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

Lunar-derived propellant fueling a cislunar economy may be competitive with Earth

AI generated image depicting a propellant factory on the Moon. Credits: DALL-E

The economics of an in-space industry based on lunar-derived rocket propellant was examined by Florida Space Institute planetary physicist Philip Metzger in a prepublication paper submitted to arXiv on March 16 . The study will be published in the June issue of Acta Astronautica. Many skeptics of this approach believe that with launch costs plummeting, driven down primarily due to reusability pioneered by SpaceX, it will be cheaper to power the nascent cislunar economy with propellant launched from Earth rather then fuel derived from lunar ice mining.

In his analysis, Metzger examines a cislunar economy of companies that operate geostationary satellites which need to purchase boost services using orbital transfer vehicles fueled by cryogenic hydrogen and oxygen. The question is, would sourcing H2/O2 from ice mined on the Moon be competitive with launching propellant from Earth. He notes that previous studies that favored Earth to solve this problem were flawed because they compared the different technologies for mining water on the Moon (e.g. strip mining, borehole sublimation, tent sublimation, or excavation with beneficiation) rather than analyzing the economics of the cis-lunar economy as a sector.

With that approach in mind, Metzger develops an economic model with figures of merit to assess how various technologies for ice mining compare to Earth sourced propellant. One such parameter is the “gear ratio” G, which in the parlance of orbital dynamics, is the ratio of the mass of hardware and propellant before versus after moving between two locations in accordance with the rocket equation. The other key metric is the production mass ratio Ø, which is the mass of propellant delivered to a specific location divided by the mass of the capital equipment needed to produce the fuel.

The “tent sublimation technology” mentioned in the paper was invented by George Sowers and is featured in his 2019 NIAC Phase I Final Report on ice mining from cold bodies in the solar system covered by SSP previously.

Although G is constrained by the laws of physics, reasonable values are possible and a value of Ø ≥ 35 is the threshold above which lunar propellant wins out. The tent sublimation technology is estimated to have Ø over 400, an order of magnitude higher than the minimum to gain an advantage. Metzger’s new approach took into account that launch costs will eventually come down as far as possible but even then, found that lunar propellant can be produced at a competitive advantage. The only caveat is validation of the TRL and reliability of ice mining technologies.

“Lunar-derived rocket propellant can outcompete rocket propellant launched from Earth, no matter how low launch costs go.”

Although not included in Metzger’s study, a method for extraction of water from lunar regolith is heating by low power microwaves. A recent study found that this technology is effective for extracting water from simulated lunar soil laced with ice. It would be interesting to see if Ø for this technique exceeds the advantage threshold.

Developing the business case for lunar water is the first step in rapidly bootstrapping an off-Earth economy.  Metzger has written about this previously where he sees robotics, 3D printing and in situ resource utilization being leveraged to accelerate growth of a solar system civilization.

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

Solar cell manufacturing using lunar resources

Conceptual rendering of a Blue Alchemist solar cell fabrication facility on the Moon. Credits: Blue Origin

Jeff Bezos’ new initiative called Blue Alchemist made a splash last month boasting that the team had made photovoltaic cells, cover glass and aluminum wire from lunar regolith simulant. This is an impressive accomplishment if they have defined the end-to-end process which (with refinements for flight readiness) would essentially provide a turnkey system to fabricate solar arrays to generate power on the Moon. The announcement claimed that the approach “…can scale indefinitely, eliminating power as a constraint anywhere on the Moon.” Actually, this may not be possible at first for a single installation as surface based solar arrays can only collect sunlight during the lunar day and would have to charge batteries for use during the 14 day lunar night, unless they were located at the Peaks of Eternal Light near the Moon’s south pole. But if scaling up manufacturing is possible, coupled with production of transmission wire as described, a network of solar power stations in lower latitudes could be connected to distribute power where it is needed during the lunar night.

Very few details were revealed about the design outputs of the end products (not surprisingly) in Blue Origin’s announcement, particularly the “working prototype” solar cell. An image of the component was provided but it was unclear if the process fabricated the cells into a solar array or if the energy conversion efficiency was comparable to current state of the art (around 21%). Nor do we know how massive the manufacturing equipment would be, how much periodic maintenance is needed or if humans are required in the process. Still, if a turnkey manufacturing plant could be placed on the Moon and it’s output was solar arrays sourced from in situ materials, it would significantly reduce the costs of lunar settlements by not having to transport the power generation equipment from Earth. This particular process has the added benefit of producing oxygen as a byproduct, a valuable resource for life support and propulsion.

Research into production of solar cells on the Moon from in situ materials is not new. NASA was looking into it as recently as 2005 and there are studies even dating back to 1989. Blue’s process produces iron, silicon, and aluminum via electrolysis of melted regolith, using an electrical current to separate these useful elements from the oxygen to which they are chemically bound. Solar cells are produced by vapor deposition of the silicon. The older studies referenced above proposed similar processes.

It would be interesting to perform an economic analysis comparing the cost of a solar power system supplied from Earth by a company focusing on reducing launch costs (say, SpaceX) with that of a company like Blue Origin that fabricated the equipment from lunar materials. Peter Hague has done just that in a blog post on Planetocracy using his mass value metric.

Hague runs through the numbers comparing SpaceX’s predicted cost per kilogram delivered to the Moon by Starship with that of Blue Origin’s New Glenn. At current estimates the former is 5 times cheaper than the latter. Thus, to best Starship in mass value, Blue Alchemist would have to produce 5kg of solar panels for every 1kg of equipment delivered to the Moon, after which it would be the economic winner. Siting a recent analysis of lunar in situ resource utilization by Francisco J. Guerrero-Gonzalez and Paul Zabel (Technical University of Munich and German Aerospace Center (DLR), respectively) predicting comparable mass output rates, Hague believes this estimate is reasonable.

Perhaps we should not get ahead of ourselves as Blue Origin’s timeline for development of their New Glenn heavy-lift launch vehicle is moving a glacial pace and one wonders if they have the cart before the horse by siphoning off funds for Blue Alchemist. Jeff Bezos is free to spend his money any way he wishes and definitely seems to be in no hurry.

Conceptual illustration of New Glenn heavy-lift launch vehicle on ascent to orbit. Credits: Blue Origin

But SpaceX’s Starship has not made it to space yet either and after we see the first orbital flight, hopefully as early as next week, the company will have to demonstrate reliable reusability with hundreds of flights to achieve economies of scale commensurate with their predicted launch cost of $2M – $10M. As SpaceX has demonstrated with it’s launch vehicle development process it is not a question of if, it is one of when.

Image of full stack Starship at Starbase in Boco Chica, TX. Credits: SpaceX

As both companies refine their approach to space development, will it be the tortoise or the hare that wins the mass value price race for the cheapest approach to power on the Moon? Or will each company end up complementing each other with energy and transportation infrastructure in cislunar space? Either way, it will be exciting to watch.

Posted on

Lunar landing pad trade study

Artist’s impression of a lunar landing pad. Credits: SEArch+

When humanity returns to the Moon and begins to build infrastructure for permanent settlements, propulsive landings will present considerable risk because rocket plumes can accelerate lunar dust particles in the bare regolith to high velocities which could result in considerable damage to nearby structures. Obviously, nothing can be done about the first spacecraft that will return to the moon later this decade unless they use their own rocket plume to create a landing pad like the concept proposed in a NIAC Grant by Masten Space Systems (now part of Astrobotic).

Flight Alumina Spray Technique (FAST) instant landing pad deployment during lunar landing. Source: Matthew Kuhns, Masten Space Systems Inc (now Astrobotic)

Therefore, before significant operations can begin on the Moon that require lots of rockets, a high priority will be construction of landing pads to prevent sandblasting by rocket plume ejecta of planned structures such as habitats, science experiments and other equipment. Several methods are currently being studied. Some require high energy consumption. Others could take a long time to implement. Still others are technologically immature. Which technique makes the most economic sense? Phil Metzger and Greg Autry examine options for the best approach to this urgent need in a November 2022 paper in New Space.

A lunar landing pad should have an inner and outer zone. The inner zone will have to withstand the intense heat of a rocket plume during decent and ascent. The outer zone can be less robust as the expanding gases will cool rapidly and decrease in pressure but will still be expanding rapidly, so erosion will have to be mitigated over a wider area.

Landing pad layout showing inner and outer zone measurements proposed in this study (Figure 1 in paper). Credits: Philip Metzger and Greg Autry / New Space – Lunar surface image credit: NASA.

Several processes of fabricating landing pads were examined by the authors. Sintering of regolith is one such technique, where dust grains are heated and fused by a variety of methods including microwave heating or focused solar energy. SSP has reported on the latter previously, but in this study it was noted that that technology needs further development work. Fabricating pavers by baking in ovens in situ was also examined in a addition to infusion of a polymer into the regolith to promote particle adhesion.

An economic model was developed to support construction of landing pads for NASA’s Artemis Program based on experimental data and the physics for predicting critical features of construction methods. Factors such as the equipment energy consumption, the mass of microwave generators compared to the power output needed to sinter the soil to specified thickness, and the mass of polymer needed to infuse the regolith to fabricate the pads were included in the model. Other factors were considered including the costs associated with program delays, hardware development, transportation of equipment to the lunar surface, and reliability.

When varying these parameters and comparing different combinations of manufacturing techniques, the trade study optimized the mass of construction equipment to balance the costs of transportation with program delays. The authors found that from a cost perspective, microwave sintering makes the most sense for both the inner and outer regions of the landing pad, at least initially. When transportation costs come down to below a threshold of $110K/kg then a hybrid combination of microwave sintering in the inner zone and polymer infusion of regolith in the outer zone makes the most sense.

Once astronauts land safely and begin EVAs on the lunar surface, they can keep from tracking dust into their habitat by taking an electron beam shower.

Other lunar dust problems and their risks can be mitigated with solutions covered previously on SSP.

Posted on

Space development on the Moon, Mars and beyond featured in 2023 NIAC Phase I Grants

Conceptual illustration of an oxygen pipeline located at the lunar south pole. Credits: Peter Curreri

This year’s list of NASA Innovative Advanced Concepts (NIAC) Phase I selections include a few awards that look promising for space development. For wildcatters (or their robotic avatars) drilling for water ice in the permanently shadowed craters at the lunar south pole and cracking it into hydrogen and oxygen, Peter Curreri of Houston, Texas based Lunar Resources, Inc. describes a concept for a pipeline to transport oxygen to where it is needed. Clearly oxygen will be a valuable resource to settlers for breathable air and oxidizer for rocket fuel if it can be sourced on the Moon. The company, whos objective is to develop and commercialize space manufacturing and resources extraction technologies to catalyze the space economy, believes that a lunar oxygen pipeline will “…revolutionize lunar surface operations for the Artemis program and reduce cost and risk!”.

Out at Mars, Congrui Jin from the University of Nebraska, Lincoln wants to augment inflatable habitats with building materials sourced in situ utilizing synthetic biology. Cyanobacteria and fungi will be used as building agents “…to produce abundant biominerals (calcium carbonate) and biopolymers, which will glue Martian regolith into consolidated building blocks. These self-growing building blocks can later be assembled into various structures, such as floors, walls, partitions, and furniture.” Building materials fabricated on site would significantly reduce costs by not having to transport them from Earth.

A couple of innovations are highlighted in this NIAC grant. First, Jin has studied the use of filamentous fungi as a producer of calcium carbonate instead of bacteria, finding that they are superior because they can precipitate large amounts of minerals quickly. Second, the process will be self-growing creating a synthetic lichen system that has the potential to be fully automated.

In addition to building habitats on Mars, Jin envisions duel use of the concept on Earth. In military logistics or post-disaster scenarios where construction is needed in remote, high-risk areas, the “… self-growing technology can be used to bond local waste materials to build shelters.” The process has the added benefit of sequestration of carbon, removing CO2 from the atmosphere helping to mitigate climate change as part of the process of producing biopolymers.

Graphical depiction of biomineralization-enabled self-growing building blocks for habitats on Mars. Credits: Congrui Jin

To reduce transit times to Mars a novel combination of Nuclear Thermal Propulsion (NTP) with Nuclear Electric Propulsion (NEP) is explored by Ryan Gosse of the University of Florida, Gainesville.

Conceptual illustration of a bimodal NTP/NEP rocket with a wave rotor enhancement. Credits: Ryan Gosse

NTP technology is relatively mature as developed under the NERVA program over 50 years ago and covered by SSP previously. NTP, typically used to heat hydrogen fuel as propellant, can deliver higher specific impulse then chemical rockets with attractive thrust levels. NEP can produce even higher specific impulse but has lower thrust. If the two propulsion types could be combined in a bimodal system, high thrust and specific impulse could improve efficiency and transit times. Gosse’s innovation couples the NTP with a wave rotor, a kind of nuclear supercharger that would use the reactor’s heat to compress the reaction mass further, boosting performance. When paired with NEP the efficiency is further enhanced resulting in travel times to Mars on the order of 45 days helping to mitigate the deleterious effects of radiation and microgravity on humans making the trip. This technology could make an attractive follow-on to the NTP rocket partnership just announced between NASA and DARPA.

Finally, an innovative propulsion technology for hurling heavy payloads rapidly to the outer solar system and even into interstellar space is proposed by Artur Davoyan at the University of California, Los Angeles. He will be developing a concept that accelerates a beam of microscopic hypervelocity pellets to 120 kilometers/s with a laser ablation system. The study will investigate a mission architecture that could propel 1 ton payloads to 500 AU in less than 20 years.

Artist depiction of pellet-beam propulsion for fast transit missions to the outer solar system and beyond. Credits: Artur Davoyan

Posted on

Engineering analysis of pressurized lunar lava tubes for human habitation

Conceptual illustration of a lunar base in Mare Tranquilitatis Hole, believed to be an entrance to a lava tube about 100 meters below the lunar surface. Credits: Dipl.-Ing. Werner Grandl

In a new paper in Acta Astronautica Raymond P. Martin, a propulsion test engineer at Blue Origin and Haym Benaroya, a professor of mechanical and aerospace engineering at Rutgers describe the former’s research he carried out as a graduate student under the latter analyzing the structural integrity of lunar lava tubes after pressurization with breathable air. As reported previously on SSP, subterranean lava tubes on the Moon and Mars hold much promise as naturally occurring enclosures that are believed to be structurally sound, thermally stable and would provide natural protection from micrometeoroids as well as radiation. If they could be sealed off for habitation and filled with breathable air, life could be simplified for colonists as they would not have to don space suits for routine activities.

“This paper makes the argument that … lunar lava tubes present the most readily available route to long-term human habitation of the Moon”

Two views of a lunar skylight revealing a potential subsurface lava tube in Mare Ingenii. Credit: NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center/Arizona State University

Martin opens the paper with a history of the discovery and physical characteristics of lunar lava tubes tapping geological data dating back to the Apollo program. The existence of a lava tube is sometimes revealed by the presence of a “skylight”, a location where the roof of the tube has collapsed, leaving a hole that can be observed from space. Using an engineering simulation software called ANSYS, he developed a computer model to assess the structural integrity of these formations when subjected to internal atmospheric pressure.

Martin creates a model for his simulation based on the morphology of a relatively small lava tube known to exist from imagery taken by the Chandrayaan-1 spacecraft, the first lunar probe launched by the Indian Space Research Organisation . This structure averages 120 meters in diameter and was chosen because it has a rille-type opening level to the surface and could be sealed off at two locations. This approach makes sense as a starting point because the cavern would be easy to access and less energy would be be required to pressurize a smaller enclosure. Thus, the amount of infrastructure needed to establish early settlements would be minimized.

The goal of the simulation was to assess the integrity of the enclosed space under varying roof thicknesses and pressurization levels. Failure conditions were defined using commonly employed methods of assessing stability of tunnels in civil engineering and based on lunar basaltic rock general material properties known from testing of samples brought back from the Moon in the Apollo program and lunar meteorites. Finally, a formula was derived for safety factors associated with the failure conditions to ensure robustness of the design.

When running the simulation over various roof thicknesses and internal pressures, an optimum solution was found indicating that it is possible to pressurize a lava tube with a roof thickness of 10 meters with breathable air at nearly a fully atmosphere while maintaining its structural integrity. This would would feel like sea level conditions to people living there.

Being able to pressurize a lava tube for habitation could significantly simplify operations on the Moon as the infrastructure needed to make surface dwellings safe from radiation, micrometeorite bombardment and thermal extremes would be extensive adding costs to the settlement.

“A habitat within a pressurized tube would offer large reductions in
weight, complexity, and shielding, as compared to surface habitats.”

Once a permanent settlement has been established and engineering knowledge advances to enable expansion into larger lava tubes, we can imagine how cities could be built within these spacious caverns, and what it would be like to live and work there. SSP explored just this scenario with Brian P. Dunn, who painted a scientifically accurate picture of such a future in Tube Town – Frontier, a hard science fiction book visualizing life beneath the surface of the Moon. Dunn envisions a thriving cislunar economy with factories producing spacecraft for Mars exploration.

Conceptual illustration of a spacecraft manufacturer inside a lava tube. Credit: Riley Dunn

Martin and Benaroya dedicated their paper to the memory of Brad Blair, a mining engineer who was a widely recognized authority on space resources.

The authors both appeared on The Space Show last December to share insights on this groundbreaking research. Benaroya has been featured previously on SSP with another of his graduate student’s (Rohith Dronadula) thesis on hybrid lunar inflatable structures.

Update March 16, 2023: Martin and Benaroya were featured in The Economist, via a recent licensed post in Yahoo Finance.

Posted on

ICON awarded $57 Million by NASA to develop lunar 3D printing technology for lunar surface construction

Conceptual illustration of Olympus, a lunar construction system based on in situ resource utilization. Credits: ICON

In a press release, the Austin based company reports how the Phase III award under NASA’s Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program will be used to adapt its existing additive manufacturing process for home building on Earth to the Olympus system using lunar regolith for fabrication of structures on the Moon. ICON envisions the system to be integrated into a rover that will be delivered to the Moon via a lander. The rover will then autonomously drive to a target site where the Olympus laser 3D printer will process lunar regolith into useful structures. The system can be used for fabricating roads, landing pads and habitats out of local resources without having to bring building materials from Earth, thereby significantly lowering costs. Once the system is proven on the Moon, perhaps in the later stages of Artemis, the same technology can be applied on Mars as well.

ICON plans to test the system “…via a lunar gravity simulation flight” although no details were revealed on such a mission. Presumably, this would be a parabolic flight in the Earth’s atmosphere. The company would use samples of lunar soil brought back during the Apollo missions and lunar regolith simulant to tune the process variables of their laser 3D printing equipment operating under these conditions. Once optimized, Olympus would be placed on the Moon “…to establish the critical infrastructure necessary for a sustainable lunar economy including, eventually, longer term lunar habitation.”

“The final deliverable of this contract will be humanity’s first construction on another world, and that is going to be a pretty special achievement.”

– Jason Ballard, ICON co-founder and CEO

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.”

Posted on

The case for free space settlements if the Gravity Rx = 1G

Cutaway view of interior of Kalpana One, an orbital settlement spinning to produce 1G of artificial gravity. Credits: © Bryan Versteeg, Spacehabs.com / via NSS

SSP has addressed the gravity prescription (GRx) in previous posts as being a key human factor affecting where long term space settlements will be established.  It’s important to split the GRx into its different components that could effect adult human health, child development and reproduction.  We know that microgravity (close to weightlessness) like that experienced on the ISS has detrimental effects on adult human physiology such as osteoporosis from calcium loss, degradation of heart and muscle mass, vision changes due to variable intraocular pressures, immune system anomalies…the list goes on.  But many of these issues may be mitigated by exposure to some level of gravity (i.e. the GRx) like what would be experienced on the Moon or Mars.  Colonists may also have “health treatments” by brief exposures to doses of 1G in centrifuge facilities built into the settlements if the gravity levels in either location is found to be insufficient. We currently have no data on how human physiology would be impacted in low gravity (other then microgravity).

The most important aspect of the GRx with respect to space settlement relates to reproduction.  How would lower gravity effect embryos during gestation? Since humans have evolved in 1G for millions of years, a drastic change in gravity levels during pregnancy could have serious deleterious effects on fetal development.  Since fetuses are already suspended in fluid and can be in any orientation during most of their development, it may be that they don’t need anywhere near the number of hours of upright, full gravity that adults need. How lower gravity would affect bone and muscle growth in young children is another unknown. We just don’t know what would happen without a clinical investigation which should obviously be done first on lower mammals such as rodents. Then there are ethical questions that may arise when studying reproduction and growth in higher animal models that could be predictive of human physiology, not to mention what would happen during an accidental human pregnancy under these conditions. 

Right now, we only know that 1G works. If space settlements on the Moon or Mars are to be permanent and sustainable, many space settlement advocates believe they need to be biologically self-sustaining. Obviously, most people are going to want to have children where they establish permanent homes. If the gravity of the Moon or Mars prevents healthy pregnancy, long term settlements may not be possible for people who want to raise families. This does not rule out permanent settlements without children (e.g. retirement communities). They just would not be biologically self-sustaining.

SSP has suggested that it might make sense to determine the GRx soon so that if we do determine that 1G is required for having children in space, we begin to shape our strategy for space settlement around free space settlements that produce artificial gravity equivalent to Earth’s.  Fortunately, as Joe Carroll has mentioned in recent presentations, the force of gravity on bodies where humanity could establish settlements throughout the solar system seems to be “quantized” to two levels below 1G – about equal to that of the Moon or Mars.  All the places where settlements could be built on the surfaces of planets or on the larger moons of the outer planets have gravity roughly at these two levels.  So, if we determine that the GRx for these two locations is safe for human health, we will know that we can safely raise families beyond Earth in colonies on the surfaces of any of these worlds.  Carroll proposes a Moon/Mars dumbbell gravity research facility be established soon in LEO to nail down the GRx. 

But is there an argument to be made for skipping the step of determining the GRx and going straight to an O’Neill colony?  After all, we know that 1G works just fine.  Tom Marotta thinks so.  He discussed the GRx with me on The Space Show recently.  Marotta, with Al Globus coauthored The High Frontier: An Easier Way.  The easier way is to start small in low Earth orbit.  O’Neill colonies as originally conceived by Gerard K. O’Neill in The High Frontier would be kilometers long in high orbit (outside the Earth’s protective magnetic field) and weigh millions of tons because of the amount of shielding required to protect occupants from radiation.  The sheer enormity of scale makes them extremely expensive and would likely bankrupt most governments, let alone be a challenge for private financing.  Marotta and Globus suggest a step-by-step approach starting with a far smaller version of O’Neill’s concept called Kalpana.  This rotating space city would be a cylinder roughly 100 meters in diameter and the same in length, spinning at 4 rpm to create 1G of artificial gravity and situated in equatorial low Earth orbit (ELEO) which is protected from radiation by our planet’s magnetic field.  If located here the settlement does not require enormous amounts of shielding and would weigh (and therefore cost) far less.  Kasper Kubica has proposed using this design for hosting $10M condominiums in space and suggests an ambitious plan for building it with 10 years.  Although the move-in cost sounds expensive for the average person, recall that the airline industry started out catering to the ultra-rich to create the initial market which eventually became generally affordable once increasing reliability and economies of scale drove down manufacturing costs. 

What about all the orbital debris we’re hearing about in LEO? Wouldn’t this pose a threat of collision with a free space settlement given their larger cross-sections? In an email Marotta responds:

“No, absolutely not, I don’t think orbital debris is a showstopper for Kalpana.

… First, the entire orbital debris problem is very fixable. I’m not concerned about it at all as it won’t take much to clean it up: implement a tax or a carbon-credit style bounty system and in a few years it will be fixed. Another potential historical analogy is the hole in the ozone layer: once the world agreed to limit CFCs the hole started healing itself. Orbital debris is a regulatory and political leadership problem, not a hard technical problem. 

Second, even if orbital debris persists, the technology required to build Kalpana…will help protect it. Namely: insurance products to pay companies (e.g. Astroscale, D-Orbit, others) to ‘clear out’ the orbit K-1 will inhabit and/or mobile construction satellites necessary to move pieces of the hull into place can also be used to move large pieces of debris out of the way.  In fact, I think having something like Kalpana…in orbit – or even plans for something that large – will actually accelerate the resolution of the orbital debris problem. History has shown that the only time the U.S. government takes orbital debris seriously is when a piece of debris might hit a crewed platform like the ISS. Having more crewed platforms + orbital debris will drastically limit launch opportunities via the launch collision avoidance process. If new satellites can’t be launched efficiently because of a proliferation of crewed stations and orbital debris I suspect the very well-funded and strategically important satellite industry will create a solution very quickly.”

To build a space settlement like the first Kalpana, about 17,000 tons of material will have to be lifted from Earth.  Using the current SpaceX Starship payload specifications this would take 170 launches to LEO.  By comparison, in 2021 the global launch industry set a record of 134 launches.  Starship has not even made it to orbit yet, but assuming it eventually will and the reliability and reusability is demonstrated such that a fleet of them could support a high launch rate, within the next 20 years or so there will be considerable growth in the global launch industry.  If larger versions of Kalpana are built the launch rate could approach 10,000 per year for space settlement alone, not to mention that needed for rest of the space industry.  This raises the question of where will all these launches take place?  Are there enough spaceports in the world to support it?  Marotta has an answer for this as well.  As CEO of The Spaceport Company, he is laying the groundwork for the global space launch infrastructure that will be needed to support a robust launch industry.  His company is building distributed launch infrastructure on mobile offshore platforms.  Visit his company website at the link above for more information.

Conceptual illustration of a mobile offshore launch platform. Credits: The Spaceport Company

For quite some time there has been a spirited debate among space settlement advocates on what destination makes the most sense to establish the first outpost and eventual permanent homes beyond Earth.  The Moon, Mars or free space O’Neill settlements.  Each location has its pros and cons.  The Moon being close and having ice deposits in permanently shadowed craters at its poles along with resource rich regolith seems a logical place to start.  Mars, although considerably further away has a thin atmosphere and richer resources for in situ utilization.  Some believe we should pursue all the above.  However, only O’Neill colonies offer 1G of artificial gravity 24/7.  With so many unknowns about the gravity prescription for human health and reproduction, free space settlements like Kalpana offer a safe solution if the markets and funding can be found to make them a reality.