Company images of a Neumann Drive at upper left with it’s plasma discharge produced in the lab at upper right overlayed above the Earth from space. Credits: Neumann Space / NASA
Neumann Space has announced completion of initial on-orbit tests of its innovative electric propulsion system, the first of its kind utilizing solid metal as propellent to fuel a cathodic arc discharge to generate thrust via plasma exhaust. The commissioning campaign for the system confirmed that the electronics worked properly and that the thruster fired. Next up: following last December’s launch of the company’s second experiment in space, an engineering demonstration later this year will test that the propulsion system can change the orbit of a satellite.
Neumann Space has already lined up both a customer and a potential space-based source of fuel through a partnership with CisLunar Industries. In this symbiotic relationship, CisLunar will utilize Neumann’s thruster to propel their servicing vehicle that hunts down chunks of metallic space debris which will be captured and delivered to a salvage platform to be recycled into metal propellent via CisLunar’s Modular Space Foundry (previously called Micro Space Foundry). The servicing vehicle can then refuel itself to proceed to its next target. SSP reported previously on this propulsion ecosystem which could literally turn trash into treasure while cleaning up orbital debris.
Conceptional illustration of propulsion ecosystem based on CisLunar Industries Modular Space Foundry process for recycling orbital debris. Credits: CisLunar Industries
The orbital debris issue not only poses a serious threat to human spaceflight in Earth orbit, unless policies and standard practices are implemented to mitigate the issue, remote sensing, climate monitoring, weather forecasting and all commercial activities in space could be at risk, not to mention long term sustainable space settlement. The on-orbit recycling partnership between Neumann Space and CisLunar Industries will help implement the remediation pillar of the National Orbital Debris Mitigation Plan promulgated in 2022 by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.
In other news, CisLunar Industries was one of fourteen other companies selected by DARPA for its LunA-10 program, a lunar architecture study that will define commercial activities in an integrated infrastructure for lunar development over the next 10 years. CisLunar will collaborate with industry partners to develop what they call METAL, a framework for Material Extraction, Treatment, Assembly & Logistics in a lunar economy based on in situ resource utilization.
Artist depiction of the interior of a cylindrical space colony during an eclipse of the sun. Credits: Don Davis / NASA Ames Research Center
This question has come up a lot lately in the press, usually in the context of how public funds should be spent in space. On the affirmative side, the answer has been addressed well by many space advocates over the years. Elon Musk wants to make the human race a multi-planetary species in case of a catastrophe on Earth and to expand consciousness out into the cosmos starting with Mars. Jeff Besos wants to move industrial activity off world and eventually fulfill Gerard K. O’Neill’s vision of trillions of people living in free space colonies. When asked the question last year by American Enterprize Institute’s James Pethokoukis, Robert Zubrin said: “In order to have a bigger future. In order to have an open future. In order to open the possibility to create new branches of human civilization that will add their creative talents to the human story. ” He thinks Intellectual Property will be the main export of a Mars colony and he’s already kickstarting that process with the Mars Technology Institute. And of course, The National Space Society (NSS) provides clear rationale in the introduction to their Roadmap to Space Settlement.
In an effort to gain deeper insights and clarify the vision of space settlement, SSP reached out to several space advocates, academicians and entrepreneurs to gather as many viewpoints as possible. They were asked if they agreed with the viewpoints above or if they had a different take. Regardless of if we are asking for public support for government efforts through space agencies, if the efforts will be funded by private individuals or through a combination of public/private partnerships, why should humanity settle space? Here are their answers:
Doug Plata MD MPH, President & Founder of the Space Development Network, makes the case that there is no need to convince the public of the value of space:
“Many space advocates argue that the general public needs to be convinced of the value of space if we are ever going to see space development occur. So, these advocates come up with a wide variety of arguments including: the necessity of securing large amounts of public funding, the value of satellites in our everyday lives, the potential for a huge “space economy”, inspiring the next generation, and even for the survival of the human species.
“But is convincing the general public actually necessary? Put another way, will off-Earth settlement be impossible unless polls show a large percentage of the public supports space settlement?
“Secondly, it is not the general public who will be deciding whether they will settle on the Moon and Mars. Specifically, the uninterested, the cynical, nor the leftist opponent will need to be convinced over their objections. The ones who will decide will be countries choosing to send their hero astronauts to represent their own people and also private citizens who have saved up enough money. If countries have national pride (practically all) and if there are any “early adopters” with enough savings to pay for their ticket and stay, then it will be those who will decide to go. From Elon’s first BFR presentation (Guadalajara), this has been his business case and I find it to be sufficient. We don’t have to imagine some sort of unobtanium to trade with Earth to figure out where the funding will come from.
“For starters, much of the recent progress in space has not been the result of a groundswell of support from the public. Both Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos started their path to radically reducing the cost of launch independent of any groundswell of support for space by the public. And it is significant to note that they obtained their considerable wealth thanks to their Internet companies that had little, if anything, to do with space. It is their vast wealth that now gives them the ability to develop the reusable rockets which will make space development and settlement affordable and, as a result, inevitable. Even if NASA’s budget is cut to zero, Bezos will still have 20 X the wealth of NASA’s annual human spaceflight budget with Musk’s wealth at 30 X. And both are making progress with their heavy lift vehicles in a significantly more cost-effective manner than NASA.
“In conclusion, the cynic cannot be convinced, and it is probably a waste of time to try. But for those who have their own reasons for wanting to go, so long as the price has been brought down low enough…it is they who will inherit the stars. To each his own.”
Image of the Space Development Network’s full-scale mockup of an inflatable permanent habitat for the Moon or Mars at ISDC 2023. The concept is intended to demonstrate how a 100 tonne SpaceX Starship payload could be delivered and deployed to create a habitat with a 1 acre footprint. Credits: Doug Plata / Space Development Network
Dr. Daniel Tompkins, an agricultural scientist and founder of GrowMars weighs in:
“To address the term settlement from a biological view, for me it means to settle on a process or methodology to sustain and expand water/food/housing. There is settling the land to provide these things (where and how to get clean water, grow/harvest food, get building material). there is settling on practices that are reproducible with multi generational intent. Building schools, planning for expanding population. Different than an oil platform or remote research center which aren’t considered sea steading or settling Antarctica for the multigenerational intent reason.
“To answer directly on various views, mixed on positions:
“Musk- agree Mars is “easy” and most scaleable [sic]. Disagree that sustainable cites or a million people is a magically successful benchmark. Showing ability to support expanding population regardless of scale is important. How do you go from the resources to support 2 people, to 4 people.
“Zubrin- practical and pragmatic about challenges for human missions to Mars and how they can potentially accelerate the science and search for life beyond Earth. Agree IP is best export to support Mars economy lb for lb., particularly genetic engineering and synthetic biomanufacturing. Also agree on term resource creation vs term ISRU.
“Bezos- Moon is more difficult then Mars to “settle” lacking useful carbon and nitrogen than Mars, but opens a bigger range of options for where we can, the trillion people in the solar system model. The thermodynamics of habitats and greenhouses in these places isn’t well established or realized and there are misconceptions to this point of Mars being too cold.
“NSS- disagree with undertone of unlimited power needed to solve for space and earth to bring post scarcity. Unlimited biology vs unlimited power argument.
“O’Neill mostly addressed in above views, specifically cylinders are inspiring, but the process to make them not shown to make people think reproducible. Also, micrometer impacts.
“My short response to the space community and wider is that regardless of where in space (orbit, lunar, Mars etc.), space settlement is about learning to thrive independent of Earth’s natural resources in extreme environments. Whether we go to space or not, we are going to have to solve the same problem sets, i.e. clean air, water, food, materials on Earth in 50-100 years, if not sooner. It means you don’t have to fight with [your] neighbor or chop down the rainforest for more resources, you can do resource creation anywhere on Earth and meet basic needs.
“Space settlement level hardware should not be an eventually, it can be smaller than traditional mission payloads and de-risk certain mission architectures. Which is less mass/volume. Food for 3 years, greenhouses, or a machine to make greenhouses? Some of all three would be good, especially in certain scenarios.
“With sustainable independent settlement as a benchmark, practices and processes need to be inherently reproducible and serviceable. Similar and inspired methods could be used on Earth with limited resources in extreme environments to bootstrap resource creation to meet basic needs.”
Conceptual illustration of a habitat on Mars constructed from self-replicating greenhouses. Credits: GrowMars / Daniel Tompkins
Dr. Tiffany Vora, VP of Innovation Partnerships at Explore Mars and Vice Chair of Digital Biology and Medicine at Singularity University, had the following take:
“In my mind, there are three big arguments in favor of humans moving off-planet for extended, if not permanent, habitation.
“First, we more or less have the technologies that we need in order to do so, as well as a burgeoning space economy. I view crewed space habitation and settlement as further spurs to technological and economic development that will drive deeper understanding of the world around us while creating jobs and, hopefully, prosperity beyond a privileged few. That technology development has the added benefit of improving life on Earth, for example by contributing to solutions to the UN SDGs—on the way to setting the stage for sustainable human habitation off Earth.
“Second, as a biologist, I simply cannot believe that we are alone in the universe. I can’t even bring myself to believe that we’re alone in the Solar System! I view exploration and long-term settlement as key components of finding life off Earth, learning how it works, and learning from how it works. Serving as stewards of non-Terran life would be a momentous responsibility for humanity; although we have a dismal record of that here at home, I believe that life anywhere in the universe is a precious thing that would be worth a deep sense of obligation on the part of humans. Alternatively, failing to locate life elsewhere in the Solar System could provide strong messaging about the fundamental science of life—and hammer home the precarity and beauty of life on Earth.
“Third, I still believe in the capacity of space to inspire people, across generations and boundaries and even ideologies. The goal of settling space isn’t only about setting boots on exotic landscapes: it’s about staring at unbelievably complicated and dangerous challenges and saying, “Let’s do this—and here’s how I’m going to help.” I grew up in Florida, standing in my backyard watching shuttle launches. I have never lost the feeling that I had as a kid, witnessing that. I want every child on Earth to feel that sense of inspiration, of desperate excitement about the future—as well as a compelling urge to be part of it. Sure, I’d love for that to inspire STEMM careers, but there are so many other ways to contribute!
“Obviously, every word that I’ve written here comes with its own caveats. But just as I believe in these words, I also believe in our ability to make choices that open up an abundance of possible futures to bring prosperity and peace, not just to as many people around the world as possible, but to our own planet. The key is choices, and those choices have to be made starting today.”
“The new century will see a renaissance of space exploration as exciting and as challenging as the space race in the 1960s. And this rebirth will happen under the banner of freedom and private property, the very principles for which the United States fought the Cold War.”
Zimmerman continues:
“In a larger more philosophical perspective, we settle space because that’s what humans must do. It is the noblest thing we can do. To quote myself again, this time from my 2003 history, Leaving Earth:
‘Our hopes and dreams are a definition of our lives. If we choose shallow and petty dreams, easy to accomplish but accomplishing little, we make ourselves small. But if we dream big, we make ourselves great, taking actions that raise us up from mere animals.’ “
“Earthrise” image taken by astronaut Bill Anders from Apollo 8 on Christmas Eve 1968. Note that this is the original orientation of the image. As pointed out by Zimmerman, it was rotated 90o by the press for dramatic effect. Credits: William Anders/NASA
Entrepreneur and inventor Ryan Reynolds had a refreshingly unique perspective:
“So, why should humanity settle space (remotely and in-person)?:
To be confronted with a new set of challenging environments.
Feel the struggle to understand and adapt to them.
Benefit from the effort through shared insights and tangible gains for all.
To observe ourselves outside of the cradle, and know better what we are.
To gain a broader view of our kinship with all that exists.
To be surprised and appalled at our behavior out there.
To ensure that the story does not end here.
To extend biology’s reach.”
Dr. Peter Hague, an astrophysicist in the UK who blogs on Planetocracy had this to say:
“The solar system can and will, eventually, support civilisation on a more larger scale than exists on Earth. There is 2 billion times as much energy available from the Sun in the wider solar system as falls on the Earth alone, and huge reserves of raw materials. The composition of this civilisation will be determined by which nations make investments now – they will get to populate the new society, set the rules and inspire the culture. So it’s in the interests of nations to have a stake in the future, or be irrelevant in a few centuries.”
Haym Benaroya, Distinguished Professor of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at Rutgers University and author of Building Habitats on the Moon provided these views:
“I often have to defend the efforts and resources that have been used, and will continue to be allocated, for the space program, and especially the manned space program. While one can rightly say that the funds expended is miniscule as compared to other things that governments and people spend vast sums on, this argument rings hollow. I prefer to point to space, its exploration and its settlement, as an open-ended human adventure and imperative that provides young generations a positive vision of their future, one that gives hope to them and their decedents. Simultaneously, it offers the likely significant technical developments that would not occur otherwise. These technologies will impact how humans will live. Their health will improve, their lives will be longer, more fulfilled, and with the potential for great achievements. There is also the hope that with greater abundance for all on Earth, which a potentially vast space economy can provide, the tolerance for wars will decline. This last idea is a bit utopian given the history of the human race, but it is not a fantasy. It is a potential. Space can increase that potential in a major way.”
Dr. David Livingston, creator/host of The Space Show and one of today’s foremost authorities on the New Space economy, had this thought-provoking vision:
“Space settlement is a visionary long-term project. In addition, I’m confident that be the inevitable outcome pushed by a global humanity wanting to go to space for off-Earth experiences, living off-Earth and eventually creating off-Earth communities. I see it as a natural outgrowth of innovation, advancements in all walks of life and in our desire to see and check out what lies just around the corner. Over time this will happen within the private commercial section of our economy with government mostly working to provide enabling rules of the road to mitigate some risks and uncertainty through establishing order and reasonable protocols. To breathe life into this vision so that it becomes reality, collectively we need to anchor our vision in science, engineering, medical development, behavioral science and most likely many more foundational components so that what we build and stands the test of time on solid footing. Having a dream and a vision for space settlement is one thing but to work on it, to enable it, to develop it, to make it come about implies we are a free people able to pursue dreams, to turn them into reality and to create amazing outcomes that were not even in existence yesterday. But its not enough to just have a good dream or vision for the future. We need to be able to make it happen which to me implies having a solid foundation not Bay Mud, plus realistic, plausible outcome expectations that are only possible when we can explore, build, and develop as we see fit. When we can take risks. Being free to push forward to what lies beyond Earth is as essential as all the other ingredients that will go into making space settlement happen because without that freedom, we will have our dreams but without the ability to make them real.
“I’m fully aware that the settlement discussions like to focus on operational timelines, rockets, engineering, medical, food, and all sorts of challenges. While all of this is critical to developing space settlement, these discussions must not sidetrack us into a world of hypotheticals and perspectives suggesting this or that technology is best given our present state of settlement R&D. Since I firmly believe that the private sector should make settlement happen, more so than the government, I would like to see viable commercial projects and startups designed to enable and support the goal of settlement. Government too has an important role in establishing space settlement. Rules of the road and policies are needed to provide order, structure, and safety. One of our primary relationships with government must be oversight so that we enable not curtail settlement development.
“Space Settlement is fraught with challenges, with naysayers and those that think they know best for others. I have every confidence that we will in time be overcome these obstacles. By showing and doing, not by talking and promising. I’m in less of a hurry to see the first settlement than I am in seeing us get started with essential precursors such as long-term commercial project financing as an example. Space settlement will likely evolve because of a step-by- step methodical approach to information and fact gathering, problem solving, testing, development, and more testing. Risk taking will play a very large role in our ability to move forward. As for risk taking, it can only be taken by those with the freedom to do so. As we advance step by step, innovation and forward thinking by those on the front lines will play an increasingly valuable role in turning our vision into reality.
“Space settlement is and should be a global endeavor with unlimited motivating and inspiring reasons driving thousands if not millions of us to our goal. As we move forward, we are sure to uncover and use many of the tightly held secrets of our universe. For sure it will be a very exciting and rewarding adventure as we figure out how to live, work, and play off-Earth, all the while making sure the process and our off-Earth communities are sustainable and independent on an ongoing basis. This will happen if we remain focused and avoid distraction. Having patience will help us stay the course and to develop and maintain our needed drive into the future. A future that to me lies ahead of us with as much certainty as does our daily sunrise and sunset.”
Tom Marotta, CEO of The Spaceport Company and Brett Jones, Strategic Marketer and Frontier Tech investor cowrote this inspiring response:
“Reimagining the Stars: A Multiplanetary Mindset for a Flourishing Future The challenges humanity faces today are vast. From the instability of our global systems to the dwindling resources and fading hopes, there’s an undeniable sense of stagnation. Yet, within this atmosphere of despondency lies a beacon of hope, a path toward rejuvenation: the cosmos. Imagine a world where resources are not just abundant, but practically infinite. Where our collective potential is not limited by the boundaries of our blue planet, but instead, expanded by the boundless wonders of space. Such a vision is not mere science fiction; it is a future within our grasp.
“Space: An Oasis of Resources and Possibilities Outer space is not just about twinkling stars and distant planets. It’s a treasure trove waiting to be explored. The vast quantities of materials and energy floating in the cosmic expanse can fuel economies, revitalize our planet, and secure prosperous futures for generations. And it’s not just about physical resources. The challenges of space exploration will drive advancements in healthcare, technological innovation, and even the social fabric of society.
“New Frontiers, New Beginnings Space offers a fresh canvas, an opportunity to redefine human existence. For those yearning for change, be it a new environment, companionship, or the thrill of exploration, the cosmos holds endless possibilities. It’s not just about survival; it’s about thriving in ways we have yet to envision.
“Redefining NASA’s Mission: From Pride to Purpose NASA has always been a symbol of American pride. Its achievements, from landing on the moon to exploring the distant reaches of our solar system, are testament to human ingenuity. Yet, its true potential lies not just in exploration, but in transformation.
“For NASA to truly leave an indelible mark on every individual, it needs to shift its vision. Instead of focusing solely on exploration and scientific endeavors, the emphasis should be on providing direct benefits for every citizen. This involves prioritizing space settlements, harnessing energy from space, and leveraging cosmic resources.
“An Invitation to the Stars As we stand on the cusp of a new era, we must choose the trajectory of our future. By adopting a multiplanetary mindset, we’re not just securing a better life for ourselves but ensuring the continued growth and prosperity of all humankind for millennia to come. The universe beckons, offering hope and possibilities. It’s up to us to answer the call.”
Conceptual illustration of a mobile offshore launch platform as part of a robust launch industry infrastructure servicing thousands of launches in the near future to support space development. Credits: The Spaceport Company
“The question of ‘why’ humanity should settle space has been debated ever since it became technologically possible in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. And the question has renewed relevance here in 2023 with the launch of a new space race — both public and private. A frequent objection is: “Why should we spend precious resources on space development when we have pressing problems to solve down here on Earth?”
“However, to address that concern I think it’s vital to re-frame the question as not just ‘why’ we should settle space, but why we must urgently settle space. And the answer is compelling: we must settle space in order to deliver economic opportunity and clean energy to all the people of Earth, particularly if we are to have a reasonable chance of resolving the existential threat of climate change. One may question how expanding human society and industry into space accomplishes that, but the answer is straightforward…
“Yes, developed nations have made progress in reducing their carbon emissions in an effort to address climate change. And yes, more consumers are buying electric cars. However, social media and mainstream news reports tend to suggest climate change will soon be under control if we just continue installing solar & wind farms, and keep buying electric cars. However, the truth is that human civilization as a whole is not reducing carbon emissions. In fact, for all our efforts over the past 30 years all we’ve done is slow the growth of emissions. For example, global carbon emissions increased yet again (0.9%) in 2022 and that increase was above the 6% increase from the year before (source: National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration). Pointedly, carbon emissions have increased almost every year since the dawn of the industrial age in 1850 (a notable exception being 2020, during the height of the pandemic).
“The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere today was last experienced 4.3 million years ago, during the mid-Pliocene epoch when sea levels were 75 feet higher than today, and average temperatures were 7 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than pre-industrial times. Even if we reduced annual global carbon emissions to zero tomorrow, average global temperatures would still continue to rise each year for a century or more because of the trillion tons of CO2 that we’ve already released into our atmosphere since 1850. That CO2 will take a century or more to be sequestered by the natural carbon cycle, which means there will be a surplus of heat absorbed by the planet each and every year no matter how many solar panels, wind turbines, and hydro power stations we install.
“No, in order to truly address climate change, we’re going to need to remove CO2 from Earth’s atmosphere, reducing concentrations from the present 418ppm down to at least 350ppm, a level more suitable to global civilization. But coming up with the terawatts of clean energy required to remove all that CO2 is going to be nearly impossible here on Earth, especially as economic and political turmoil continues to spread in response to climactic chaos.
“Adding to the challenge of resolving climate change is the fact that over 2 billion people currently live in poverty and billions more experience meager living standards. They are eagerly trying to improve their circumstances through economic development and increased energy usage. India, China, nations of Africa, and elsewhere want to improve the lives of their citizens just as developed nations of the West did over the past 150 years. They need energy to do so, and new coal and gas-fired power plants are coming online in the developing even as they continue to roll out solar and wind.
“How can we possibly increase the energy and resources available to the people of Earth without further polluting our already ailing home world — especially in time to stave off the worst effects of climate change, which will itself cause more conflict, uncontrolled migration and food shortages, reducing cooperation on global issues? Earth is a finite system, and the solution to climate change and continued economic development worldwide lies in going beyond Earth’s atmosphere to obtain the energy and resources we need.
“One answer is to expand carbon-intensive industry and energy generation into cislunar space. By using in-situ resource utilization in deep space (as opposed to launching all our working mass from Earth), we can start to rapidly build out an offworld industrial infrastructure & economy, using resources harvested from our Moon and near-Earth asteroids. By refining these materials in space, we can build enormous solar power satellites, place them in geosynchronous orbit, and beam at first gigawatts and later terawatts of clean solar power to rectennas on the Earth’s surface 24-hours a day, rain or shine anywhere in the hemisphere beneath them. The technology to accomplish this has existed since the mid-1970’s. And Earth’s geosynchronous orbit, safely populated with solar power satellites could return well over 300 terawatts of continuous clean energy — and for reference we currently consume a bit over 20 terawatts of energy worldwide. Plus, the economic growth made possible by expanding industry and energy generation into cislunar space will be critical for all the people of Earth. This could include industries only possible in the microgravity and/or near-perfect vacuum of space, from ultra-clear ZBLAN fiber optics, exotic alloys, pharmaceutical discovery, astronomy — the list goes on.
“So ‘why’ should we settle space? I contend that’s the wrong question. The right question is ‘why should we urgently‘ settle space? And the answer is to avoid an existential catastrophe and instead make possible a promising and dynamic future for countless generations to come.”
Finally, here are the reasons for space settlement articulated as goals in 1976 by Gerard K. O’Neill from his blueprint for migration off Earth, The High Frontier:
Ending hunger and poverty for all human beings
Finding high-quality living space for a world population which will double withing forty years, and triple with another thirty, even if optimistic estimates of low-growth rate are realized
Achieving population control without war, famine, dictatorship, or coercion
Increasing individual freedom and the range of options available to every human being
Cutaway view revealing interior of a toroidal space settlement. Credits: Rick Guidice / NASA Ames Research Center
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.
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.
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.”
Artist’s rendering of a farming settlement on Mars. Credits: HP Mars Home Planet Rendering Challenge via International Business Times.
Space settlement will eventually require space farming to feed colonists and to provide life support. It’s clear that we will replicate our biosphere wherever we go. In that spirit, Bryce L. Meyer envisions Mars as the breadbasket of the outer solar system. In a presentation at Archon 45, a science fiction and fantasy convention held annually by St. Louis area fans, he makes the case for why the fourth planet would be the ideal spot to grow crops and feed an expanding population as part of the roadmap to agriculture in space.
Carbon dioxide and subsurface water ice are plentiful on Mars, critical inputs for crop photosynthesis. There is also evidence of lava tubes there which could provide an ideal growing environment protected from radiation, micrometeorite bombardment and temperature extremes. The regolith should provide good nutrients and there is already research on methods to filter out perchlorates, a toxic chemical compound in the Martian soil.
Image of Lava tubes on the surface of Mars as photographed by ESA’s Mars Express spacecraft. Credits: ESA/DLR/FU Berlin/G Neukum / NewScientist
Another advantage that Mars holds as a food production hub for the asteroids and beyond is its placement further out in the solar system. Since it is higher up in the sun’s gravity well, Meyer calculates that it would take less than 43% of the fuel needed to transport goods from Mars outward than from Earth. He even suggests that with its lower gravity and recent advancements in materials research, a space elevator at Mars could be economically feasible to cheaply and reliably transport foodstuff off the planet.
Meyer keeps a webpage featuring space agriculture, terraforming, and closed cycle microgravity farming where he poses the question “Why settle space?” I like his answer: “Trillions of Happy Smiling Babies!!!”
Basic input/output diagram of an environmental control and life support system like what would be expected in a space farm. Credits: Bryce L. Meyer
Meyer is the founder and CEO of Cyan React, LLC, a startup that designs compact photobioreactors and provides expertise in closed-cycle farming and life support especially for space settlement and space habitats. He is also a National Space Society Space Ambassador doing his part to educate the public about the potential benefits to humanity through the use of the bountiful resources in space. In a presentation at this year’s International Space Development Conference, he describes his research on bioreactors explaining how settlers will grow food and recycle waste sustainably on the high frontier.
Diagram depicting the flow of materials in a closed space farm habitat utilizing bioreactors. Credits: Bryce L. Meyer
Complete closure and stability of an environmental control and life support system (ECLSS) is challenging and not without limitations. As launch and space transportation costs come down in the near future and off-Earth supply chains become more reliable, complete closure will not be required at least initially. In situ resource utilization will provide replacement of some ECLSS consumables where available for colonists to live off the land. As missions go deeper into space reaching the limits of supply chain infrastructure and even out to the stars, closure of habitat ECLSS and resource planning will become more important. Meyer has done the math for farms in space to provide food and air for trillions of smiling babies…and their families as they move out into the solar system.
Hubble Space Telescope image of Mars showing clouds in atmosphere near the poles and the extinct volcano Olympus Mons at right. The primary constituents of the Martian air are carbon dioxide (95%) and nitrogen (~3%). Credits: NASA
A new technology funded by ESA is under development in Belgium and Portugal that could produce breathable air, oxidizer for rocket fuel and nitrogen for fertilizer out of thin air on Mars. Using a high energy plasma, researchers at the University of Antwerp and the University of Lisbon published independent results that look promising as a source of oxygen for life support and propulsion, plus nitrogen oxides as fertilizer to grow crops.
Team Antwerp heated simulated Martian atmosphere with microwaves in a plasma chamber. The electrical energy cracked the carbon dioxide and nitrogen in the gas into highly reactive species generating oxygen which, in addition to creating breathable air and oxidizer for fuel, was combined with the nitrogen to create useful fertilizer.
The scientists in Lisbon used direct current to excite the gases into a plasma state, literally creating lightning in a bottle. This team focused only on the production of oxygen.
The efficiency of these processes is quite impressive. For example, when compared to the Mars Oxygen In Situ Resource Utilization Experiment (MOXIE) on NASA’s Perseverance rover, the Antwerp system uses the same input power, about 1kWh, but produces 47 g per hour which is about 30 times faster. MOXIE uses solar energy to electrochemically split carbon dioxide into oxygen ions and carbon monoxide, then isolates and recombines the oxygen ions into breathable air.
Image of the toaster-sized Mars Oxygen In Situ Resource Utilization Experiment (MOXIE) being installed on the Perseverance rover at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory prior to launch. Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech
The research is in early days but has the potential for benefits on Earth too. The amount of energy needed to fix nitrogen in fertilizer for terrestrial crops is significant and releases considerable amounts of carbon dioxide to support worldwide agriculture. This plasma technology, if it can be commercialized, has the potential to reduce the carbon footprint of Earth-based fertilizer production. The fact that the process has duel-use provides a profit motive for development of the equipment and scaling up production, which could lead to improvements in efficiency and reduction in the mass for space applications.
We love ISRU technology that facilitates production of consumables using local resources at space destinations, thereby reducing the mass that needs to be transported to support space settlements and enabling them to become self-sustaining.
Roadmap for research and infrastructure development for growing crops in space for human sustenance and life support, from the ISS to Mars. Credits: Grace L. Douglas, Raymond M. Wheeler and Ralph F. Fritsche
Space settlement advocates know that we will have to take our biosphere with us to space to produce food, provide breathable air and recycle wastes. Completely closing the system, i.e. recycling everything is a huge technological challenge, especially on a small scale like what is planned for settlements in free space or on the surfaces of the Moon or Mars. Fortunately, there are plenty of raw materials in the solar system for in situ resource utilization so we can live off the land, so to speak, until our bioregenerative life support system efficiencies improve.
Early research into crop production in space has been performed on the ISS. But the road ahead for space agriculture in the context of life support systems needs careful planning to pave the way toward biologically self-sustaining space settlements. A team of scientists at NASA is working on a roadmap toward sustainability with a step-by-step approach to bioregenerative life support systems (BLSS) that will provide food and oxygen for astronauts during the space agency’s mission plans in the decades ahead. In a paper in the journal Sustainability they identify the current state of the art, resource limitations and where gaps remain in the technology while drawing parallels between ecosystems in space and on Earth, with benefits for both.
Simulation and modeling of BLSS concepts is important to predict their behavior and help inform actual hardware designs. A team at the University of Arizona performed a study recently analyzing the inputs and outputs of such a system to improve efficiencies and apply it to food production on Earth in areas challenged by resource limitations and food insecurity. Sustainable ecosystems for supporting humans on and off Earth have similar goals: minimizing growing space, water usage, energy needs and waste production while simultaneously maximizing crop yields. The team presented their findings in a paper presented at the 50th International Conference on Environmental Systems held last July. In the study, a model of an ecosystem was created consisting of various combinations of plants, mushrooms, insects, and fish to support a population of 8 people for 183 days with an analysis of total growing area, water requirements, energy consumption and total wastes produced. The study concluded that “In terms of resource consumption, the strategy of growing plants, mushrooms, and insects is the most resource-efficient approach.”
At the same conference, an update was provided on a Scalable, Interactive Model of an Off-World Community (SIMOC). SIMOC was described in a previous post on the Space Analog for the Moon and Mars (SAM) located at Biosphere 2 in Arizona. SIMOC is a platform for education meeting standards for student science curriculum. Pupils or citizen scientists can customize human habitats on Mars by selection of mission duration, crew size, food provisions as well as choosing types of plants, levels of energy production, etc.. Users gain an understanding of the complexity of a BLSS and the tradeoffs between mechanical and biological variables of life support for long duration space missions. There is much to be learned on the limitations and stability of closed biospheres, as discussed last year.
Image of Biosphere 2, a research facility to support the development of computer models that simulate the biological, physical and chemical processes to predict ecosystem stability. Credits: Biosphere 2 / University of Arizona
A BLSS based on plant biology could be augmented with dark ecosystems, the food chain based on bacteria that are chemotrophic, i.e. deriving their energy from chemical reactions rather then photosynthesis, which could significantly reduce the inputs of energy and water.
A concept for a lunar farm called Lunar Agriculture, Farming for the Future was published in 2020 by an international team of 27 students participating in the Southern Hemisphere Space Studies Program at the International Space University.
Layout of a potential subsurface lunar farm. Credits: International Space University and University of South Australia
As a treat to cap off this post, a retired software engineer and farmer named Marshall Martin living in Oklahoma provided his perspective on crops in space on The Space Show recently. A frequent caller to the program, this was his first appearance as a guest where, like the NASA team mentioned earlier, he recommends a phased approach to space farming starting with small orbital facilities, testing inputs and outputs as we go, to ensure the economics pay off at each stage of our migration off Earth. He even envisions chickens and goats as sources of protein and milk, although the weight limitations for inclusion of these animals in space-based ecosystems may not be possible for quite some time. Its unlikely that cows will ever make it to space but cultured meat production is a real possibility for the carnivores among us which is being studied by ESA.
Cattle in the cargo bay of the Firefly-class transport spaceship Serenity. Cows probably won’t make it to space because of weight, volume and resource limitations but cultured meat is a real possibility. Image from the television series Firefly. Credits: Josh Whedon/ Mutant Enemy, Inc. in associations with Twentieth Century Fox Television
Conceptual illustration depicting the Charon single-stage to Mars orbit mission architecture. Credits: Jérémie Gaffarel et al.* – image from Graphical Abstract with addition of text.
In the next few decades a settlement on Mars will be established, either by Elon Musk or other spacefaring entities (or both). To enable an economically viable supply chain to support a prosperous colony on Mars, an affordable and sustainable transportation system will be needed. Musk is designing Starship for what he originally called an interplanetary transportation system. But his design is just the first step and is expected to evolve over time. As originally conceived Starship may not make long term economic sense for launch from Earth, travel across interplanetary space, landing on Mars, lift off again and finally, return and safe landing on Earth. Even though the Starship User Guide says the the vehicle is designed to carry more than 100 tons to Mars, the enormous amount of cargo and crew required to be transported to support a prospering and sustainable Martian colony if done only with repeated Starship launches directly from Earth will likely be too expensive.
A better approach might be to limit Starship to an in-space transportation system which cycles back and forth between Earth and Mars orbits without a (Mars) landing capability. Not knowing how Starship may evolve, this could be a starting point. Eventually, a more efficient interplanetary transportation system may be an Aldrin cycler. Either scenario would require a shuttle at Mars for delivery of payloads from low orbit to the surface and back to space again. A team* at Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands has come up with a design for a reusable singe-stage to orbit vehicle they call Charon that would reliably address this final leg of the Mars supply chain. They described the mission architecture in an article in the journal Aerospace last year.
The team identified 80 key design requirements for Charon, but three stood out as the most important. At the top of the list was the capability of transporting 6 people and 1200 kg of cargo to and from low Mars orbit. Next, any consumables needed for the vehicle would have the capability of being produced in situ on Mars. Finally, because of the human rating, the reliability of the system would have to be high – with loss of crew less than 0.5% or 1 out of 270, which is equivalent to SpaceX’s Crew Dragon.
With safety being a high priority an abort subsystem is included to address each anticipated flight phase and the associated abort modes. The SpaceX Starship design does not have an abort system, so the authors believe that Charon would be safer for launch from Mars given the high flight rate anticipated to and from Mars low orbit. They suggest that Starship be limited to launch from Earth and interplanetary transportation to Mars orbit.
Cutaway illustration of the layout of the Charon vehicle adapted from Figure 5 in article. Credits: Jérémie Gaffarel et al.*Cutaway view of the capsule adapted from Figure 4 in article. Credits: Jérémie Gaffarel et al.*
Significant infrastructure will be needed on Mars to support operations, especially in situ resource utilization for production of methane and oxygen for Charon’s propulsion system. This pushes out the timeline for implementation a few decades (to at least 2050) when a Mars base is expected to be well established with appropriate power sources and equipment to handle mining, propellant manufacturing, maintenance, communications and other needed facilities.
Upon a thorough analysis of Charon’s detailed design, reliability and budgets the team concluded that “The program for its development and deployment is technologically and financially feasible.”
* Gaffarel, Jérémie, Afrasiab Kadhum, Mohammad Fazaeli, Dimitrios Apostolidis, Menno Berger, Lukas Ciunaitis, Wieger Helsdingen, Lasse Landergren, Mateusz Lentner, Jonathan Neeser, Luca Trotta, and Marc Naeije. 2021. “From the Martian Surface to Its Low Orbit in a Reusable Single-Stage Vehicle—Charon” Aerospace 8, no. 6: 153. https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace8060153
Conceptual illustration of a Habitat Autonomous Locomotive Expandable (HALE) mobile self sustaining habitat under propulsion near a planetary destination. Credits: unknown artist via Thomas Matula
Dr. Thomas Matula, Professor at Sul Ross State University Uvalde, Texas, has developed an economically based strategy for space settlement. His plan addresses the deficiencies in many proposed visions of human expansion beyond earth, namely the missing economic and legal aspects needed for sustainable settlement of the solar system. Matula discussed his approach with David Livingston on The Space Show September 14 and in a paper entitled An Economic Based Strategy for Human Expansion into the Solar System attached to the show blog.
Astrosettlement Development Strategy (ADS) can be boiled down into a four step economically based roadmap for space settlement which could be started with minimal private funding. Each step would achieve economic success before moving on to the next level. The four levels are Earth based research, industrialization of the Moon, developing and settling the solar system and interstellar migration.
In the first step of Earth based research, Matula suggests developing a subscription based online role playing computer game with the purpose of creating a virtual simulation of a space settlement to model the social and economic aspects of communities beyond Earth. SSP has been following similar efforts already underway by Moonwards. Further research in this phase would look into space agriculture to understand the types of plants and dietary needs of space settlers and improving the efficiency of crop growth paving the way for self sustaining habitats. Matula has penned a different paper along these lines called The Role of Space Habitat Research in Providing Solutions to the Multiple Environmental Crises on Earth, also attached to the Space Show Blog, which could have duel use applications in addressing environmental problems on our home planet. There are already efforts underway in this arena with Controlled Environment Agriculture (CEA) utilizing greenhouse automation through the Internet of Things leading to reduction of water needs and an increase in crop yields.
“Developing the technology to green the Solar System will also green the Earth for future generations”
Next on the roadmap is lunar industrialization. The focus of this step is to use robotics and in situ resource utilization to minimize the mass of materials lifted from Earth and to create lunar manufacturing capability in a cislunar economy that can be leveraged to build space based habitats for expansion into deep space.
Developing the solar system comes next. Once an economic foundation of industrialization of the Moon has been established, large mobile habitats can be built at the Earth-Moon Lagrange points L1 and L2. Called HALE, for Habitat Autonomous Locomotive Expandable, these are 1km wide self sustaining habitats with 1G artificial gravity capable of low energy transit throughout the solar system including out to the Kuiper Belt, where they can use the resources there to add to their size or build copies of themselves.
The final phase combines mobile free space settlement with advanced propulsion to develop the capability of expansion into the Oort cloud and on to the stars.
“…propulsion technology could advance to a point that would allow mobile space habitats designed for the Oort Cloud to be transformed into the first generational starships.”
