverse crews, including non-professional astronauts. This is particularly timely as the ISS nears decommissioning in 2031, necessitating new orbital platforms for critical research with increasing involvement by private industry..

The mission overview lays out one possible operational vision for the 2030s: a TESSERAE microgravity platform sustaining human life, scientific inquiry with a biotechnology focus, and ancillary activities in LEO. Designed for a crew of four—two biotechnologists and two career astronauts—it features biotechnology applications, capitalizing on microgravity’s unique properties for protein crystallization and biologic medicines production.

Protein crystal growth in space yields superior quality due to reduced sedimentation and convection, facilitating precise structural data for drug discovery. The paper references applications in treating among other maladies, muscular dystrophy, breast cancer, and periodontal disease, citing decades of ISS-based experiments by pharmaceutical firms. Similarly, biologic medicines—proteins, enzymes, nucleic acids, and antibodies derived from natural sources—benefit from low-gravity acceleration in discovery and preclinical testing. The global biologics market is projected to reach over $700 billion by 2030, underscoring the potential economic upside. Innovations like Redwire’s seed-based crystal manufacturing and Varda’s in-orbit ritonavir production (an HIV antiviral) have demonstrated feasibility, with microgravity enabling bulk-free returns via seeds or small samples.

The concept of operations (ConOps) details a 32-tile assembly (20 hexagons, 12 pentagons, each 2.26 m edge length, 0.46 m thick), launched in a dispenser stacked aboard a SpaceX Falcon 9 launch vehicle. After dispensing out of the payload bay, orbital self-assembly employs electro-permanent magnets for bonding at the tile edges, forming a 493 m³ pressurized volume post-clamping and gasketing. Outfitting prioritizes autonomy: critical systems integrate into the tiles, with secondary elements (e.g., storage, mobility aids) added via robotics or minimal EVAs. After full systems checkout post-assembly, operations include 1–6 month crewed expeditions, cargo resupplies, and uncrewed intervals.

Comparative occupancy analysis positions TESSERAE favorably: at 123 m³ per person, it rivals the ISS (168 m³ for six) and Tiangong (113 m³ for three) emphasizing permanent quarters and lab space for its four-person upper limit, ensuring psychological and functional adequacy. This aligns with NASA’s CLD objectives, fostering commercial viability while accommodating “visiting scientists” alongside professionals.

With respect to interior concepts and design principles, TESSERAE’s non-cylindrical, open-central geometry introduces unique interior challenges and opportunities, diverging from conventional axial modules. The paper explores layouts tailored for diverse crews, drawing on user interviews (astronauts, analogue astronauts, scientists) and literature like Sharma et al.’s Astronaut Ethnography Project and Häuplik-Meusburger’s activity-based approach. Five core design principles and “desirements” guide this strategy: a human-centered approach accounting for bodily navigation and psychosocial needs; contextual affordances leveraging microgravity (e.g., multi-axis movement in open volumes); sensory mediation via lighting, acoustics, and airflow for zoned activities; accessibility with ample, clutter-free stowage; and a balance of permanence (fixed volumes) with flexibility (reconfigurable elements like folding partitions).

These principles inform environmental mediations for biotechnology: labs require vibration isolation and containment for experiments, while communal spaces mitigate isolation via views and biophilic design elements. The paper discusses layouts prioritizing flow, orientation, and adaptability. One configuration features a central “node” for socialization and exercise, ringed by radial spokes: private quarters, labs, hygiene nodes, and utility closets embedded in the shell. This exploits the buckyball’s symmetry for efficient use of space, with tethers and handrails guiding microgravity transit. Labs allocate ~100 m³ total, segmented for crystallization (vibration-dampened gloveboxes) and biologics (flow benches, incubators), in accordance with preliminary user needs.

Diagram (Figure 5 from paper) depicting four internal layout options, with key space dividers and elevation maps depicting the arrangement of functional areas on each external tile. Credits: Annika E. Rollock et al. / Aurelia Institute
Exploded view (Figure 6 from paper) of the Lofted layout option for the TESSERAE habitat. Credits: Annika E. Rollock et al. / Aurelia Institute

Sensory design mitigates monotony: variable LED lighting simulates diurnal cycles, acoustic panels dampen noise, and materiality ( e.g., fabric panels) enhances tactility. Stowage integrates nets and modular racks, addressing chronic ISS issues. Flexibility allows crew reconfiguration via magnetic mounts, supporting mission evolution. Hygiene and galley zones emphasize efficiency, with water-efficient fixtures tied to the Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS). Overall, interiors blend spacecraft rigor with architectural humanism, fostering well-being for non-experts.

The authors provide a subsystem analysis discussing trades for ECLSS, thermal control, and power. ECLSS recommendations draw from ISS heritage leveraging NASA’s Carbon Dioxide Removal and Oxygen Generation Assemblies but adapt to TESSERAE’s modularity: distributed nodes per each individual tile reduce single-point failures, with regenerative loops for water and air.

Thermal management addresses the buckyball’s high surface-area-to-volume ratio, prone to radiative losses. Multi-layer insulation and variable-emittance coatings are proposed, integrated into tiles for passive control, supplemented by active radiators and heat exchangers. Finite element modeling was used to inform stress distribution across the tile seams.

Power generation leverages roll-out solar arrays deployed post-assembly, sized for 20–30 kW demands for the needs of the labs, ECLSS and other power systems. Trades evaluate photovoltaics vs. emerging tech, prioritizing launch mass. Batteries buffer eclipse periods, with guidance navigation integrated with attitude control via control gyroscopes, minimizing propellant use.

These analyses emphasize scalability: TESSERAE’s tiles enable redundant, upgradable subsystems, contrasting with legacy monolithic designs.

The paper identifies a few challenges. For instance, assembly reliability (magnet actuation in vacuum), pressurization integrity at seams, and outfitting logistics. But opportunities abound in biotech such as enabling “fly-your-own-experiment” for scientists, accelerating drug pipelines, and demonstrating adaptive habitats for lunar/Mars precursors. User research highlights psychosocial needs—privacy amid openness, sensory variety against confinement—which will inform iterative designs.

Future work matures hardware testing in microgravity (e.g., parabolic flights), refines trades via modeling, and pursues partnerships for CLD certification. The authors invite input, positioning TESSERAE as a collaborative pivot toward reconfigurable space living.

This case study encapsulates one of TESSERAE’s promises: a self-assembling, biotech-focused habitat merging innovation with pragmatism. By the 2030s, it could sustain crews in 493 m³ of adaptive volume in LEO, tapping into a $700B+ market while advancing human-centered space architecture. Preliminary insights from this work — from ConOps to design of interiors— lay the groundwork for transformative outposts that not only return benefits to human lives on Earth, but are preparing humanity to become a spacefaring species.

While the Aurelia Institute is a nonprofit organization, Ariel Ekblaw cofounded a startup called Rendezvous Robotics which aims to generate revenue building large-scale structures like antenna apertures, space solar power arrays and orbital data centers, all autonomously fabricated in space using TESSARAE. Rendezvous Robotics recently partnered with another startup called Starcloud which plans to fabricate gigawatt-scale orbital AI data centers using Ekblaw’s invention, a potentially huge new market forecasted to be just over the horizon by several tech leaders in the news recently. Blue Origin CEO Jeff Bezos just announced he’ll be leading a new AI company called Project Prometheus and says AI orbital data centers are coming in the next decade or two. Last May former Google chief executive Eric Schmidt acquired Relativity Space to put data centers in orbit. Earlier this month Elon Musk says in not more than 5 years, the lowest cost way to do AI compute, will be in space. And Mach33 Research, an investment research firm focused on the industrialization of space, predicts that orbital compute energy will be cheaper than on Earth by 2030. TESSARAE could be leveraged to assemble these space-based hyperscalers autonomously and quickly while proving out this reconfigurable technology which can be used to build large-scale adaptable habitats and other infrastructure in space for a multitude of applications. As stated on the their website,

“Aurelia is working toward geodesic dome habitats, microgravity concert halls, space cathedrals—the next generation of space architecture that will delight, inspire, and protect humanity for our future in the near, and far, reaches of space.”

Artist illustration of a habitat constructed from TESSARAE modules in Earth orbit. Credit: Aurelia Institute

Finally, in celebration of the 50th anniversary of the 1975 NASA Space Settlements: A Design Study, the Institute announced today they are sponsoring The Aurelia Institute Prize in Design for Space Urbanism. An award of up to $20,000 will granted for concepts of a functioning space station in one of three categories: A space station in LEO or at a Lagrange point; a space habitat in lunar orbit or on the surface of the Moon; or an automated industrial facility (e.g. focused on space mining, energy, biotech, etc.) in one of those locations.

Posted on

Novel design of a Mars Cycler

Above – Mars Cycler exploded section. Below – Cruise ship-sized Mars Cycler booster (left) and docking configuration (right). Credits: Offworld Industries Corp.

At the 54th International Conference on Environmental Systems held in Prague, Czechia, this past July, a paper was presented describing an innovative design of a large-scale Mars Cycler. The authors, A. Scott Howe, John Blincow, Theodore W. Hall, and Colin Leonard, make the assumption that a significant planetary migration to Mars will happen in the near future, citing Elon Musk’s often stated goal of establishing a one-million person colony on the Red Planet by 2050. The authors argue that Starship will not be a suitable transportation method for a large, non-professional clientele on what has historically been a six-month journey due to the physiological and psychological health risks of a long-duration mission (not withstanding a recent paper penned by University of Santa Barbara physics undergrad Jack Kingdon proposing two trajectories that reduce transit times to between 90 to 104 days each way).

Instead, they envision a “cruise ship” approach using a large, robotically constructed Mars Cycler that would continuously travel between Earth and Mars. The concept for a Mars Cycler was first conceived by Buzz Aldrin in a 1985 paper, and in recognition of his invention, is often referred to as an Aldrin cycler. This particular cycler design is advantageous because it would use minimal propellant to maintain its trajectory. The concept features a dual-torus structure, with a non-rotating outer torus for docking and a rotating inner torus to provide artificial gravity. The paper lays out in detail the specifications for a minimal-sized version with crew capacity of 52-61 people, and calculates the mass and equipment required for the vessel. The authors estimate that it would take 63 Starship launches (version 3) to deliver the construction materials and propellant to low Earth orbit (LEO). A scaled up larger cruise ship-sized version with a capacity of 1000 occupants would take 428 Starship version 3 launches, which is within the range of engineering possibility and certainly within the launch rate of thousands of Starships Elon Musk envisions as part of his Mars colonization plans.

The Mars Cycler would be assembled using Offworld Industries Corporation’s Sargon System, a family of new construction machines the company claims could build an entire space station in half a year (Blincow is CEO of Offworld Industries Corp). The novel construction technology autonomously assembles preformed hull panels loaded in a magazine, robotically dispensed, formed and welded into large toroidal (or other shaped) space stations ready to be pressurized.

The paper advocates for the cycler to provide artificial gravity to mitigate the deleterious health impacts of microgravity allowing occupants to maintain healthy muscle and bone density throughout the journey. The proposed design decouples an inner artificial gravity centrifuge from an outer non-rotating torus, which offers several operational benefits:

  • Distributed docking ports: The non-rotating outer torus can accommodate multiple visiting vehicles docking at various points around its perimeter.
  • Fixed systems: Solar panels and radiators can be mounted without the need for gimbals or motorized mounts, simplifying the design.
  • Seamless transfer: Crew and cargo can be transferred between visiting vehicles and the cycler without the need for spin-up or spin-down procedures.

The paper identifies several challenges to overcome in order to realize an operational Mars Cycler. The top five include:

  1. Large-scale space construction: The project requires the construction of very large orbital structures. A key challenge is maintaining tolerance control during assembly, ensuring panels fit together precisely and the torus closes properly.
  2. Attitude control and maneuvering: The paper assumes, but does not detail, that maneuvering large quarter-toroids in proximity to each other will be possible without “exotic solutions’. This is a significant challenge because each section would have its own center of mass and orbit, creating strain on connected elements.
  3. Artificial gravity implementation: A number of difficulties are discussed, including economic spin-up/spin-down, docking procedures while the structure is spinning, and performing extra-vehicular activities (EVAs) under rotation. The paper also notes that transferring power, control, information, and liquids between the rotating and non-rotating segments would be challenging.
  4. Mars surface infrastructure: The paper acknowledges that a major challenge is the “big elephant in the room of Mars surface infrastructure”. The entire concept is based on the assumption that the necessary infrastructure, such as propellant production facilities, will be in place on Mars by the time the cycler is ready.
  5. Life Support Systems: Sustaining human crews on a cycler for extended periods (e.g., months-long transits) requires robust life support systems for air, water, food, and waste management. The paper underscores the challenge of maintaining these systems with minimal resupply over multiple cycles.

Assuming these challenges could be solved, this interplanetary cruise ship design of a Mars Cycler is a new approach to deep-space travel, elegant in its simplicity. It offers a potential solution to the challenges of long-duration missions by providing artificial gravity via a rotating inner torus to ensure the health and well-being of future Mars colonists.

In addition to these cyclers providing a mode of safe space transportation, such large artificial gravity space stations could be permanently located in orbit around planets or moons that have surface communities in split life cycle space settlements which SSP covered recently. Such a facility could have duel use as an Earth-normal gravity crèche, providing birthing centers and early child development for families settling in the region. Colonists could choose to split their lives between rearing their young in healthy normal gravity settings until their offspring are young adults, then moving down to live out their lives in lower gravity surface settlements – or they may choose to live permanently in free space.

Posted on

Resilient ExtraTerrestrial Habitats Institute at Purdue University releases its Impact Report

Artist impression of a lunar habitat designed for resiliency and autonomy. Credit: Resilient ExtraTerrestrial Habitats Institute

The Resilient ExtraTerrestrial Habitats Institute (RETHi) is at the forefront of developing autonomous and resilient habitats essential for space settlement. The NASA-funded organization just released its Impact Report summarizing work completed to date. SSP reported on RETHi back in 2020.

A key driver for RETHi’s imperative of autonomy in these habitats is the increasing communication delays and limited bandwidth that will severely restrict interaction with controllers on Earth as habitats are established further from home. These limitations necessitate new approaches for managing space habitats autonomously, fundamentally shifting the operational philosophy for future missions. Unlike near-Earth operations where Mission Control provides real-time oversight and intervention, the remote and harsh environment of deep space demands that habitats become self-sufficient entities. This means that intelligence, diagnostic capabilities, and decision-making must reside on-board, transforming the paradigm from remote control to local autonomy. This is a critical design constraint that permeates all of RETHi’s research, influencing everything from structural design to life support systems and robotics.

RETHi’s research is organized into three interrelated thrusts, each addressing a critical aspect of a comprehensive framework for self-managing systems:

  • Resilience (Architecture): This thrust focuses on the fundamental design of habitats. It involves choosing design features and tools to maximize resilience, assessing safety controls, and developing a resilience-based design procedure aligned with NASA’s processes. This ensures that resilience is embedded into the very fabric of the habitat from its inception, making it inherently robust.
  • Awareness (Detection + Diagnosis + Decisions): Addressing the need for autonomy in operations, this thrust aims to detect damage and disruptions, diagnose issues, and support decision-making autonomously. This represents a significant departure from traditional human space flight operations, which rely heavily on large Mission Control teams. The goal is to enable the habitat to “understand” its own state and the nature of any anomalies.
  • Robotics (Enable Action): This thrust is dedicated to expanding the capabilities of autonomous systems by increasing the scope of interventions that can be carried out automatically by robots. This is crucial for construction, maintenance, and repair in hazardous environments where human presence might be limited or too risky.

RETHi’s research is supported by three complementary testbeds, each serving a distinct but integrated purpose, forming an efficient iterative design and validation pipeline:

  • HabSim: This is a computational model of core space habitat subsystems. It incorporates damageable and repairable properties, sensors, and agents for anomaly detection and repair. HabSim can simulate various disruption scenarios, including micrometeorite impacts, fires, Moonquakes, and nuclear leakage. It primarily helps users learn to create and maintain resilient habitats by assessing decision strategies and resilience through simulation-based design, which can reduce mission costs and increase crew safety.
  • CDCM (Control-oriented Dynamic Computational Model): This capability provides a specialized language for rapid prototyping of machine-readable models that capture causal relationships in complex systems. This enables automatic diagnostic reasoners and uncertainty quantification, which are crucial for developing intelligent, self-diagnosing systems.
  • HARSH (Human-Centered Autonomous Resilient Space Habitats): This testbed is a cornerstone of RETHi’s research, providing a unique cyber-physical platform for validating the complex interplay of hardware and software in autonomous space habitat systems. As the physical validation layer, HARSH takes the insights, algorithms, and models developed and refined in HabSim and CDCM, and tests them in a hardware-in-the-loop environment to confirm their real-world efficacy.

These three complementary testbeds provide a sophisticated, multi-stage approach to research and development. HabSim allows for broad, rapid computational exploration of scenarios and design strategies, providing initial insights. CDCM provides the formal language and tools for precise diagnostic reasoning and model building. HARSH then serves as the high-fidelity, cyber-physical validation platform, where the most promising concepts from the computational realm are rigorously tested against physical realities. This iterative process—from broad simulation to precise modeling to hardware validation—minimizes risk, optimizes design, and accelerates the development cycle for a mature engineering pipeline of complex, safety-critical systems.

The RETHi Impact Report summarized the status of many of the Institute’s research initiatives. Although all are important, this post will highlight progress in two key areas of interest: The HARSH testbed and the design of a habitat’s Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS).

Purpose and Unique Capabilities of HARSH

HARSH is a cyber-physical testbed designed to investigate advanced systems health management capabilities for complex systems with deep informational dependencies. The facility bridges the gap between digital simulation and physical reality, allowing for a more comprehensive understanding of system behavior.

The platform’s unique strength lies in its ability to trigger realistic disruption scenarios using hardware and test autonomous recovery. This capability distinguishes HARSH from purely computational models by enabling real-world interaction, sensor feedback, and the validation of autonomous responses against actual physical system behavior. While computational models like HabSim and CDCM are invaluable for initial design and rapid prototyping, HARSH serves as the crucial validation bridge from simulation to reality. It is where theoretical models and algorithms are put to the ultimate test against physical realities, including hardware limitations, sensor noise, latency, and real-world environmental interactions. This is an indispensable step for ensuring reliability and eventual flight certification of autonomous systems.

Facilitating Investigation of Advanced Systems Health Management

HARSH’s cyber-physical nature allows for the investigation of advanced systems health management capabilities, which are crucial for maintaining complex space habitats, especially those with deep informational dependencies. This entails a focus on integrated diagnostics, prognostics, and self-healing mechanisms across multiple interconnected subsystems. In a deep space habitat, a failure in one system, such as a power supply, can quickly cascade to others, like the ECLSS or communication networks.

The ability to test autonomous recovery under realistic hardware-induced disruptions is central to HARSH’s role in validating the Awareness (detection, diagnosis, decision) and Robotics (enable action) thrusts in a practical, integrated setting. To attain advanced systems health management capability, a focus that transcends simple fault detection is required. It implies a sophisticated ability to continuously monitor, diagnose, and predict the health of complex, interconnected systems. HARSH’s ability to test deep informational dependencies and autonomous recovery provides a proactive approach to resilience, where the system not only identifies a problem but also takes corrective action to prevent cascading failures and restore functionality, thereby minimizing the need for human intervention and ensuring mission continuity.

Advancing Life Support Systems for Deep Space: RETHi’s ECLSS Research

As we all know, the ECLSS is critical for sustaining human life in the hostile, closed environment of deep space settlements. The life support system provides essential functions such as breathable air revitalization, water recovery, waste management, and thermal control, directly impacting crew health and performance. The extended durations of deep space missions (and eventual evolution to permanent communities) necessitate a highly reliable and resilient ECLSS, capable of operating autonomously and recovering from disruptions without immediate help from Earth, given the significant communication delays and the unlikelihood of the success of rescue operations due to long transit times.

While a habitat’s structural integrity and autonomous systems are vital, the ECLSS provides the breathable air, potable water, and stable thermal environment necessary for human survival. Any significant failure in these systems directly jeopardizes the safety of the habitat’s occupants, making them the ultimate determinant of mission duration and crew survivability. Therefore, the resilience of an ECLSS will directly dictate how long a mission can last and whether the crew can survive unforeseen events, particularly when autonomous recovery is the only option.

Development of High-Fidelity, Physics-Based Simulation Models

RETHi has developed a high-fidelity, physics-based simulation model for an ECLSS, a sophisticated approach that accounts for the underlying physical principles governing the system’s behavior, allowing for a deep and accurate understanding of its performance.

This advanced model is specifically designed to predict interior conditions under nominal and disruptive scenarios. This capability is vital for understanding how the habitat’s internal environment responds to various stresses, from equipment failures to external impacts, and for evaluating the effectiveness of mitigation strategies. This method of modeling can predict interior conditions under nominal and disruptive scenarios, enabling a proactive, rather than reactive, approach to resilience. Instead of waiting for failures to occur and then responding, RETHi is developing tools to anticipate how the ECLSS will behave under various forms of stress. This predictive capability allows designers to identify vulnerabilities, optimize system responses, and develop robust contingency plans before a space habitat is established, significantly enhancing safety, reliability, and the potential for autonomous recovery. It moves beyond simple performance modeling to detailed stress-testing and failure mode analysis in a virtual environment.

Evaluation of ECLSS Resilience Under Nominal and Disruptive Scenarios

The ECLSS simulation model allows for the evaluation of system resilience. This means the model can assess the system’s ability to withstand disturbances, adapt to changing conditions, and recover from various challenges, ensuring continuous life support. By simulating disruptive scenarios, researchers can understand the precise impact of failures, optimize control strategies, and develop autonomous recovery protocols for critical life support functions, minimizing the need for human intervention during emergencies.

Evaluating system resilience under disruptive scenarios goes beyond merely ensuring individual ECLSS components are reliable. It validates that the system has the ability to maintain its critical functions even when components fail or external disturbances occur. This shifts the focus from preventing individual failures to ensuring the overall system can adapt and recover, which is a hallmark of true resilience in complex, high-stakes environments where human intervention may be limited. This holistic view is essential for long-duration deep space missions, where adaptability is paramount.

SSP covered similar research by Curt Holmer in his master degree thesis modelling the stability of an ECLSS back in 2021. That work attempted to capture the complex web of interactions between biological, physical and chemical processes and detecting early warning signs of critical transitions between systems so that appropriate mitigations can be taken before catastrophic failure occurs. RETHi’s approach takes stability modelling to a deeper level, enabling ECLSS designers to understand the complex interdependencies and vulnerabilities of the system to determine proactive countermeasures.

Conclusion: Paving the Way for Future Space Habitats

The Resilient ExtraTerrestrial Habitats Institute at Purdue University is playing an indispensable role in driving the design and development of resilient and autonomous habitats, which are critical for the future of space colonization. The institute’s integrated, multi-faceted approach to autonomous resilience, exemplified by the HARSH cyber-physical testbed and its pioneering ECLSS research, is foundational for achieving long-duration human presence off Earth.

RETHi’s strategic organization into resilience, awareness, and robotics initiatives address the complex challenges of human survival in deep space, where communication delays necessitate on-board intelligence and self-sufficiency. HARSH serves as the crucial validation bridge, transforming theoretical models and algorithms into tested, real-world solutions for autonomous recovery and systems health management. Concurrently, the high-fidelity ECLSS models ensure that the fundamental life support functions remain robust and adaptable under stress, directly impacting crew safety and settlement longevity.

The comprehensive nature of RETHi’s work positions it as a leader in future large-scale, interdisciplinary research initiatives for resilient space habitats. The Institute’s holistic understanding of the complex challenges of space colonization fosters integrated solutions across multiple scientific and engineering domains, supported by robust testing infrastructure. The Institute’s current research findings are a blueprint for effective advanced research and development needed for the next frontier of human expansion into the solar system, emphasizing a paradigm shift towards self-sufficient extraterrestrial settlements.

Posted on

Split life cycle approach to settling the solar system

Left: Artist impression of the inside of Kalpana One, a free space settlement providing artificial gravity. Credits: Bryan Veerseeg / Spacehabs.com; Right: Conceptual illustration of a colony on the surface of Mars. Credits: SpaceX.

Until recently, space settlement advocates have typically split into two camps: those who favor building colonies on the surfaces of the Moon or Mars, and those who prefer constructing O’Neill cylinders in free space, spinning to provide artificial gravity outside of planetary gravity wells. Readers of this blog know I lean toward the latter, mainly because colonies on worlds with gravity lower than Earth’s could pose problems for human physiology, particularly reproduction. Truthfully, we won’t know if humans can reproduce in less than 1g until we conduct long-term mammalian reproduction experiments under those conditions. It would be far cheaper and quicker to perform these experiments in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) rather than waiting for sufficient infrastructure to be established on the Moon or Mars for biological research.

Another approach involves not sending humans into space at all, instead entrusting space colonization to human-level artificial general intelligence (HL-AGI) and conscious machines—a non-biological strategy. With recent advancements in AGI and automation, conscious HL-AGI robots may become feasible in the near future (though the exact timeline—whether decades or longer—remains a matter of debate). This prospect might disappoint many space advocates who view migration beyond Earth as the next phase of natural biological evolution hopefully starting within our lifetimes. Deploying sentient machines would effectively remove humanity from the equation altogether.

If you’ve been following space colonization in the press you’ve most likely heard of the book A City on Mars by Kelly and Matt Weinersmith. I have not purchased the book but I’ve read several reviews and heard the authors interviewed by Dr. David Livingston on The Space Show to get an understanding of the Wienersmith’s overall viewpoint, which is at the very least skeptical, and to some space advocates downright anti-settlement. The book is very pessimistic taking the position that the science and engineering of space settlements for large populations of people is too challenging to be realized in the near future.

Peter Hague, an astrophysicist in the UK, wrote an excellent three part review setting the record straight correcting some of the critical facts that the Wienersmith’s get wrong. But in my opinion the best critique by far was written by Dale Skran, Chief Operating Officer & Senior Vice President of the National Space Society (NSS). In a recent post on the NSS blog, he links to a 90 page Critique of “A City on Mars” and Other Writings Opposing Space Settlement in the Space Settlement Journal where he provides a chapter-by-chapter, section-by-section response to the entire book as well as rebuttals to a few other naysayer publications [“Dark Skies” (2021) by Daniel Deudney; “Why We’ll Never Live in Space” (2023) in Scientific American by Sarah Scholes; “The Case against Space” (1997) by Gary Westfahl].

However, Skran credits the Weinersmiths with an innovative idea he hadn’t encountered before, one that addresses the challenge of human reproduction in low gravity. They suggest establishing orbital spin-gravity birthing centers above surface colonies on the Moon or Mars, where children would be born and raised in an artificial gravity environment—essentially a cosmic crèche. Skran builds on this concept, proposing that the life cycle of Moon or Mars colonists could be divided into phases. The first phase would take place in space, aboard rotating settlements with Earth-normal gravity, where couples would conceive, bear children, and raise them to a level of physical maturity—likely early adulthood—determined by prior research. Afterward, some individuals might opt to relocate to the low-gravity surfaces of these worlds. There, surface settlements would focus on various activities, including operations to extract and process resources for building additional settlements.

Skran elaborated on this split life cycle concept and outlined a roadmap for implementing it to settle low-gravity worlds across the solar system during a presentation at the 2024 International Space Development Conference. He granted me permission to share his vision from that presentation and emphasized that the opinions expressed in his talk were his own and did not reflect an official position or statement from the NSS.

Taking a step back, the presentation summarized research that has been performed to date on mammalian physiology in lower gravity, e.g. studies SSP covered previously on mice by JAXA aboard the ISS in microgravity and in the Kibo centrifuge at 1/6g Moon levels. The bottom line is that studies show some level of gravity less then 1g (artificial or otherwise) may be beneficial to a certain degree but microgravity is a horrible show stopper and much more research is needed in lower gravity on the entire reproduction process, from conception through gestation, birth and early organism development to adulthood. The question of reproduction in less then 1g is the elephant in the space station living room. In my presentation at ISDC last year, I took the position that the artificial gravity prescription for reproduction could impact the long term strategy for where to establish biologically self-sustaining space settlements leading to a fork in the road: a choice between O’Neill’s vision of free space rotating settlements vs. lower gravity surface colonies (because outside of the Earth all other solar system worlds where it is practical to establish surface settlements have less then 1g – e.g. the Moon, Mars, Asteroids and the moons of the outer planets – I exclude cloud settlements in Venus’s atmosphere as not realistic). I’ve been swayed by Skran’s proposal and have come to the realization that we don’t need to be faced with a choice between surface settlements or free space artificial gravity habitats – we can and should do both with this split life cycle approach.

How would Skran’s plan for settling the solar system work? He suggests we start small with rotating space settlements in LEO like Kalpana Two, an approach first conceived by Al Globus and popularized in his book coauthored by Tom Marotta The High Frontier: an Easier Way. Locating the habitats in LEO leverages the Earth’s protective magnetic field, shielding the occupants from radiation caused by solar particle events. This significantly reduces their mass and therefore costs because heavy radiation shielding does not need to be launched into orbit. In addition, the smaller size simplifies construction and enables an incremental approach. Kasper Kubica came up with a real estate marketing plan for Kalpana in his Spacelife Direct scenario.

Skran promoted a different design which won the Grand Prize of the NSS O’Neill Space Settlement Contest, Project Nova 2. The novel space station, conceived by a team of high school students at Tudor Vianu National High School of Computer Science, Bucharest Romania, slightly resembles Space Station V from the film 2001: A Space Odyssey. Many other designs are possible.

Project Nova 2 rotating space settlement, one possible design of a rotating space settlement initially built in LEO then moved out to the Moon and beyond. Credit: Tudor Vianu National High School Research Centre Team / NSS O’Neill Space Settlement Contest 2024 Grand Prize Winner

But to get there from here, we have to start even smaller and begin to understand the physics of spin gravity in space. To get things rolling Kasper Kupica has priced out Platform 0, a $16M minimum viable product artificial gravity facility that could be an early starting point for basic research.

Conceptual illustration of Platform 0, a habitable artificial gravity minimum viable product. Credits: Platform 0 – Kasper Kubica / Earth image – Inspiration4

These designs for space habitats will evolve from efforts already underway by private space station companies like Vast, Above, Axiom Space, Blue Origin (with partner Sierra Space) and others. Vast, which has for years had AG space stations on its product roadmap, recently revealed plans to use its orbital space station Haven-1 to be launched in 2026 to study 1/6g Moon level AG in a few years, albeit without crew. And of course let’s not forget last month’s post which featured near term tests proposed by Joe Carroll that could be carried out now using a SpaceX Falcon 9 as an orbital laboratory where researchers could study human adaptation to AG.

Illustration depicting a SpaceX Crew Dragon spacecraft tethered to a Falcon 9 second stage which could be spun up (in direction of down arrow) to test centrifugal force artificial gravity. Credit: Joe Carroll

Back the plan – once the rotating space habitat technology has been proven in LEO, a second and third settlement would be built near the Moon where lunar materials can be utilized to add radiation shielding needed for deep space. The first of these facilities becomes a factory to build more settlements. The second one becomes a cycler, the brilliant idea invented by Buzz Aldrin, initially cycling back and forth in the Earth Moon system providing transportation in the burgeoning cislunar economy just around the corner. The next step would be to fabricate three more copies of the final design. Two would be designated as cyclers between the Earth and Mars. Building at least two makes sense to establish an interplanetary railroad that provides transportation back and forth on a more frequent basis then just building one unit.

Here’s the crown jewel: the third settlement will remain in orbit around Mars as an Earth normal gravity crèche, providing birthing centers and early child development for families settling in the region. Colonists can choose to split their lives between rearing their young in healthy 1g habitats until their offspring are young adults then moving down to live out their lives in settlements on the surface of Mars – or they may choose to live permanently in free space.

This approach enhances the likelihood that settlements on the Moon or Mars will succeed. The presence of an orbiting crèche significantly reduces the risks associated with establishing surface communities by providing an orbital station that can support ground settlements and offer a 1g safe haven to where colonists can retreat if something goes wrong. This alleviates the pressure on initial small crews on the surface, meaning they wouldn’t have to rely solely on themselves to ensure their survival. Finally, an incremental strategy, involving a series of gradual steps with technology readiness proven at each stage through increasingly larger iterations of orbital settlements, offers a greater chance of success.

The final step in this vision for humanity to become a truly spacefaring civilization is to rinse and repeat, i.e. cookie cutter duplication and dispersal of these space stations far and wide to the many worlds beyond Mars with abundant resources and settlement potential. There’s no need to choose between strategies focused solely on surface communities versus spin-gravity colonies in free space. We can pursue both, as they will complement each other, providing families with split life cycle settlement options to have and raise healthy children while tapping the vast resources of the solar system.

Images of resource rich lower gravity worlds beyond Mars with potential for split life cycle settlement (not to scale). Top: the asteroid Ceres. Middle: Jupiter’s Moons, from left to right, Io, Europa, Ganymede, and Callisto. Bottom left: Saturn’s moon Titan. Bottom right: Neptune’s moon Triton. Credits: NASA.
Posted on

The impact of the Gravity Prescription on the future of space settlement

Artist rendering of a family living in a rotating free-space settlement based on the Kalpana Two design, with a length of 110m and diameter of 125m. Credits: Bryan Versteeg / Spacehabs.com

This post summarizes my upcoming talk for the Living in Space Track at ISDC 2024 taking place in Los Angeles May 23 – 26. The presentation is a distillation of several posts on the Gravity Prescription about which I’ve written over the years.

Lets start with a couple of basic definitions. First, what exactly is a space settlement? The National Space Society defined the term with much detail in an explainer by Dale L. Skran back in 2019. I’ve extracted this excerpt with bolded emphasis added:

Space Settlement is defined as: ​

​“… 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 …”

​The point here is that people will want to have children wherever their families put down roots in space communities. Yes, a “settlement” could be permanent and perhaps inhabited by adults that live out the rest of there lives there, such as in a retirement community. But these are not biologically self-sustaining in the sense that settlers have offspring that are conceived, born and raised there living out healthy lives over multiple generations.

Next we should explain what is meant by the Gravity Prescription (GRx). First coined by Dr. Jim Logan, the term refers to the minimum “dosing” of gravity (level and duration of exposure) to enable healthy conception, gestation, birth and normal, viable development to adulthood as a human being…over multiple generations. It should be noted that the GRx can be broken down into at least three components: the levels needed for pregnancy (conception through birth), early child development, and adulthood. The focus of this discussion is primarily on the GRx for reproduction.

We should also posit some basic assumptions. First, with the exception of the GRx, all challenges expected for establishment of deep space settlements can be solved with engineering solutions (e.g. radiation protection, life support, power generation, etc…)​. The one factor that cannot be easily changed impacting human physiology after millions of year of evolution on Earth is gravity. We may find it difficult or even impossible to stay “healthy enough” under hypogravity conditions on the Moon or Mars, assuming all other human factors are dealt with in habitat design.

Lets dive into what we know and don’t know about the GRx. Several decades of human spaceflight have produced an abundance of data on the deleterious effects of microgravity on human physiology, not the least of which are serious reduction in bone and muscle mass, ocular changes, and weakening of the immune system – there are many more. So we know microgravity is not good for human health after long stays. Clearly, having babies under these conditions would not be ethical or conducive for long term settlement.

The first studies carried out on mammalian reproduction in microgravity took place in the early 1990s aboard the Space Shuttle in a couple of experiments on STS-66 and STS-70. 10 pregnant rats were launched at midpregnancy (9 days and 11 days, respectively) on each flight and landed close to the (22 day) term. The rat pups were born 2 days after landing and histology of their brain tissue found spaceflight induced abnormalities in brain development in 70% of the offspring.

It was not until 2017 that the first mammalian study of rodents with artificial gravity was performed on the ISS. Although not focused on reproduction, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) performed a mouse experiment in their Multiple Artificial-gravity Research System (MARS) centrifuge comparing the impact of microgravity to 1g of spin gravity. ​The results provided the first experimental evidence that mice exposed to 1g of artificial gravity maintained the same bone density and muscle weight as mice in a ground control group while those in microgravity had significant reductions.

Diagram depicting an overview of the first JAXA Mouse Project in the MARS centrifuge with photos of the experiment on the ISS. Credits: Dai Shiba et al. / Nature. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

In 2019 JAXA carried out a similar study in the MARS centrifuge adding lunar gravity levels to the mix. This study found that there were some benefits to the mice exposed to 1/6g in that Moon gravity helped mitigate muscle atrophy, but it did not prevent changes in muscle fiber or gene expression​.

Just last year, a team led by Dr. Mary Bouxsein at Harvard Medical School conducted another adult mouse study on the MARS centrifuge comparing microgravity, .33g, .67g and 1g. They found that hind quarter muscle strength increased commensurate with the level artificial gravity concluding, not surprisingly, that spaceflight induced atrophy can be mitigated with centrifucation. The results were reported at the American Society for Gravitational and Space Research last November.​

Returning to mammalian reproduction in space, an interesting result was reported last year in the journal Cell from an experiment by Japanese scientists at the University of Yamanashi carried out on the ISS in 2019. The team, headed up by Teruhiko Wakayama, devised a way to freeze mouse embryos post conception and launch them into space where they were thawed by astronauts and allowed to develop in microgravity. Control samples were cultured in 1g artificial gravity on the ISS and Earth normal gravity on the ground. The mouse embryos developed into blastocysts and showed evidence of cell differentiation/gene expression in microgravity after 4 days​. The researchers claimed that the results indicated that “Mammals can thrive in space”. This conclusion really can’t be substantiated without further research.

Which brings us to several unknowns about reproduction in space. SSP has explored this topic in depth through an interview with Alex Layendecker, Director of the Astrosexological Research Institute. Yet to be studied in depth is (a) conception, including proper transport of a zygote through the fallopian tube to implantation in the uterus. Less gravity may increase the likelihood of ectopic pregnancy which is fatal for the fetus and could endanger the life of the mother; (b) full gestation through all stages of embryo development to birth​; and (c) early child development and maturation to adulthood in hypogravity​. All these stages of mammalian reproduction need to be validated through ethical clinical studies on rodents progressing to higher primate animal models before humans can know if having children in lower gravity conditions on the Moon or Mars will be healthy and sustainable over multiple generations.

AI generated image of an expectant mother with her developing fetus in Earth orbit after mammalian reproduction has been validated via higher animal models through all stages of pregnancy for a safe level of gravity. An appropriate level of radiation shielding would also be required and is not shown in this illustration. Credit: DALL-E-3

Some space advocates for communities on the Moon or Mars have downplayed the importance of determining the GRx for reproduction with the logic that a fetus in a woman’s uterus on Earth is in neutral buoyancy and thus is essentially weightless. Therefore, why does gravity matter? ​ I discussed this question with Dr. Layendecker and he had the following observations paraphrased here: True, gravity may have less of an impact in the first trimester. But on the cellular level, cytoskeletal development and proper formation/organization of cells may be impacted from conception to birth​. Gravity helps orient the baby for delivery in the last trimester​ and keeps the mother’s uterine muscles strong for contractions/movement of the baby through the birth canal​. There are many unknowns on what level of gravity is sufficient for normal development from conception to adulthood.

Why does all this matter? Ethically determining the right level of gravity for healthy reproduction and child development will inform where families can safely settle space​. The available surface gravities of bodies where we can establish communities in space cluster near Earth, Mars and Moon levels​. These are our only GRx options ​on solar system bodies.

Gravity level clustering of solar system bodies available for space settlement. Credit: Joe Carroll

The problem is that we don’t yet know whether we can remain healthy enough on bodies with gravity equivalent to that on the Moon or Mars, so we can’t select realistic human destinations or formulate detailed plans until we acquire this knowledge​. Of course we can always build rotating settlements in free space with artificial gravity equivalent to that on Earth. Understanding the importance of the GRx and determining its value could change the strategy of space development in terms of both engineering and policy decisions. The longer we delay, the higher the opportunity costs in terms of lost time from failure to act​.

What are these opportunity cost lost opportunities​? Clearly, at the top of Elon Musk’s list is “Plan B” for humanity, i.e. a second home in case of cataclysmic disaster such as climate change, nuclear war, etc. This drives his sense of urgency. From Gerard K. O’Neill’s vision in The High Frontier, virtually unlimited resources in space could end hunger and poverty, provide high quality living space for rapidly growing populations​, achieve population control without war, famine, or dictatorships​. And finally, increase freedom and the range of options for all people​.

If humans can’t have babies in less than Earth’s gravity then the Moon and Mars may be a bust for long term (biologically sustainable) space settlement.​ There will be no biologically sustainable cities with millions of people on other worlds unless they can raise families there​.

Spin gravity rotating space settlements providing 1g artificial gravity may be the only alternative​. If Elon Musk knew that the people he wants to send to Mars can’t have children there, would he change his plans for a self-sustaining colony on that planet?​ Having and raising children is obviously important to him. As Walter Isaacson wrote in his recent biography of Musk, “He feared that declining birthrates were a threat to the long-term survival of human consciousness.”

So how could he determine the GRx quickly? One solution would be to fund a partial gravity facility in low Earth orbit to run ethical experiments on mammalian reproduction in hypogravity. Joe Carroll has been refining a proposal for such a facility, a dual dumbbell Moon/Mars low gravity laboratory which SSP has covered, that could also be marketed as a tourist destination. Spinning at 1.5 rpm, the station would be constructed from a combination of Starship payload-sized habitats tethered by airbeams allowing shirt sleeve access to different gravity levels​. Visitors would be ferried to the facility in Dragon capsules and could experience 3 gravity levels with various tourist attractions​. The concept would be faster, cheaper, safer and better than establishing equivalent bases on the Moon or Mars to quickly learn about the GRx​. The facility would be tended by crews at both ends that live & collect health data for up to a year or more​. And of course, ethical experiments on the GRx for mammalian reproduction would be carried out, first on rodents and then progressing to higher primates if successful.

Left: Conceptual illustration depicting a LEO Moon-Mars dumbbell partial gravity facility constructed from Starship payload-sized habitats tethered by airbeams and serviced by Dragon capsules. Rectangular solar arrays deploy by hanging at either end as spin is initiated via thrusters at Mars module. Center: Image of an inflated airbeam demonstration. Right: diagram of an airbeam stowed for transport and after deployment. Credit: Joe Carroll

What if these experiments determine that having children in lower gravity is not possible and our only path forward are free-space rotating settlements? Physics and human physiology require that they be large enough for settlers to tolerate a 1g spin rate to prevent disorientation. As originally envisioned by O’Neill, the diameter of his Island One space settlement would be about 500 meters.

Conceptual illustration of an Island One space settlement. The living space sphere is sized at about 500m in diameter. Credits: Rick Guidice / NASA

As originally proposed, these settlements would be located outside the Earth’s magnetic field at the L5 Earth-Moon Lagrange Point necessitating that they be shielded with enormous amounts of lunar regolith to protect occupants from radiation. Their construction requires significant technology development and infrastructure (e.g. mass drivers on the Moon, automated assembly in space, advances in robotics, power sources, etc…)​. Much of this will eventually be done anyway as space development progresses…however, knowing the GRx (if it is equal to 1g) may foster a sense of urgency​.

Some may take the alternative viewpoint that if we know that Earth’s gravity works just fine we could proceed directly to free-space settlements if we could overcome the mass problem. This is the approach Al Globus and Tom Marotta took in their book The High Frontier: An Easier Way with Kalpana One​, a 450m diameter cylindrical rotating free-space settlement located in equatorial low Earth orbit (ELEO) protected by our planet’s magnetic field, thereby reducing the mass significantly because there would be far less need for heavy radiation shielding.

Artist impression of Kalpana One rotating free-space settlement located in equatorial low Earth orbit. Credits: Bryan Versteeg / Spacehabs.com

But there may be an even easier way. Kasper Kubica has proposed a 10 year roadmap to the $10M condo in ELEO based on Kalpana Two, a scaled down version of the orbital settlement described by Al Globus in a 2017 Space Review article.

Artist rendering of the inside of a rotating free-space settlement based on the Kalpana Two design, with a length of 110m and diameter of 125m. Credits: Bryan Versteeg / Spacehabs.com

Even though these communities would be lower mass, they will still require significant increases in launch rates to place the needed materials in LEO, especially near the equator​. Offshore spaceports, like those under development by The Spaceport Company, could play a significant role​ in this infrastructure. Legislation providing financial incentives to municipalities to build spaceports would be helpful, such as The Secure U.S. Leadership in Space Act of 2024 introduced in Congress last month. The new law (not yet taken up in the Senate) would amend the IRS Code to allow spaceports to issue tax-exempt Muni bonds for infrastructure improvements.

Wouldn’t orbital debris present a hazard for settlements in ELEO?​ Definitely yes, and the National Space Society is shaping policy in this area. The best approach is to emphasize “light touch” regulatory reform on salvage rights, with protection and indemnity of the space industry to encourage recycling and debris removal.​ Joe Carroll has suggested a market-based approach that would impose parking fees for high value orbits, which would fund a bounty system for debris removal. This system would incentivize companies like CisLunar Industries, Neumann Space and Benchmark Space Systems, firms that are developing space-based processes to recycle orbital debris into useful commodities such as fuel and structural components.

Further down the road in technology development and deeper into space, advances in artificial intelligence and robotics will enable autonomous conversion of asteroids into rotating space settlements, as described by David Jensen in a paper uploaded to arXiv last year.​ This approach significantly reduces launch costs by leveraging in situ resource utilization. Initially, small numbers of “seed” tool maker robots are launched to a target asteroid​ along with supplemental “vitamins” of components like microprocessors that cannot be easily fabricated until technology progresses, to complete the machines. These robotic replicators use asteroid materials to make copies of themselves and other structural materials eventually building out a rotating space settlement. As the technology improves, the machines eventually become fully self-replicating, no longer requiring supplemental shipments from Earth.

Artist impression of a rotating space settlement constructed from asteroid materials. Credits: Bryan Versteeg, spacehabs.com

Leveraging AI to enable robots to build space settlements removes humans from the loop initially, eliminating risk to their health from exposure to radiation and microgravity​. Send it the robot home builders – families then safely move in later. There are virtually unlimited supplies in the asteroid belt to provide feedstock to construct thousands of such communities.

Artist impression of the interior of Stanford Torus free-space settlement. Advances in artificial intelligence and robotics will enable autonomous self replicating machines that could build thousands of such communities from asteroid material. Credits: Don Davis / NASA

If rotating space settlements with Earth-normal gravity become the preferred choice for off-Earth communities, where would be the best location, the prime real estate of the solar system? Jim Logan has identified the perfect place with his Essential Seven Settlement Criteria.

  • Low Delta-V​ – enabling easy access with a minimum of energy
  • Lots of RESOURCES​ … obviously!
  • Little or No GRAVITY WELL​ – half way to anywhere in the solar system
  • At or Near Earth Normal GRAVITY for​
    People, Plants and Animals ​- like what evolved on Earth
  • Natural Passive 24/7 RADIATION Protection​ – for healthy living
  • Permit Large Redundant Ecosystem(s)​ – for sustenance and life support
  • Staging Area for Exploration and Expansion​
    (including frequent, recurrent launch windows)​

Using this criteria, Logan identified Deimos, the outermost moon of Mars, as the ideal location. As discussed above, AI and robotic mining technology improvements will enable autonomous boring machines to drill a 15km long core through this body with a diameter around 500 meters – sized for an Island One space settlement to fit perfectly.

Conceptual illustration of a 500 meter wide by 15km long core bored through Deimos. Credit: Jim Logan

In fact, 11 Island One space colonies (minus the mirrors) strung end to end through this tunnel would provide sea level radiation protection and Earth normal artificial gravity for thousands of healthy settlers.

Left: Artist impression of an Island One space settlement. Credits: Rick Guidice / NASA. Right: To scale depiction of 11 Island One space settlements strung end-to-end in a cored out tunnel through Deimos providing sea level radiation protection and Earth normal artificial gravity. Credit: Jim Logan

In conclusion, the GRx for reproduction will inform where biologically self-sustaining healthy communities can be established in space. If we find that the GRx is equal to Earth’s normal level, free-space settlements with artificial gravity will be the safest and healthiness solution for humans to live and thrive throughout the solar system. The sooner we determined the GRx the better, for current plans for settling the Moon or Mars may need to be altered to consider rotating space colonies, which will require significant infrastructure development and regulatory reform​. Alternatively, since we know Earth’s gravity works just fine, we may choose to skip determination of the GRx and start small with Kalpana in low Earth orbit. Eventually, artificial intelligence will enable safe, autonomous self-assembly of space settlements from asteroids. The interior of Deimos would be the perfect place to build safe, healthy, biologically self-sustaining space settlements for thousands of families to raise their children, establishing a beachhead from which to explore the rest of the solar system and preserve the light of human consciousness.

Update June 3, 2024: Here is a recording of my presentation on this topic at ISDC 2024.

Posted on

Progress on mammalian reproduction in microgravity

AI generated image of an expectant mother with her developing fetus in Earth orbit after mammalian reproduction has been validated via higher animal models through all stages of pregnancy for a safe level of gravity. An appropriate level of radiation shielding would also be required and is not shown in this illustration. Credits:DALL∙E 3

We are one step closer to determining the gravity prescription for human reproduction in space. Okay, so we still don’t have the green light for having children at destinations in space with less than normal Earth gravity or higher radiation environments….yet. But a team of Japanese scientists report positive results after running an experiment aboard the International Space Station in 2019 that examined mouse embryos cultured in both microgravity and artificial gravity in space, then compared them to controls on Earth after a few days of development. The researchers published their results in a paper in iScience.

The researchers developed equipment and a protocol for freezing two-cell embryos after fertilization on the ground and launching them to the ISS where they were thawed then split into two groups, one allocated to growth in microgravity, the other treated with spin gravity to artificially simulate 1g. A control group remained on Earth. The procedure was designed to be executed by untrained astronauts. Cultured growth continued for 4 days after which the samples were preserved and refridgerated until they could be returned to Earth for analysis.

The samples were also monitored for radiation with a dosimeter and as expected aboard the ISS, were exposed to radiation levels higher then developing fetuses experience on the ground but far lower than those known to exist in deep space outside the Earth’s atmosphere and protective magnetic field. Still, this can be a “worst case” data point for radiation exposure to developing embryos as it is unlikely that pregnancy would be ethically sanctioned at higher levels.

Upon thawing by astronauts, the embryos were cultured through initial mitosis to eventual cell differentiation and blastocyst formation. A blastocyst is the multicellular structure of early embryonic development consisting of an an outer layer of cells called the trophectoderm surrounding a fluid-filled cavity in which an inner cell mass (ICM) called the embryoblast eventually develops into the embryo.

The study was concerned with how gravity may influence cell differentiation, the placement of the ICM within the blastocyst and if radiation effects gene expression in the these cells which will later develop into the fetus. Gene expression within the trophectoderm is also critical for proper development of the placenta.

The results were very promising as the data showed that there were no significant effects on early cell differentiation during embryo development and that proper gene expression manifested in microgravity when compared to 1g artificial and normal Earth gravity.

A human blastocyst with the inner cell mass at upper right. Credits: Wikipedia

A highlight of the paper implied that the results indicate that “Mammals can thrive in space.” It is too early to make such a bold statement with only this one study. It should be noted that this experiment only focuses on one early stage of embryo development. Conception in microgravity is not addressed and as pointed out by Alex Layendecker of the Astrosexological Research Institute, may have a whole other set of problems that raise ethical concerns as may the effects of lower gravity on later stages of gestation, in actual live birth and in early child development.

No matter how positive these recent results appear to be for early embryo development, as was determined by a landmark experiment on pregnant mice during the Shuttle era, we already have a data point on mammalian fetal development in later stages of gestation in microgravity: serious brain developmental issues were discovered in mice offspring born after exposure to these conditions. So mammalian reproduction in microgravity may start out relatively normally (assuming conception is successful) but appears to have problems in later stages, at least according to the limited data we have so far. On the bright side, the recent study found that 1g artificial gravity had no significant effects on embryo development.

Clearly more data is needed to determine which level of gravity will be sufficient for all stages of mammalian reproduction in space. Fortunately, SpaceBorn United is working on this very problem. They have plans for research into all stages of human reproduction in space to enable independent human settlements off Earth. SpaceBorn CEO Egbert Edelbroek in a recent appearance on The Space Show described upcoming missions later this decade that will study mammalian conception and embryo development using the company’s assisted reproductive technology in space (ARTIS). They have developed a space-embryo-incubator that will contain male and female mouse gametes, which upon launch into orbit, will initiate conception to create embryos for development in variable gravity levels. After 5-6 days the embryos would be cryogenically frozen for return to Earth where they would be inspected and if acceptable, placed in a natural womb for the rest of pregnancy and subsequent birth. If successful with mice the the company plans experiments with human stem cell embryos and eventually human gametes.

The gravity prescription for human reproduction in less than normal Earth gravity is still not known. But at least researchers are starting to gather data on this critical factor for long term biologically sustainable space settlement.

Posted on

Sex in space and its implications for space tourism and settlement

AI generated image of an amorous couple embracing in a space tourist destination. Credits: DALL-E

Last April, an international team of researchers published a green paper to solicit public consultation on the urgent need for dialogue concerning uncontrolled human conception which will be problematic for space tourism when it takes off in the near future.   A coauthor on the paper, Alex Layendecker of the Florida based Astrosexological Research Institute (ASRI) studied the subject for his PhD thesis. Layendecker gave a talk at ISDC 2023 entitled Sex in Space in the Era of Space Tourism in which he emphasized the huge knowledge gap we have on mammalian conception, gestation and birth in the high radiation and lower gravity environments of outer space.  Since humans evolved for millions of years in Earth’s gravity protected from radiation by our planet’s magnetic field and atmosphere, there is a significant risk of developmental abnormalities in offspring which could result in legal liability and potential impacts on commerce if conception occurs in space without consideration of the potential hazards.  After his talk, I discussed these matters and the implications for space settlement with Alex who agreed to continue our discussion in an interview by email for this post.

SSP: Alex, it was a pleasure meeting you at ISDC and thank you for taking the time to answer my questions on this important topic.  The green paper is attempting to foster discussion from relevant stakeholders on addressing “uncontrolled human conception”.  Uncontrolled is defined in the paper as “…without societal approval for human conception – i.e. without regulatory approval from relevant bodies representing a broad societal consensus.” I am not aware of any regulatory authority on these matters at this time and there will likely be considerable challenges to obtain consensus across the space community before tourism becomes mainstream. The intent of the paper appears to be to help develop a framework for regulations (or guidelines) before space tourism takes off. Given how long it takes for regulations to be implemented and the challenges of international consensus, will there be enough time to implement sufficient controls before conception happens in space?

AL:  Great question – short answer up front, no, I don’t believe any “controls” will be implemented before the first incidence of human conception in space, given the timelines we’re currently looking at.  As you mentioned, regulations can take a long time to come into effect and you need to have a basis for establishing regulations/law – space law itself is still being developed.  Our knowledge of reproduction in space is minimal at this stage, certainly not at the level it needs to be at this point of history.  We’re also in virtually unexplored territory when it comes to mass space tourism – there have been space tourists in the past, Dennis Tito being the first “official” space tourist in history over 20 years ago – but all previous individuals that went into space for tourism purposes have done so while integrated into the crew, typically with very little privacy and a considerable amount of training.  With mass access to space, we’ll soon have groups of individuals going up solely for vacation/leisure purposes, and you can be assured some of them will be engaging in sexual activity.  While it would be absurd to try to implement or enforce laws preventing sexual activity in those environments, the dangers associated with potential conception still exist.  What is critically needed at this point is a better collective understanding of those dangers, their mitigation, and for space companies to be able to provide those paying customers with enough information that informed consent can be established – space is inherently dangerous already, and people launching into space are briefed on that.  They will need to be briefed on the dangers associated with conception in space as well, which could not only potentially threaten the life of the baby but also that of the mother, depending on the times and distances involved.

SSP: Will this be a government effort (since a green paper typically implies government sponsorship) or a self-imposed industry-wide trade association consensus approach like CONFERS? Or a combination?

AL: I think in the immediate sense, there will need to be a self-imposed industry consensus on establishing informed consent among space tourism customers. Sex and potential conception in space is currently a blind spot for would-be space tourism companies, because up to this point many of them haven’t considered the dangers it could pose to their customers, and corporate liability here is also an issue. It’s their responsibility to keep their passengers safe, and to inform them of any dangers to the max extent possible. I don’t necessarily see governments being able to implement or enforce any regulations in this regard, because regulating people doing what they want with their own bodies in the privacy of their own bedrooms typically doesn’t fare well over the long term. Where governments may get involved is if any medical situation develops to the point of needing rapid rescue, but Space Rescue capabilities is another topic.

SSP: Space tourism is likely to attract thrill seekers and risk-takers who are likely to have rebellious personalities with a reluctance to follow rules and regulations, let alone respect for societal norms. If this is the case, will pre-flight consultations on the risks of uncontrolled conception and legal waivers be sufficient to prevent risky behavior? Can the effectiveness of this approach be tested prior to implementation?

AL: Prevent risky behavior? Absolutely not. As you point out, these are folks who are intentionally undertaking an enormously risky endeavor in flying to space already, and at least in the early years, will be primarily comprised of your limits-pushing, boundary-breaking types. So they’re already about risk as individuals. However, legal waivers will of course be part of the whole operation, likely to include waivers around the risks of conception. Waivers or not, people are still going to engage in sex in space, and relatively soon, and if the individuals in question are capable of conception, the act itself brings that risk. Not to mention that there are individuals out there who will be vying for the title of “first couple to officially have sex in space,” despite speculation over the years that it could have occurred in the past. To be part of the first publicly declared coupling in outer space will land their names in history books. Now, there will be individuals who decide that they don’t want to deal with those risks after a thorough briefing on the potential dangers, but not everyone – probably not even a majority, knowing humans – will be deterred.

SSP: The paper highlights concerns about pregnancy in higher radiation and microgravity environments. From a space settlement perspective, radiation is less of a problem as there are engineering solutions (i.e. provision for adequate shielding) to address that issue. The bigger challenge will be pregnancies in microgravity, or in lower gravity on the Moon and Mars. The physiology of human fetus development in less than 1g is a big unknown. Some space advocates such as Robert Zubrin brush this off with the logic that a fetus in vivo on Earth is developing in essentially neutral buoyancy, and is therefore weightless anyway, so gestation in less than 1g probably won’t matter. Setting aside the issues associated with conception in lower gravity, if a woman can become pregnant in space, do you think this logic may be true for gestation or are there scientific studies and/or physiological arguments on the importance of Earth’s gravity in fetal development that refute this position?

AL: I’ve heard the neutral buoyancy argument before but it doesn’t address all the issues by a long shot. There is more neutral buoyancy during the first trimester of gestation but in the second and third gravity is very important, even just logistically speaking. Gravity helps the baby orient properly for delivery, and helps keep the mother’s uterine muscles strong enough to provide the necessary level of contractions to safely move the baby through the birth canal. On a more cellular level, cytoskeletal development is impacted by gravity, so even proper formation and organization of cells can be affected by microgravity throughout the span of gestation, from conception to birth. Gravity has a huge impact on postnatal development as well – in the small handful of NASA experiments we’ve conducted using mammalian young (baby rat and mouse pups), there were significant fatality rates among younger/less developed pups against ground control groups when exposed to microgravity during key postnatal phases. The youngest pups (5 days old) suffered a 90% mortality rate, and any of the survivors had significant developmental issues. So gravity is crucial not just to fetal development but to newborns and children as well, that much is evident from the data we do have.

SSP: Following up on your response, the Moon/Mars settlement advocates will say partial gravity levels on these worlds may be sufficiently higher than in microgravity to address the issues you mentioned – baby orientation, cytoskeletal development, cellular formation/organization, postnatal development – and a full 1g may not be needed for healthy reproduction.  The mammalian studies you mentioned with detrimental postnatal development were in microgravity.   We now have a data point at the lunar gravity level from JAXA with their long awaited results of a 2019 study on postnatal mice subjected to 1/6g partial gravity in a paper in Nature that was published last April. The good news is that 1/6g partial gravity prevents muscle atrophy in mice. The downside is that this level of artificial gravity cannot prevent changes in muscle fiber (myofiber) and gene modification induced by microgravity. There appears to be a threshold between 1/6g and Earth-normal gravity, yet to be determined, for skeletal muscle adaptation.  Have you seen these results, can you comment on them and do you think they may rule out mammalian postnatal development in lunar gravity?  

AL: With regard to the JAXA study, I think I’ve seen a short summary of preliminary results but haven’t gotten to read the full study yet. What I will comment for now is that there’s at least some promise in those results from a thousand foot view. While we still need to determine/set parameters for what we as a society/species consider medically/ethically acceptable for level of impact (obviously there was gene modification in the JAXA mice), there are clearly still some benefits to even lower levels of gravity.

SSP: With respect to risk mitigation and the paper’s recommended area of research: “Consolidation of existing knowledge about the early stages of human (and mammalian) reproduction in space environments and consideration of the ensuing risks to human progeny”, SSP has covered off-Earth reproduction and highlighted the need for ethical clinical studies in LEO to determine the gravity prescription (GRx) for mammalian (and eventually human) procreation.  During our personal discussions at ISDC, you mentioned ASRI’s plans for such studies in space.  Can you elaborate on your vision for mammalian reproduction studies in variable gravity?  What would be your experimental design and proposed timeline?

AL:  Well, with regard to timelines, humanity as a whole is already behind, so we’ll need to move as quickly as we possibly can while still upholding safe medical and ethical standards.  We’re approaching an inflection point where human conception in space is more probable to occur, and we still have vast data gaps that need to be filled on biological reproduction.  I’d advocate that the best way to go about filling those gaps would be a systematic approach using mammalian test subjects to determine safe and ethically acceptable gravity parameters for reproduction.  We already know a decent amount about the impacts of higher radiation levels on reproduction from data gathered on Earth, but with microgravity we’ve still got a long way to go, and we don’t know what the synergistic effects of microgravity and radiation are together either.  With regard to experiments, NASA researchers have actually already designed extensive mammalian reproduction experiments with university partners, but those experiments haven’t been funded by the agency.  There was a comprehensive experiment platform called MICEHAB (Multigenerational Independent Colony for Extraterrestrial Habitation, Autonomy and Behavior) that was proposed back in 2015, around the time I was completing my PhD dissertation.  It would effectively be a robot-maintained mini space station that would study the microgravity and radiation effects on rodents in spaceflight over multiple generations, which of course requires sexual reproduction.  That experiment alone would prove enormously beneficial to data collection efforts.  It would be important to study said generations and physiological impacts at variable gravity levels as you mentioned – think the Moon, Mars, 0.5 Earth G, 0.75 Earth G and so on, so we could fine tune what level of impact we as a species are medically and ethically willing to accept in order to settle new worlds.  With regard to ASRI’s experiment roadmap, our intent is to start with smaller, simpler experiments that will garner us more data on individual stages of reproduction first using live mice and rats, with the hope of eventually moving on to complex and comprehensive experiments like MICEHAB.  Once we have a good plot of data over the course of many experiments, we can hopefully move on to primate relative studies to establish safe parameters for human trials.  I anticipate the small mammal experiments alone will take at least five years were we to launch our first mission at this very moment – though speed is often dependent on level of funding, as happens with most science.

SSP: If contraceptives are recommended to prevent conception during space tourism voyages, the paper calls for validation of the efficacy of these methods in off-world environments.  Do your plans for variable gravity experiments include such studies and how would you design the protocol?

AL: Well, the first important thing to remember is that contraceptives are known to fail occasionally on Earth – condoms can break (especially if used incorrectly), and even orally-taken birth control pills aren’t considered 100% effective. Currently ASRI doesn’t have plans for contraception studies because that’s further forward than we can reasonably forecast at this point. Frankly we need to establish medical parameters first regarding conception in space and know where the risk lines are before we implement birth control studies using humans. We have to take many small steps before we get there. Once we do have established limits for safe reproduction in space environments, we would look to operate any birth control studies within those parameters to determine efficacy. That way if the contraceptives do fail, we at least know the resulting pregnancy has a reasonable chance of success.

SSP: Should experiments on mammalian reproduction in variable gravity determine that fetal developmental or health issues arise after conception and gestation in less than 1g, do you think this may lead to a significant shift in the long-term strategy for space settlement (e.g. toward O’Neill type artificial gravity space settlements) if children are to be born and raised in space?

AL:  I certainly think so.  There’s a lot at stake here.  If we can’t safely birth and grow new generations of humans at a Martian gravity level (0.38 Earth G), then we’ve largely lost Mars as a destination for permanent multigenerational settlement. Fully grown adults can live and work down on the planet itself, but we’d need to come up with an alternate nearby solution for pregnant mothers and children growing up to certain age.  From an engineering perspective, artificial gravity space settlements like an O’Neill cylinder make the most sense to me personally, so long as there’s Earth-level radiation shielding and gravity, and you can recreate Earth-like environments within those structures.  During our conversation at ISDC I referred to it as an “Orbital Incubator” concept, though I’m of course not the first person to ever discuss something like that.

SSP: I appreciate you sharing your PhD Thesis with me. In that work you developed the Reproduction and Development in Off-Earth Environments (RADIO-EE) Scale to provide a metric that could help future researchers identify potential issues/threats to human reproduction in space environments, i.e. microgravity and radiation. Respecting your request that the images of the metric not be published at this time, qualitatively, the scale plots the different phases of reproduction, fetal development, live birth and beyond against levels of gravity or radiation in outer space environments encompassing the range from microgravity all the way up to 1g (and even higher). The scale displays green, amber, and red areas mapping safe, cautionary, and forbidden zones, respectively, dependent on location (e.g. Moon, Mars, free space, etc.). When I originally read your thesis I thought you included both gravity and radiation on the same chart but after our discussions I understand that they would have to be separated out. I also acknowledge that we have no data at this time and the metric is a work in process to be filled in as experiments are performed in space. Have you considered using three dimensions (gravity on x-axis, radiation on the y-axis, viability on the z-axis) and create a surface function for viability. Does that make sense?

AL: I’m totally with you on the 3D model scale (I’ve always thought of it like navigating a “tunnel” made up of green data points to reach the end of the reproductive cycle safely).  The scale was originally envisioned as separate graphs for Microgravity/Hypergravity and Radiation, but obviously we couldn’t combine those in 2D because those two different factors can vary wildly depending on where you’re physically located in the solar system/outer space in general.  So the best answer is to effectively plot green, amber, and red “zones” on each chart (again based on location), then make sure that wherever we’re trying to grow/raise offspring (of any Earth species) we’re keeping our expectant mothers and children in double-green zones (for both gravity, and radiation).  Now the third axis would actually be time (i.e. what point are you at in the reproductive cycle), with viability being determined by where all three axes meet in a green/amber/red zone.

I’d like to thank Alex for this informative discussion and look forward to further updates as his research progresses. We urgently need his insights to inform ethical policies and practices regarding reproduction for the space tourism industry in the short term, and eventually for having and raising healthy children wherever we decide to establish space settlements. Readers can listen to Alex describe his research live and talk to him in person when he appears on The Space Show currently scheduled for August 27.

Posted on

The limits of space settlement – Pancosmorio Theory and its implications

Artist’s impression of the interior of an O’Neill Cylinder space settlement near the endcap. Credits: Don Davis courtesy of NASA

Its a given that space travel and settlement are difficult. The forces of nature conspire against humans outside their comfortable biosphere and normal gravity conditions. To ascertain just how difficult human expansion off Earth will be, a new quantitative method of human sustainability called the Panscosmorio Theory has been developed by Lee Irons and his daughter Morgan in a paper in Frontiers of Astronomy and Space Sciences. The pair use the laws of thermal dynamics and the effects of gravity upon ecosystems to analyze the evolution of human life in Earth’s biosphere and gravity well. Their theory sheds light on the challenges and conditions required for self restoring ecosystems to sustain a healthy growing human population in extraterrestrial environments.

“Stated simply, sustainable development of a human settlement requires a basal ecosystem to be present on location with self-restoring order, capacity, and organization equivalent to Earth.”

The theory describes the limits of space settlement ecosystems necessary to sustain life based on sufficient area and availability of resources (e.g. sources of energy) defining four levels of sustainability, each with increasing supply chain requirements.

Level 1 sustainability is essentially duplicating Earth’s basal ecosystem. Under these conditions a space settlement would be self-sustaining requiring no inputs of resources from outside. This is the holy grail – not easily achieved. Think terraforming Mars or finding an Earth-like planet around another star.

Level 2 is a bit less stable with insufficient vitality and capacity resulting in a brittle ecosystem that is subject to blight and loss of diversity when subjected to disturbances. Humans could adapt in a settlement under these conditions but would required augmentation by “…a minimal supply chain to replace depleted resources and specialized technology.”

Level 3 sustainability has insufficient area and power capacity to be resilient against cascade failure following disturbances. In this case the settlement would only be an early stage outpost working toward higher levels of sustainability, and would require robust supplemental supply chains to augment the ecosystem to support human life.

Level 4 sustainability is the least stable necessitating close proximity to Earth with limited stays by humans and would require an umbilical supply chain supplementing resources for human life support, and would essentially be under the umbrella of Earth’s basal ecosystem. The International Space Station and the planned Artemis Base Camp would fall into this category.

Understanding the complex web of interactions between biological, physical and chemical processes in an ecosystem and predicting early signs of instability before catastrophic failure occurs is key. Curt Holmer has modeled the stability of environmental control and life support systems for smaller space habitats. Scaling these up and making them robust against disturbances transitioning from Level 2 to 1 is the challenge.

How does gravity fit in? The role of gravity in the biochemical and physiological functions of humans and other lifeforms on Earth has been a key driver of evolution for billions of years. This cannot be easily changed, especially for human reproduction. But even if we were able to provide artificial gravity in a rotating space settlement, the authors point out that reproducing the atmospheric pressure gradients that exist on Earth as well as providing sufficient area, capacity and stability to achieve Level 1 ecosystem sustainability will be very difficult.

Peter Hague agrees that living outside the Earth’s gravity well will be a significant challenge in a recent post on Planetocracy. He has the view, held by many in the space settlement community, that O’Neill colonies are a long way off because they would require significant development on the Moon (or asteroids) and vast construction efforts to build the enormous structures as originally envisioned by O’Neill. Plus, we may not be able to easily replicate the complexity of Earth’s ecosystem within them, as intimated by the Panscosmorio Theory. In Hague’s view Mars settlement may be easier.

Should we determine the Gravity Rx? Some space advocates believe that knowledge of this important parameter, especially for mammalian reproduction, will inform the long term strategy for permanent space settlements. If we discover, through ethical clinical studies starting with rodents and progressing to higher mammalian animal models, that humans cannot reproduce in less than 1G, we would want to know this soon so that plans for the extensive infrastructure to produce O’Neill colonies providing Earth-normal artificial gravity can be integrated into our space development strategy.

Others believe why bother? We know that 1G works. Is there a shortcut to realizing these massive rotating settlements without the enormous efforts as originally envisioned by Gerard K. O’Neill? Tom Marotta and Al Globus believe there is an easier way by starting small and Kasper Kubica’s strategy may provide a funding mechanism for this approach. Given the limits of sustainability of the ecosystems in these smaller capacity rotating settlements, it definitely makes sense to initially locate them close to Earth with reliable supply chains anticipated to be available when Starship is fully developed over the next few years.

Companies like Gravitics, Vast and Above: Space Development Corporation (formally Orbital Assembly Corporation) are paving the way with businesses developing artificial gravity facilities in LEO. And last week, Airbus entered the fray with plans for Loop, their LEO multi-purpose orbital module with a centrifuge for “doses” of artificial gravity scheduled to begin operations in the early 2030s. Panscosmorio Theory not withstanding, we will definitely test the limits of space settlement sustainability and improve over time.

Listen to Lee and Morgan Irons discuss their theory with David Livingston on The Space Show.

Posted on

The role of space ethics on the high frontier

Artist concept of a cutaway view of the Stanford Torus free space settlement. Credits: Rick Guidice / NASA

Can humanity explore and develop space responsibly by learning from some of the mistakes made throughout history while settling new lands? In an article called “To Boldly Go (Responsibly)” on LinkedIn, CEO of Trans Astronautica Corporation Joel Sercel provides a vision for how we should conscientiously manage space settlement in a manner that respects human rights and the rule of law, but also maintains stewardship of the space environment.

“Through space settlement, we have a chance to show that humanity has learned from history and is evolving morally and culturally”

Sercel warns of the “Elysium effect”. In the words of Rick Tumlinson, who coined the term in an article on Space.com, “…as entrepreneurs like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos and Richard Branson spend billions to support a human breakout into space, there is a backlash building that holds these projects as icons of extravagance.” Ironically, these New Space pioneers actually have the opposite goals of lowering the cost of access to space for average citizens and preserving the Earth’s environment by moving “dirty” industries outside it’s biosphere.

Public space agencies and private space companies can help open the high frontier responsibility through cooperation on development of common standards and international agreements in accordance with the Outer Space Treaty. Sercel believes that an urgent need in this area would be establishment of salvage rights for defunct satellites and dormant orbital debris like spent upper stages which under the OST are the responsibility of the nation that launched the payloads.

“That’s a legal impediment for companies developing satellites to clean up orbital debris and firms eager to recycle abandoned antennas and rocket bodies.”

Some work in the area of orbital debris mitigation has already been started by the Space Safety Coalition, an ad hoc coalition of companies, organizations, and other government and industry stakeholders, through establishment of best practices and standardization for space operations. And just last month the Orbital Sustainability Act of 2022 was introduced in the U.S. Senate that will “require the development of uniform orbital debris standard practices in order to support a safe and sustainable orbital environment.”

Good progress on interagency cooperation in space has also been made with the creation of the Artemis Accords, Principles for a Safe, Peaceful, and Prosperous Future. Signed by seven nations thus far, the agreement provides a legal framework in compliance with the OST for humans returning to the Moon and establishing commercial mining rights.

Sercel thinks that before establishing a permanent human presence on Mars we should first thoroughly explore the planet robotically for signs of life to ensure that we do not disrupt any indigenous organisms if a biosphere is found to be present there.

Another example of space ethics, discussed on SSP in previous posts, is determination of the gravity prescription, especially the human gestation component. The answer to this critical factor may drive the decision on where to establish permanent long term settlements so colonists can raise families. It may turn out that having children in less than 1G may not be biologically possible and therefor, for ethical reasons, may change the long term strategy for human expansion in the solar system favoring free space settlements with Earth normal artificial gravity over surface settlements. Sercel believes that determination of the gravity Rx should be a high priority and suggested on The Space Show recently a roadmap of mammalian clinical reproduction studies starting with rodent animal models producing offspring over multiple generations progressing to primates and then, only if these are successful, initiating limited human experiments. Such studies would prevent ethical issues that may arise from birth defects or health problems during pregnancy because we don’t know how lower gravity would effect embryos during gestation.

Dylan Taylor of Voyager Space Holdings has advocated for a sustainable approach to space commercial activities to ensure “…that all humanity can continue to use outer space for peaceful purposes and socioeconomic benefit now and in the long term. This will require international cooperation, discussion, and agreements designed to ensure that outer space is safe, secure and peaceful.”

Sercel is calling for the National Space Council “…to coordinate private organizations to include think tanks, advocacy groups, and the science community to work together to define the field of space ethics…to guide the development of laws and regulations that will ensure the rapid and peaceful exploration, development and settlement of space.”