Artist rendering of what could be the first hotel on the Moon. Credit: Galactic Resource Utilization Space
Galactic Resource Utilization (GRU) Space published a white paper in January outlining their ambitious plans for a combination lunar base and hotel on the Moon. They believe this plan will accelerate humanity’s transition to an interplanetary species. Authored by the founder of the startup Skyler Chan (a recent UC Berkeley graduate with experience in space hardware and software), the document critiques the current state of the space industry and proposes a private-sector-led approach centered on lunar tourism as the catalyst for broader infrastructure development. GRU Space, backed by Y Combinator, was founded last year.
Chan asserts that humanity stands at a pivotal moment where becoming an interplanetary civilization is achievable within our lifetimes. He argues that the current legacy space ecosystem relies heavily on two pillars: government-subsidized exploration (such as NASA’s Artemis program) and massive launch capabilities (e.g. the Space Launch System and SpaceX’s Starship). However, a true commercial “lunar economy” remains virtually nonexistent. The industry suffers from a stagnation cycle—companies wait for government contracts to fund development, while agencies demand proven hardware before committing funds. This creates a deadlock where advanced technologies (e.g. lunar robotics, power systems, comms) exist in isolation without real customers or demand drivers.
GRU Space rejects this dependency on slow government timelines and “customer discovery” phases. Instead, the company aims to create immediate, tangible value for people on Earth to jumpstart economic activity off-world. Their core thesis: space tourism, specifically a lunar hotel, is the fastest and most practical “wedge” to bootstrap a self-sustaining lunar economy. Chan’s proposed solution: GRU Space’s flagship project to build and operate the first hotel on the Moon, initially as a high-end tourism destination for short multi-day stays. This hotel would serve paying customers (with reservations already open for deposits ranging from $250,000 to $1 million) while simultaneously demonstrating and de-risking technologies essential for permanent lunar infrastructure. GRU’s innovations and phased approach include:
Mission I (2029): A small ~10 kg payload delivered via a Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) lander to test core habitation technologies, particularly an inflatable structure featuring an airtight bladder, structural fabric, micrometeoroid shielding, and thermal/UV protection layers.
Mission II (2031): Deployment of a lunar cave base using inflatable systems positioned near a lunar pit or lava tube skylight for natural radiation shielding and resource access. Although not in their current plans, this could pave the way for eventual pressurization of a lava tube for habitation, a concept that has already had preliminary studies completed and covered by SSP.
Mission III (2032): Delivery of the first operational lunar hotel via a heavy-lift launch vehicle and lander, accommodating up to four guests initially (with plans to scale to 10 in later versions) located in scenic locals, featuring stunning views of Earth and thrilling extravehicular activities.
The initial hotel will be constructed from inflatable modules shipped from Earth. Future expansions will transition to in-situ resource utilization (ISRU)—processing lunar regolith into durable bricks or structures using automated robotic systems. This reduces launch costs dramatically and enables scalable construction of roads, warehouses, mass drivers (proposed by Elon Musk recently), and other base elements including locally sourced oxygen. GRU’s team is staffed perfectly for these technologies. Cofounder and Member of Technical Staff Kevin Cannon is a planetary geologist and an authority on ISRU. He’s been the source for several posts on SSP and will know exactly where and how to access lunar resources needed for the effort.
The lunar hotel is envisioned to be a high-end destination that generates revenue from customers coming up from Earth, while simultaneously validating ISRU, habitation and life support technologies for more expansive infrastructure.
GRU Space’s broader vision after the hotel positions the company as an architect of long-term human presence on the Moon and Mars with a technical roadmap progressing as follows:
Solve the problem of off-world surface habitation via the hotel
Expand to support a full base with infrastructure including roads, resource processing, and storage.
Replicate the model for population centers on Mars for millions of people.
The approach leverages commercial transportation (e.g., from SpaceX or Blue Origin) and focuses on creating goods/services with Earth-side value (tourism experiences) to generate revenue and prove viability. This contrasts with government-led efforts by prioritizing private customers and rapid iteration.
Overall, the document combines technical roadmap details with economic philosophy, emphasizing self-reliance, revenue-driven development, and urgency in seizing the current window for interplanetary expansion. While ambitious and early-stage (with no operational hardware as of yet), it reflects a startup mindset applied to space settlement, backed by expertise in ISRU, robotics, and space systems from the founding team.
Chan concludes the white paper with a bold claim: by building the first lunar hotel, GRU Space will outflank the traditional space industry, create the initial spark for a lunar economy, and lay the groundwork for humanity’s multi-planetary future. He frames the project not merely as tourism but as a civilizational necessity—turning the Moon into a stepping stone for permanent, expanding human settlement beyond Earth. The last step in his “Top Secret” GRU Master Plan is humanity becoming a Kardashev Type III civilization! Now we know how he came up with the name!
Above – Mars Cycler exploded section. Below – Cruise ship-sized Mars Cycler booster (left) and docking configuration (right). Credits: Offworld Industries Corp.
At the 54th International Conference on Environmental Systems held in Prague, Czechia, this past July, a paper was presented describing an innovative design of a large-scale Mars Cycler. The authors, A. Scott Howe, John Blincow, Theodore W. Hall, and Colin Leonard, make the assumption that a significant planetary migration to Mars will happen in the near future, citing Elon Musk’s often stated goal of establishing a one-million person colony on the Red Planet by 2050. The authors argue that Starship will not be a suitable transportation method for a large, non-professional clientele on what has historically been a six-month journey due to the physiological and psychological health risks of a long-duration mission (not withstanding a recent paper penned by University of Santa Barbara physics undergrad Jack Kingdon proposing two trajectories that reduce transit times to between 90 to 104 days each way).
Instead, they envision a “cruise ship” approach using a large, robotically constructed Mars Cycler that would continuously travel between Earth and Mars. The concept for a Mars Cycler was first conceived by Buzz Aldrin in a 1985 paper, and in recognition of his invention, is often referred to as an Aldrin cycler. This particular cycler design is advantageous because it would use minimal propellant to maintain its trajectory. The concept features a dual-torus structure, with a non-rotating outer torus for docking and a rotating inner torus to provide artificial gravity. The paper lays out in detail the specifications for a minimal-sized version with crew capacity of 52-61 people, and calculates the mass and equipment required for the vessel. The authors estimate that it would take 63 Starship launches (version 3) to deliver the construction materials and propellant to low Earth orbit (LEO). A scaled up larger cruise ship-sized version with a capacity of 1000 occupants would take 428 Starship version 3 launches, which is within the range of engineering possibility and certainly within the launch rate of thousands of Starships Elon Musk envisions as part of his Mars colonization plans.
The Mars Cycler would be assembled using Offworld Industries Corporation’s Sargon System, a family of new construction machines the company claims could build an entire space station in half a year (Blincow is CEO of Offworld Industries Corp). The novel construction technology autonomously assembles preformed hull panels loaded in a magazine, robotically dispensed, formed and welded into large toroidal (or other shaped) space stations ready to be pressurized.
The paper advocates for the cycler to provide artificial gravity to mitigate the deleterious health impacts of microgravity allowing occupants to maintain healthy muscle and bone density throughout the journey. The proposed design decouples an inner artificial gravity centrifuge from an outer non-rotating torus, which offers several operational benefits:
Distributed docking ports: The non-rotating outer torus can accommodate multiple visiting vehicles docking at various points around its perimeter.
Fixed systems: Solar panels and radiators can be mounted without the need for gimbals or motorized mounts, simplifying the design.
Seamless transfer: Crew and cargo can be transferred between visiting vehicles and the cycler without the need for spin-up or spin-down procedures.
The paper identifies several challenges to overcome in order to realize an operational Mars Cycler. The top five include:
Large-scale space construction: The project requires the construction of very large orbital structures. A key challenge is maintaining tolerance control during assembly, ensuring panels fit together precisely and the torus closes properly.
Attitude control and maneuvering: The paper assumes, but does not detail, that maneuvering large quarter-toroids in proximity to each other will be possible without “exotic solutions’. This is a significant challenge because each section would have its own center of mass and orbit, creating strain on connected elements.
Artificial gravity implementation: A number of difficulties are discussed, including economic spin-up/spin-down, docking procedures while the structure is spinning, and performing extra-vehicular activities (EVAs) under rotation. The paper also notes that transferring power, control, information, and liquids between the rotating and non-rotating segments would be challenging.
Mars surface infrastructure: The paper acknowledges that a major challenge is the “big elephant in the room of Mars surface infrastructure”. The entire concept is based on the assumption that the necessary infrastructure, such as propellant production facilities, will be in place on Mars by the time the cycler is ready.
Life Support Systems: Sustaining human crews on a cycler for extended periods (e.g., months-long transits) requires robust life support systems for air, water, food, and waste management. The paper underscores the challenge of maintaining these systems with minimal resupply over multiple cycles.
Assuming these challenges could be solved, this interplanetary cruise ship design of a Mars Cycler is a new approach to deep-space travel, elegant in its simplicity. It offers a potential solution to the challenges of long-duration missions by providing artificial gravity via a rotating inner torus to ensure the health and well-being of future Mars colonists.
In addition to these cyclers providing a mode of safe space transportation, such large artificial gravity space stations could be permanently located in orbit around planets or moons that have surface communities in split life cycle space settlements which SSP covered recently. Such a facility could have duel use as an Earth-normal gravity crèche, providing birthing centers and early child development for families settling in the region. Colonists could choose to split their lives between rearing their young in healthy normal gravity settings until their offspring are young adults, then moving down to live out their lives in lower gravity surface settlements – or they may choose to live permanently in free space.
Conceptual illustration of two Pale Red Dot villages on Mars serviced by SpaceX Starships. Credits: Pale Red Dot Team*
Pale Red Dot is an acronym for Polis-based Architecture for the Long-term Exploration of the Red planet, with Exciting and Diverse Developmental Opportunities to Thrive. This concept, which was the first place winner of the NASA 2023 RASC-AL competition in the category of Homesteading Mars by a team* at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Space Resources Workshop, focuses on establishing a city-state with Earth-independence supporting extensive scientific exploration on Mars. NASA’s RASC-AL (Revolutionary Aerospace Systems Concepts – Academic Linkages) competitions foster innovation of aerospace systems concepts, analogs, and technology by bridging gaps through university engagement.
This architecture envisions sending robotic precursor missions to Mars following experience gained from NASA’s Artemis program to survey sites, test technologies, and stockpile resources like water and propellant. Lets be honest up front that this paper is two years old and timelines for return to the Moon have been moved out. Predictions on milestones in the paper for this plan as described below should take these delays into account. With the current Trump administration the fate of Artemis program is evolving. There are many possibilities being proposed to streamline NASA’s plans, one of which by retired aerospace engineer and entrepreneur Rand Simberg, leverages public-private partnerships to get humans back to the moon. Keeping this in mind, when humans return to the lunar surface, Pale Red Dot would leverage the engineering knowledge gained from robotic landers and human missions used in Artemis or any subsequent initiative that emerges.
Next, in 2035 (at the earliest), robotic cargo SpaceX Starships would deliver approximately 5,800 tons of equipment consisting of habitats, nuclear microreactors, farming modules, manufacturing facilities, and in-situ resource utilization (ISRU) systems. By 2040, two crewed Starships would transport 36 colonists to Mars to establish two closely located villages. Costs would be shared by nations that are signatories of the Artemis Accords, 56 and counting as of this post.
The study used a modelling approach that prioritized safety and crew health in design of the architectures, both in transportation and surface facilities. Relying heavily on NASA’s current career permissible limits for space radiation, exposure was minimized by splitting the crew among two Starships, each one adding a 71-ton 35cm polyethylene shield, and dashing to Mars within 113 days. Upon arrival, to guard against galactic cosmic radiation and solar particle events, the initial surface habitats will have integrated 3m water tanks in their roofs for radiation shielding. The plans call for gradually building out radiation-proof underground tunnel habitats. Although not considered in this scenario, locating the settlements in a lava tube could be advantageous not only for ready-made radiation protection but thermal management as well.
The Pale Red Dot (PBD) architecture emphasizes robustness and thriving, rather than just survival, through substantial infrastructure supporting 36 crew members across two Martian villages. This includes extensive makerspaces and significant reliance on ISRU. The two nearby villages are designed to be energy-rich, water-rich, food-rich, time-rich, and capability-rich, with substantial self-rescue capabilities.
Diagram from Figure 4 in the paper depicting one of two villages of the Pale Red Dot architecture showing zone layout with modules for farms, habitation, mission utilization and makerspaces. Credits: Pale Red Dot Team*
Extraction methods for sourcing in situ water were not addressed in the PRD architecture. This should not be a problem though as the communities could leverage methods that have already been validated, such as the RedWater System which could drill for, and collect, subsurface water ice.
The paper argues that such a large architecture, with its economies of scale and specialization, is crucial for mitigating the risks associated with a long-duration, minimally resupplied mission to Mars. Crew time modeling suggests that smaller missions with 12 or fewer people would not provide sufficient free surface traverse time for meaningful science and exploration. The estimated lifecycle cost for this campaign is $81 billion, with a peak annual cost of $6.6 billion.
The PRD concept highlights the potential for creating a true community on Mars with sufficient social complexity for humans to thrive. Furthermore, it proposes the geopolitically significant option of including crew members from every Artemis Accords signatory in the first human mission to Mars. Comprehensive details are provided on the dual-habitat architecture, concept of operations, mission control, technology roadmap, and risk burn-down plan.
Artist rendering of the Lunar Outpost Eagle Lunar Terrain Vehicle. Credit: Lunar Outpost
Space News recently reported that Colorado-based Lunar Outpost has signed an agreement with SpaceX to use Starship to deliver their lunar rover, known as the Lunar Outpost Eagle, to the Moon. Announced November 21, the contract supports the Artemis program with surface mobility and infrastructure services. The agreement positions Starship as the delivery vehicle for Lunar Outpost’s Lunar Terrain Vehicle (LTV), which is a contender for NASA’s Lunar Terrain Vehicle Services (LTVS) program. The exact terms of the contract, including the launch schedule, were not disclosed in the announcements. Lunar Outpost has assembled a contractor team under the banner “Lunar Dawn” to execute the company’s LTV solution. The collaborative development program includes in industry leaders Leidos, MDA Space, Goodyear, and General Motors.
Rover Design Features
Mobility and Functionality: The Lunar Outpost Eagle is designed to support both crewed and autonomous navigation on the lunar surface. It’s built to operate even during the harsh lunar night, exhibiting resilience against the Moon’s extreme temperature changes.
Collaborative Development: The Lunar Dawn team brings expertise in spacecraft design, robotics, automotive technology, and tire manufacturing, ensuring a robust and versatile design.
Size and Capacity: Described as truck-sized, the Eagle LTV is intended to be a valuable vehicle for lunar operations, capable of transporting heavy cargo to support NASA’s Artemis astronauts and commercial activities.
Testing and Refinement: The design has undergone human factors testing at NASA’s Johnson Space Center, with feedback from astronauts being used to refine the vehicle’s usability and functionality.
Future Plans
NASA’s LTV Program: Lunar Outpost is one of three companies selected by NASA for the LTV program to develop rovers to support future Artemis missions. The other two companies are Intuitive Machines and Venturi Astrolab. After a preliminary design review (PDR), NASA will select at least one company for further development and demonstration, with the goal of having a rover operational in time for Artemis 5, currently scheduled for 2030.
Commercial Operations: Beyond NASA’s usage, the rovers will be available for commercial operations when not in use by the agency, aiming to support a sustainable lunar economy. This includes plans for infrastructure development and scientific exploration.
Series A Funding: Lunar Outpost has recently secured a Series A funding round to accelerate the development of the Lunar Outpost Eagle, ensuring that the rover project moves forward regardless of the outcome of NASA’s selection process.
Long-Term Vision: The company’s vision extends to enabling a sustainable human presence in space, with plans to leverage robotics and planetary mobility for development of infrastructure to harness space resources.
This partnership with SpaceX and the development of Eagle under the Lunar Dawn program are pivotal steps in advancing both NASA’s lunar exploration goals and commercial activities on the Moon.
Once delivered to the Moon by Starship, the Eagle rover will drive over harsh regolith terrain which, as discovered by Apollo astronauts when driving the Lunar Roving Vehicle, presents several unique challenges due to the Moon’s distinct environmental conditions. First, lunar dust is highly abrasive and can become electrostatically charged sticking to surfaces and mechanisms resulting in wear and degradation of wheels, bearings, and sensors potentially leading to equipment failure. The Moon’s low gravity can make traction difficult. Rovers might slip or skid becoming less stable when accelerating, braking or turning. Terrain variability and nonuniformity on loose powdery dust or sharp, rocky outcrops could cause stability issues.
These problems can be solved by creating roads with robust, smooth surfaces for safe and reliable mobility on the Moon. Initially, the regolith could be leveled by robots with rollers to compact the regolith to make it less likely to be kicked up by rover wheels. Eventually, technology being developed by companies like Ethos Space for infrastructure on the Moon using their robotic system for melting regolith in place for fabricating lunar landing pads, could be used to build smooth, stable roads.
A network of roads could be constructed to transport water and other resources harvested at the poles to where it would be needed in settlements around the Moon extending from high latitudes down to the equatorial regions. As envisioned by the Space Development Network, this system of roads could be created to provide access to a variety of areas to mine valuable resources as well as thoroughfares to popular exploration and tourism sites. The development of the highway system could start at the poles with telerobots, then eventually be expanded to include equatorial areas and would be fabricated autonomously prior to the arrival of large numbers of settlers.
Longer term, a more efficient method of transportation on the Moon could be magnetic levitation (maglev) trains. Research into this technology has already been proposed by NASA which is actively developing a project named “Flexible Levitation on a Track” (FLOAT), which aims to create a maglev railway system on the lunar surface. This system would use magnetic robots levitating over a flexible film track to transport materials, with the potential to move up to 100 tons of material per day. The FLOAT project has advanced to phase two of NASA’s Innovative Advanced Concepts (NIAC) program.
Artist’s rendering of the Flexible Levitation on a Track (FLOAT) maglev lunar railway system to transport materials on the Moon. Credit: Ethan Schaler / Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Artist’s depiction of a space farm in a 56m radius rotating space settlement. Credits: Bryan Versteeg / Spacehabs.com
Editors Note: This post is a summary of a presentation by Marshall Martin that was accepted by the Mars Society for their conference that took place August 8 – 11th in Seattle, Washington. Marshall was not able to attend but he gave me permission to publish this distillation of his talk. There are minor edits made to the original text with his permission. Marshall is an accomplished Software Engineer with decades of experience managing multiple high tech projects. He has Bachelor’s Degree in Mathematics and Physics from Northwestern Oklahoma State University and an MBA in Management of Information Systems from Oklahoma City University. He is currently retired and farms with his in-laws in Renfrow, Oklahoma. The views expressed by Marshall in this post are his own.
The Earth is a Biosphere supporting life which has evolved and thrived on sunlight as an energy source for more than 3.4 billion years.
Therefore!
You would think a few smart humans could reverse engineer a small biosphere that would allow life to exist in deep space on only sunlight.
Furthermore, eventually the sun will run short of hydrogen and transition into a red giant making the Earth uninhabitable in a few hundred mission years. Long before that time, we need to have moved into biospheres in space growing crops for food. But for now….
The cost of food in space (when launched from Earth) is too high. My Estimates: [1,2]
Launch Vehicle/Mission
Cost/pound (USD)
Cost/Person/Day* (USD)
Space Shuttle to ISS
$10,000
$50,000
Falcon 9 to ISS
$1134
$5670
Atlas V[3] to Mars (Perseverance[4] Mars Rover)
>$100,000
$500,000
2 year mission to Mars based on Atlas V costs
>$100,000
$365,000,000
* Assuming average consumption rate of 5 pounds/day
If we assume that the SpaceX Starship will reduce launch costs to Mars by at least two orders of magnitude, the cost/person/day for a two year mission would still exceed $3 million dollars.
Solution: farming in space
Starting with a rough estimate, i.e. a SWAG (Scientific wild-ass guestimate): – A space station farm sized at 1 acre producing 120 bushels per acre of wheat, 60 pounds per bushel, 4 crops per year, yields 28,000 pounds of wheat per year. Using Falcon 9 launch costs, this produces a crop valued at $31.7M per year. If your space farm is good for 50 years, the crops would be worth $1.585B when compared to an equivalent amount of food boosted from Earth at current launch costs.
SWAG #2 – I believe a space farm of this size can be built using the von Braun “Wet Workshop” approach applied to a spin gravity space station composed of several Starship upper stages at a projected cost of $513M. More on that later.
Do we know how to build a space farm? NO!
So how do we get there?
Biosphere X would be the next generation of ground-based Biospheres. You may consider the original Biosphere 2[5] as the first prototype. As an initial SWAG, it was marginally successful. As the design basis of a working space farm, it is nowhere close.
Image of the iconic Biosphere 2 experiment that attempted two missions, between 1991 and 1994, sealing a team of nine and seven Biospherians, respectively, inside the glass enclosure. The facility is now used for basic research 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
Biosphere Y will be placed in Equatorial Low Earth Orbit (ELEO) and will be based on the best iteration of Biosphere X.
Biosphere Z will be a radiation hardened version of Biosphere Y for deep space operations.
Key Metrics:
People per acre is an important metric. Knowing how many people are going to be on a space station or spaceship will imply the size of the farming operations required. [6]
Labor per acre is important. It determines how many farm workers are needed to feed the space population (assuming there will be no automation of farm operations). Note: every American farmer feeds about 100 people. Obviously, if it takes 11 farmers to support 10 people in the biosphere, that is a failure. If it takes 2 farmers to support 10 people that implies that 8 workers are available to work on important space projects. Like building the next biosphere that is bigger and better.
Cost per acre will be the major cost of supporting a person in space. There will be a huge effort to reduce the cost of space farmland.
Water per acre required to grow the crops. Since there is a metric for people per acre, the water per acre would include the water in the sewage system. I would think the water for fish farming would be separate or an option.
Soil per acre is literally the amount of dirt needed in tons. This gets fun. Will Biosphere X use hydroponics, aeroponics, light weight dirt, or high quality top-soil? It could be just standard sandy loam. The quality of the soil will have a big impact on what crops can be grown, which in turn, has a big impact on People per acre.
Watts per acre is the power required to operate a farm. Another major cost of food grown in space. Direct sunlight should be very cheap via windows, at least for biospheres in ELEO. In deep space far removed from the protection of Earth’s magnetic field, radiation would pose a problem for windows unless some sort of angled mirror configuration could be used to reflect sunlight adjacently. Electricity from solar panels has been proven by ISS. Power from a small modular nuclear reactors might be a great backup power for the first orbiting biosphere. Note, diesel fuel would be extremely expensive and emissions would cause pollution to the biosphere in space; that implies, farming would be done using electrical equipment.
Improvements based on the Biosphere 2 experience to make a successful Biosphere X:
Updated computers for: better design, data collection, environmental control systems, subsystem module metrics, communication.
Humans: I suggest 2 men & 2 women and work up from there.
Remote ground support: start big and reduce as fast as possible, goal = zero.
Testing Biosphere X:
Can a team live in the biosphere for two years? (See Biosphere 2 test which was 2 years, i.e. a round trip to Mars and back) How much food was produced? Debug the biosphere. Make upgrades and repeat the tests. Calculate Mean Time to Failure (MTTF), Mean Time to Repair (MTTR), system flexibility, cost of operations, farming metrics (see above). etc.
With enough debugging, Biosphere X will become a comfortable habitat for humans of all ages. This will include old people, children, and perhaps babies. I think a few babies should be born in a Biosphere X (e.g. a few dozen?) before proceeding to Biosphere Y. Obviously, it may be challenging to find motivated families willing to make the generational commitment for long term testing required to realize this noble goal of space settlement. Alternatively, testing of Biosphere X could be simplified and shortened by skipping having babies, deferring this step to the next stage.
Biosphere Y potential configuration:
Once a reasonably well designed Biosphere X has been tested it will be time to build a Biosphere Y. This will require figuring out how to launch and build the first one – not easily done! Let’s posit a reasonably feasible design using orbital spacecraft on the near-term horizon namely, the SpaceX Starship. Using nine upper stages with some modifications to provide spin gravity, sufficient volume could be placed in ELEO for a one acre space farm. Here’s one idea on what it would look like:
A central hub which we will call the 0G module will be composed of three Starship upper stages. Since they would not be returning to Earth, they would not need heat shield tiles, the aerodynamic steerage flaps, nor the three landing rockets. Also, there would not be a need for reserve fuel for landing. These weight reductions would allow the engineers to expand Starship and/or make more built-in structure and/or carry more startup supplies.
We will assume the current length of 165 feet with a 30 foot diameter. Three units placed nose-to-tail make 495 feet. But internally there would be 3 workspaces per unit: Oxygen tank, methane tank, and crew cabin. Times three units makes 9 chambers for zero gravity research.
The three units are connected forward and aft by docking hatches. Since the return to Earth engines have been deleted, the header tanks in the nose of Starship (the purpose of which is to offset the weight of the engines) would be eliminated allowing a docking port to be installed in front. In addition, with the 3 landing engines eliminated, there should be room for a tail end docking port. This will allow crew to move between the three Starship units in the 0G hub.
An aside: I am assuming that the nose of the station is always pointing towards the sun. The header tanks in the nose of the first unit could be retained and filled with water to provide radiation shielding to block solar particle events for the trailing units.
The 0G-units will need access ports on each of their sides to allow a pressurized access and structural support tube extending out to the 1G-units located at 100 meters on either side of the hub. This distance is calculated using Theodore W. Hall’s SpinCalc artificial gravity calculator with a spin rate of 3 rpm. There would be three access tubes extending out to connect to each of the 3 Starship 1G units. I assume the standard Starship has an access door which can be modified to connect to the tube.
Conceptual illustration of a possible configuration of an initial Biosphere Y in LEO using modified SpaceX Starship upper stages docked nose to tail. The station spins at 3 rpm around the central 0G hub with the outer modules providing 1G artificial gravity and enough volume for an acre of space farm. Credits – Starship images: SpaceX. Earth image: NASA
One or more standard Starships would deliver supplies and construction materials. They would also collect the three Raptor engines from each modified unit (36 in total) for return to Earth.
I note that the engineering modifications, methods and funding for operations in space to construct Biosphere Y have yet to be determined. However, applying a SWAG for launching the primary hardware to LEO:
This would require 18 starship missions. Using Brian Wang’s estimates of $37M per Starship[21] we get the following cost:
9 Starships times $37M per starship = $333M
18 Starship launches times $10M per launch = $180M
Total SWAG cost: $513M
What’s on the inside?
As mentioned previously, the interior of Biosphere Y will be a Wet Workshop utilizing the empty oxygen and methane tanks in addition to the payload bay volume (roughly 60ft + 39ft + 56ft long, respectively, based on estimates from Wikipedia), for a total length of 155 feet by 30 feet wide for each individual Starship unit. With six 1G Starship units this amounts to about 657, 000 cubic feet of usable volume for our space farm experiencing normal gravity and its associated support equipment (half that for the 0G hub).
Note: Biosphere Y is designed to be placed in Equatorial Low Earth Orbit (ELEO). This orbit is below the Van Allen belts where solar particle events and galactic cosmic ray radiation are reasonably low due to Earth’s protective magnetic field.
Since the first Biosphere Y will spin to produce 1G, eventually experiments will need to be performed to determine the complete Gravity Prescription[12, 13]: 1/2g, 1/3g, 1/6g and maybe lower. You would think this would be required before trying to establish a permanent colony on the Moon and/or Mars in which children will be born. This will probably require several iterations of Biosphere Y space stations to fine tune the optimum mix of plants, animals, and bio-systems.
What other things can be done with a Biosphere Y?
Replace International Space Station
Astronomy
Space Force bases in orbit
Repair satellites
Fueling station
De-orbit space junk
Assemble much larger satellites from kits (cuts cost)
Lunar material processing station
Families including children and babies[13] in space
Biosphere Z:
Once Biosphere Y is proven, it is ready to be radiation hardened to make a Biosphere Z. I assume the radiation hardening material would come from lunar regolith. It is much cheaper than launching a lot of radiation shielding off Earth.
Biosphere Z will be able to do everything that Biosphere Y can do – just further away from Earth.
After an appropriate shake-down cruise (2 years orbiting the Moon, Lagrange 1, and/or Lagrange 2), a Biosphere Z design should be ready to go to Mars. Note several problems will have been solved to ensure positive outcomes for such a journey: • What does the crew do while going to Mars — farming. • Building Mars modules to land on Mars • The crew has been trained and tested for long endurance flights • Other typical Biosphere Y, Z activities
Biosphere S — Major Milestone:
Eventually a biosphere will be manufactured using only space material, thus the designation Biosphere S. Regolith can be processed into dirt. Most metals will come from the Moon and/or Mars surface material. Oxygen is a byproduct of smelting the metals. Carbon and Oxygen can come from the Martian atmosphere. Water can be obtained from ice in permanently shadowed regions at the Moon’s poles or from water bearing asteroids. The first Biosphere S units will probably get Nitrogen from Mars. Later units could get nitrogen, water, and carbon-dioxide from Venus[14]. From the Moon we get KREEP[15]. (potassium, Rare Earth Elements, and Phosphorus) found by the Lunar Prospector mission.
People, plants, livestock, microbes, etc. will come from other Biospheres.
Electronics will probably still come from Earth, at least initially, until technology and infrastructure matures to enable manufacturing of integrated circuits in space.
Artist’s depiction of an agricultural section of Biosphere S, which could be of the Stanford Torus design built mostly from space resources. Credits: Bryan Versteeg / Spacehabs.com
At this point, humans will have become “A space faring species”
In a century, the number of Biospheres created will go from zero to one hundred per year.
Marshall’s Conjecture:
“400 years after the first baby is born in space, there will be more people living in space than on Earth.” After all, from the time of the signing of The Mayflower Compact to present day is about 400 years and we have 300+ million US citizens vs. the United Kingdom’x 68 million.
The explosion of life:
On Earth there are relationships between the number of humans, the number of support animals and plants. There are currently 8 billion people on Earth and about 1 billion head of cattle. I estimate that there are 100 billion chickens, a half billion pigs, etc.
As the number of Biospheres increases in number, so will the number of people, and the number of support plants and animals. To state it succinctly, there will be an explosion of life in space.
So how many Biosphere S colonies can we build?
Let us assume that they will be spread out evenly in the solar “Goldilocks Zone” (GZ). Creating a spreadsheet with Inputs: inside radius (IR), outside radius (OR) and minimum spacing; Output: Biosphere slot count.
Using: IR of 80,000,000 miles, OR of 120,000,000 miles, (120% to 33% Earth light intensity[16], respectively) and spacing of 1000 miles between Biospheres (both on an orbit and between orbits) you get: 40,000 orbits with the inner orbit having 502,655 slots and the outer orbit having 753,982 slots. This works out to over 25 billion slots for Biospheres to fill this region. Assuming 40 people per Biosphere S implies a space population of over a trillion people. And that is only within the GZ. With ever advancing technology like nuclear power enabling settlement further from the sun, there is no reason that humans can’t expand their reach and numbers throughout the solar system, implying many trillions more.
Can we build that many Biospheres?
Let us assume each Biosphere S has a mass of one million tons (10 times larger than a nuclear powered aircraft carrier[17]) That implies 25.1×1015 tons of metal for all of them. 16 Psche’s mass is estimated at 2.29×1016 tons[18]. There are the larger asteroids, e.g. Ceres (9.4×1017tons), Pallas, Juno, Vesta (2.5×1017 tons) and several others. Assuming the Moon (7.342×1019 tons) is reserved for near Earth use. If the asteroids are not enough, there are the moons of Mars and Jupiter. The other needed elements are readily available throughout the solar system, e.g. nitrogen from Venus, water from Europa, dirt from everywhere, so…
YES! My guess is that it will take 100,000 years to fill the GZ assuming a construction rate of about 250,000 Biospheres per year. That implies an expansion of the population by about 2 million people a year ( I acknowledge these estimates don’t take into account technological advances which will undoubtedly occur over such long stretches of time that may lead to drastically different outcomes. Remember! Its a SWAG!)
Is this Space Manifest Destiny? Is it similar to the Manifest Destiny[19] in America from 1840 to 1900? In my opinion, yes! But this is a very high-tech version of Manifest Destiny. The bottom line assumption is that the Goldilocks Zone is empty — therefore — we must go fill it! Just like the frontiersman of the 1800s.
The First Commandment:
This gives a new interpretation of the phrase from the Book of Genesis,
“Go forth, be fruitful and multiply“[20].
Not only are we people required to have children; but we are required to expand life in many forms wherever we go. For secular readers, this may be interpreted as the natural evolution of life to thrive in new ecosystems beyond Earth. Therefore, the big expansion of life will be in space.
It all starts with Biospheres X, Y, and Z optimized for farming in space
========
When considering humanity’s expansion out into the solar system, look at the concepts put forward above and ask: “Is this proposal missing a key step or two in the development of biospheres in space?”
Editor’s Note: Marshall appeared on The Space Show on August 27 to talk about his space farming vision. You can listen to the archived episode here.
G.K. O’Neill, The High Frontier, 1976, p. 71 – based on Earth-base agriculture – 25 People/Acre; p72 – Optimized for space settlement (i.e. predictable, controlled climate) – 53 People/Acre.
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.
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.
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.
Conceptual illustration of a Moon base composed of inflatable habitats near one of the lunar poles. Credits: ESA / Pneumocell
The European Space Agency (ESA) recently published a report on a design study of an inflatable lunar habitat. The work was done by Austrian based Pneumocell in response to an ESA Open Space Innovation Platform campaign. The concept utilizes ultralight prefabricated structures that would be delivered to the desired location, inflated and then covered with regolith for radiation protection and thermal insulation. The main components of the habitat are toroidal greenhouses that are fed natural sunlight via a rotating mirror system that follow the sun. Since the dwellings are located at one of the lunar poles, horizontal illumination is available for most of the lunar night. Power is provided by photovoltaic arrays attached to the mirror assemblies. During short periods of darkness power is provided by batteries or fuel cells.
Cutaway view of the inflatable lunar habitat. Credits: ESA / Pneumocell
The detailed system study worked out engineering details of the most challenging elements including life support, power sources, temperature control, radiation protection and more. The greenhouses would provide sustenance and an environmentally controlled life support system for two inhabitants recycling everything. The authors claim that “…it appears possible to create in the long term a closed system…” This remains to be validated.
Inflatable space habitats have many advantages over rigid modules including lower weight, packaging efficiency, modularity and psychological benefit to the inhabitants because after deployment, the interior living space is much larger for a given mass. Several organizations and individuals have already begun to investigate inflatable habitats for lunar applications. The Pneumocell study mentions ESA’s Moon Village SOM-Architects concept which is a hybrid rigid and partly inflatable structure. Also referenced is the Foster’s and Partners Lunar Outpost design which envisions a 3D printed dome shaped shell formed over an inflatable enclosure.
Foster and Partners Lunar Outpost constructed from a hybrid of 3D printed modules and an inflatable structure. Credits: Foster and Partners
Illustration of a hybrid lunar inflatable structure. Credits: Rohith Dronadula
The Pneumocell report concludes: “A logical continuation of this study would be to build a prototype on Earth, which can be used to investigate various details of the suggested components … ” Such an approach would be relatively inexpensive and could inform the future design of flight hardware.
Speaking of ground based prototypes, The Space Development Network has been exploring inflatable structures for habitats on the Moon for some time. Doug Plata, president of the nonprofit organization working to advance space development hopes to display an inflatable version of his InstaBase concept at BocaChica, Texas when SpaceX attempts its first orbital launch of Starship, hopefully within the a year or so. When comparing his design to Pneumocell’s, Plata says in an email to SSP, “One difference is that we have the modules directly attached to each other and so avoid the mass of those connecting corridors.”
Conceptual illustration of InstaBase – a fully inflatable lunar base capable of supporting an initial crew of eight. Credits: The Space Development Network
In reference to the greenhouse designs, Plata continues: “As for the GreenHabs, they have a pretty interesting design to take advantage of direct sunlight. We address the shielding conceptually by fully covering the GreenHabs and then use PV solar drapes and transport the electricity into the GreenHabs via wires. By converting sunlight to electricity to LEDs, more surface area of plants can be grown than the surface area of the solar panels powering them. This is due to the full spectrum of the sun being converted to only those frequencies that plants use.”
It is great to see such creativity and variety of designs for abodes on the Moon. When reliable transportation systems such as Starship blaze the trail, we will be ready with easily deployable, safe and voluminous habitats for lunar settlements.
Artist rendering of the interior of an inflatable toroidal greenhouse in a lunar habitat. Credits: Pneumocell
Image credit: NASA/Goddard/Arizona State University
The Cislunar Science and Technology Subcommittee of the White House Office Science and Technology Policy Office (OSTP) recently issued a Request for Information to inform development of a national science and technology strategy on U.S. activities in cislunar space.
Dennis Wingo provided a response to question #1 of this RFI, namely what research and development should the U.S. government prioritize to help advance a robust, cooperative, and sustainable ecosystem in cislunar space in the next 10 to 50 years?
In a prolog to his response Wingo reminds us that historically, NASA’s mission has focused narrowly on science and technology. What is needed is a sense of purpose that will capture the imagination and support of the American people. In today’s world there seems to be more dystopian predictions of the future than positive visions for humanity. We seem to be dominated by fear of “…doom and gloom scenarios of the climate catastrophe, the degrowth movement, and many of the most negative aspects of our current societal trajectory.” This fear is manifested by what Wingo defines as a “geocentric” mindset focused primarily within the material limitations of the Earth and its environs.
“The question is, is there an alternative to change this narrative of gloom and doom?”
He recommends that policy makers foster a cognitive shift to a “solarcentric” worldview: the promise of an economic future of abundance through utilization of the virtually limitless resources of the Moon, Asteroids, and of the entire solar system. An example provided is to harvest the resources of the asteroid Psyche which holds a billion times the minable metal on Earth, and to which NASA had planned on launching an exploratory mission this year but had to delay it due to late delivery of the spacecraft’s flight software and testing equipment.
Artist rendering of NASA’s Psyche Mission spacecraft. Credits: NASA/JPL-Caltech/Arizona State Univ./Space Systems Loral/Peter Rubin
Back to the RFI, Wingo has four recommendations that will open up the solar system to economic development and address many of the problems that cause the geocentrists despair.
First, we should make the Artemis moon landings permanent outposts with year long stays as opposed to 6 day “camping trips”. This should be possible with resupply missions by SpaceX as they ramp up Starship launch rates (assuming the launch vehicle and lander are validated in the same timeframe, which seems reasonable). Next, we need power and lots of it – on the order of megawatts. This should be infrastructure put in place by the government to support commerce on the Moon. By leveraging existing electrical power standards and production techniques, large scale solar power facilities could be mass produced at low cost on Earth and shipped to the moon before the capability of in situ utilization of lunar resources is established. Some companies such as TransAstra already have preliminary designs for solar power facilities on the Moon.
Which brings us to ISRU. The next recommendation is to JUST DO IT. This technology is fairly straightforward and could be used to split oxygen from metal oxides abundant in lunar regolith to source air and steel. Pioneer Astronautics is already developing what they call Moon to Mars Oxygen and Steel Technology (MMOST) for just this application.
Conceptual illustration of the Lunar OXygen In-situ Experiment (LOXIE) Production Prototype. Credits: Mark Berggren / Pioneer Astronautics
And lets not forget the wealth of in situ resources that could be unlocked via synthetic geology made possible by Kevin Cannon’s Pinwheel Magma Reactor.
Conceptual depiction of the Pinwheel Magma Reactor on a planetary surface in the foreground and in free space on a tether as shown in the inset. Credits: Kevin Cannon
Of course there is water everywhere in the solar system just waiting to be harvested for fuel and life support in a water-based economy.
Illustration of an ice extraction concept for collection of water on the Moon. Credits: George Sowers / Colorado School of Mines
Wingo’s final recommendation is industrialization of the Moon in preparation for the settlement of Mars followed by the exploration of the vast resources of the Asteroid Belt. He makes it clear that this is more important than just a goal for NASA, which has historically focused on scientific objectives, and should therefore be a national initiative.
“…for the preservation and extension of our society and to preclude the global fight for our limited resources here.”
With the right vision afforded by this approach and strong leadership leading to its implementation, Wingo lays out a prediction of how the next fifty years could unfold. By 2030 over ten megawatts of power generation could be emplaced on the Moon which would enable propellant production from the pyrolysis of metal oxides and hydrogen production from lunar water. This capability allows refueling of Starship obviating the need to loft propellent from Earth and thereby lowering the costs of a human landing system to service lunar facilities. From there the cislunar economy would begin to skyrocket.
The 2040s see a sustainable 25% annual growth in the lunar economy with a burgeoning Aldrin Cycler business to support asteroid mining and over 1000 people living on the Moon.
By the 2050s, fusion reactors provide power and propulsion while the first Ceres settlement has been established providing minerals to support the Martian colonies.
“The sky is no longer the limit”
By sowing these first seeds of infrastructure a vibrant cislunar economy will enable sustainable settlement across the solar system. A solarcentric development mythology may be just what is needed to become a spacefaring civilization.
Artist’s concept of an O’Neill space colony. Credits: Rachel Silverman / Blue Origin
