AI generated image of an expectant mother with her developing fetus in Earth orbit after mammalian reproduction has been validated via higher animal models through all stages of pregnancy for a safe level of gravity. An appropriate level of radiation shielding would also be required and is not shown in this illustration. Credits:DALL∙E 3
We are one step closer to determining the gravity prescription for human reproduction in space. Okay, so we still don’t have the green light for having children at destinations in space with less than normal Earth gravity or higher radiation environments….yet. But a team of Japanese scientists report positive results after running an experiment aboard the International Space Station in 2019 that examined mouse embryos cultured in both microgravity and artificial gravity in space, then compared them to controls on Earth after a few days of development. The researchers published their results in a paper in iScience.
The researchers developed equipment and a protocol for freezing two-cell embryos after fertilization on the ground and launching them to the ISS where they were thawed then split into two groups, one allocated to growth in microgravity, the other treated with spin gravity to artificially simulate 1g. A control group remained on Earth. The procedure was designed to be executed by untrained astronauts. Cultured growth continued for 4 days after which the samples were preserved and refridgerated until they could be returned to Earth for analysis.
The samples were also monitored for radiation with a dosimeter and as expected aboard the ISS, were exposed to radiation levels higher then developing fetuses experience on the ground but far lower than those known to exist in deep space outside the Earth’s atmosphere and protective magnetic field. Still, this can be a “worst case” data point for radiation exposure to developing embryos as it is unlikely that pregnancy would be ethically sanctioned at higher levels.
Upon thawing by astronauts, the embryos were cultured through initial mitosis to eventual cell differentiation and blastocyst formation. A blastocyst is the multicellular structure of early embryonic development consisting of an an outer layer of cells called the trophectoderm surrounding a fluid-filled cavity in which an inner cell mass (ICM) called the embryoblast eventually develops into the embryo.
The study was concerned with how gravity may influence cell differentiation, the placement of the ICM within the blastocyst and if radiation effects gene expression in the these cells which will later develop into the fetus. Gene expression within the trophectoderm is also critical for proper development of the placenta.
The results were very promising as the data showed that there were no significant effects on early cell differentiation during embryo development and that proper gene expression manifested in microgravity when compared to 1g artificial and normal Earth gravity.
A human blastocyst with the inner cell mass at upper right. Credits: Wikipedia
A highlight of the paper implied that the results indicate that “Mammals can thrive in space.” It is too early to make such a bold statement with only this one study. It should be noted that this experiment only focuses on one early stage of embryo development. Conception in microgravity is not addressed and as pointed out by Alex Layendecker of the Astrosexological Research Institute, may have a whole other set of problems that raise ethical concerns as may the effects of lower gravity on later stages of gestation, in actual live birth and in early child development.
No matter how positive these recent results appear to be for early embryo development, as was determined by a landmark experiment on pregnant mice during the Shuttle era, we already have a data point on mammalian fetal development in later stages of gestation in microgravity: serious brain developmental issues were discovered in mice offspring born after exposure to these conditions. So mammalian reproduction in microgravity may start out relatively normally (assuming conception is successful) but appears to have problems in later stages, at least according to the limited data we have so far. On the bright side, the recent study found that 1g artificial gravity had no significant effects on embryo development.
Clearly more data is needed to determine which level of gravity will be sufficient for all stages of mammalian reproduction in space. Fortunately, SpaceBorn United is working on this very problem. They have plans for research into all stages of human reproduction in space to enable independent human settlements off Earth. SpaceBorn CEO Egbert Edelbroek in a recent appearance on The Space Show described upcoming missions later this decade that will study mammalian conception and embryo development using the company’s assisted reproductive technology in space (ARTIS). They have developed a space-embryo-incubator that will contain male and female mouse gametes, which upon launch into orbit, will initiate conception to create embryos for development in variable gravity levels. After 5-6 days the embryos would be cryogenically frozen for return to Earth where they would be inspected and if acceptable, placed in a natural womb for the rest of pregnancy and subsequent birth. If successful with mice the the company plans experiments with human stem cell embryos and eventually human gametes.
The gravity prescription for human reproduction in less than normal Earth gravity is still not known. But at least researchers are starting to gather data on this critical factor for long term biologically sustainable space settlement.
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
Conceptual illustration of ESA’s SOLARIS space based solar power system. Credits: ESA
This year there were a lot of announcements and commentary regarding government support for studies that may lead to actual development activities for space solar power. These events, as well as some efforts by private companies, have been prompted by global initiatives to reduce carbon emissions toward net zero by midcentury in the hope of mitigating climate change.
Last January Japan codified into law an aggressive timetable to launch an end-to-end space solar power demonstration flight in LEO by 2025. From an English translation of Japan’s Basic Space Law provided by the National Space Society, the exact text reads “Each ministry will work together to promote the realization of space solar power generation. Concerning microwave-type space solar power generation technology, the aim will be to demonstrate by 2025 energy transmission from low Earth orbit to the ground.” If implemented on time, this would be the first such technical demonstration to be performed from space. Also, the fact that the initiative is codified into Japan’s laws means they are serious.
At a Royal Aeronautical Society conference last April in London called Toward a Space Enabled Net-Zero Earth, chairman of the Space Energy Initiative Martin Soltau outlined a 12-year timeline that would provide gigawatts of power from space for the UK by 2035. The Initiative, which is a collection of over 50 British technology organizations, has selected a space solar power satellite design called CASSIOPeiA after a cost benefit analysis performed by Frazer-Nash Consultancy initially covered by SSP. Incidentally, links to the final report by Frazer-Nash Consultancy completed in September 2021 and to the CASSIOPeiA system are available on the SSP Space Solar Power page.
At the International Space Development Conference in Washington D.C. last May, Nickolai Joseph of the NASA Office of Technology Policy, and Strategy (OTPS) announced an effort by the space agency to reexamine space based solar power. The purpose of the study is to assess the degree to which NASA should support its development. Joseph said the report was to be completed by the end of September but as this post goes to press, it had not been released. Head of the OTPS, Bhavya Lal, tweeted last month that the report was in final review but this Tweet has been deleted without explanation. We are still waiting.
Three items on space solar power came up in September. First, John Bucknell returned to The Space Show to give an update on Virtus Solis, his space-based power system that SSP covered previously in an interview. With the novel approach of a Molynia sun-synchronous orbit, Bucknell claims that Virtus Solis will provide baseload capacity at far lower cost. In addition, the choice of orbits allow sharing orbital assets globally enabling solutions for multiple countries and regions. Bucknell hopes to have a working prototype to test in space within the next few years.
Schematic illustration of a three-array Virtus Solis constellation in Molniya orbits serving Earth’s Northern Hemisphere and a two-array constellation serving the Southern Hemisphere of Luna. Credits: Virtus Solis
Later in the month, the American Foreign Policy Council published a position paper on space based solar power in the organization’s publication Space Policy Review. From the introduction, author Cody Retherford writes that space solar power “…satellites are a critical future technology that have the potential to provide energy security, drive sustainable economic growth, support advanced military and space exploration capabilities, and help fight ongoing climate change.”
Overview of Space-based Solar Power from Figure 1 in American Foreign Policy Council report. Credits: AFPC and U.S. Department of Energy.
Also in September, the European Space Agency proposed a preparatory program called SOLARIS to inform a future decision by Europe on space-based solar power. The proposal was submitted for consideration in November at the ESA Council at Ministerial Level held in Paris.
The goal of SOLARIS, conceptualized in the illustration at the top of this post, would be to lay the groundwork for a possible decision in 2025 to move forward on a full development program to realize the technical, political and programmatic viability of a space solar power system for terrestrial needs.
Upon the conclusion of the ESA Council at Ministerial Level meeting SOLARIS was approved as a program. The Council confirmed full subscription to the General Support Technology Programme, Element-1, which requested funding for SOLARIS development. The activities performed under Element 1 support maturing technologies, building components, creating engineering tools and developing test beds for ESA missions, from engineering prototype up to qualification. Still to be determined: how much funding will be allocated by each member of the EU.
Then in October an article published in Science asks the question “Has a new dawn arrived for space-based solar power?” The authors bring to light what many advocates have already realized: that better technology and falling launch costs have revived interest in the technology. Also in October, MIT Technology Review issued a report “Power Beaming Comes of Age”. Based on interviews with researchers, physicists, and senior executives of power beaming companies, the report evaluated the economic and environmental impact of wireless power transmission to flush out the challenges of making the technology reliable, effective and secure.
China announced in November that it plans to test space solar power technologies outside its Tiangong space station. Using the robotic arms attached to the station, they plan to evaluate on-orbit assembly techniques for a space-based solar power test facility which will eventually then orbit independently to verify solar energy collection and wireless power transmission. The China Academy of Space Technology has already articulated plans for development of their own space solar power system culminating in a 2 Gigawatt facility in geostationary orbit by 2050.
To cap off the year, aerospace engineer and founder of The Spacefaring Institute Mike Snead published a four-part series on evaluation of green energy alternatives including space solar power which he calls Astroelectricity. In the first part, he covers the history of humanity’s energy use and the dawn of fossil fuel use over the last century pointing out the fragility of the current system with respect to energy security. A gradual transition to fossil fuel free alternatives is needed to provide enough time for technology development and conversion over to green energy sources while not creating shocks to an economy based mostly on coal, oil and gas.
Next, nuclear power is addressed (and dismissed) as a green alternative with the next generation of smaller modular fission nuclear reactors currently under development. Due to waste heat challenges and nuclear weapons proliferation issues plus problems with scaling up enough of these power plants as base load supply to supplement intermittent wind and solar, this alternative is rejected as a viable green alternative. No mention is made of some the numerous fusion energy development activities in process or the promise of thorium molten salt reactors, so some readers may take issue with Snead’s position on this point.
In the third installment, if it is assumed that nuclear power is not a viable option, Snead examines to what extent wind and terrestrial based solar power has to be scaled up to replace fossil fuels in the latter part of this century given population growth and resulting energy needs. Not surprisingly, given the intermittent nature of wind and solar he finds these sources lacking, and they “… are not practicable options for America to go green.” Enter space solar power to fill the void.
In the last article in his series, Snead provides guidance for establishing a national energy security strategy for an orderly transition to green energy. He concludes that, “With America’s terrestrial options for going green not providing practicable solutions, the time for America to develop space solar power-generated astroelectricity has arrived. America now needs to pursue space solar power-generated astroelectricity to ensure that our children and grandchildren enjoy an orderly, prosperous transition to green energy.”
Finally, we close out the year with this: Northrop Grumman announced plans for an end to end space to ground demo flight in 2025 of their Space Solar Power Incremental Demonstrations and Research (SSPIDR) project funded by the Air Force Research Laboratory. SSP reported on the SSPIDR system previously. This development sets up a race between Japan, Virtus Solis (both mentioned above) and the U.S. government to be the first to beam power from space to the ground by the middle of this decade.
Artist concept of a cutaway view of the Stanford Torus free space settlement. Credits: Rick Guidice / NASA
Can humanity explore and develop space responsibly by learning from some of the mistakes made throughout history while settling new lands? In an article called “To Boldly Go (Responsibly)” on LinkedIn, CEO of Trans Astronautica Corporation Joel Sercel provides a vision for how we should conscientiously manage space settlement in a manner that respects human rights and the rule of law, but also maintains stewardship of the space environment.
“Through space settlement, we have a chance to show that humanity has learned from history and is evolving morally and culturally”
Sercel warns of the “Elysium effect”. In the words of Rick Tumlinson, who coined the term in an article on Space.com, “…as entrepreneurs like Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos and Richard Branson spend billions to support a human breakout into space, there is a backlash building that holds these projects as icons of extravagance.” Ironically, these New Space pioneers actually have the opposite goals of lowering the cost of access to space for average citizens and preserving the Earth’s environment by moving “dirty” industries outside it’s biosphere.
Public space agencies and private space companies can help open the high frontier responsibility through cooperation on development of common standards and international agreements in accordance with the Outer Space Treaty. Sercel believes that an urgent need in this area would be establishment of salvage rights for defunct satellites and dormant orbital debris like spent upper stages which under the OST are the responsibility of the nation that launched the payloads.
“That’s a legal impediment for companies developing satellites to clean up orbital debris and firms eager to recycle abandoned antennas and rocket bodies.”
Some work in the area of orbital debris mitigation has already been started by the Space Safety Coalition, an ad hoc coalition of companies, organizations, and other government and industry stakeholders, through establishment of best practices and standardization for space operations. And just last month the Orbital Sustainability Act of 2022 was introduced in the U.S. Senate that will “require the development of uniform orbital debris standard practices in order to support a safe and sustainable orbital environment.”
Good progress on interagency cooperation in space has also been made with the creation of the Artemis Accords, Principles for a Safe, Peaceful, and Prosperous Future. Signed by seven nations thus far, the agreement provides a legal framework in compliance with the OST for humans returning to the Moon and establishing commercial mining rights.
Sercel thinks that before establishing a permanent human presence on Mars we should first thoroughly explore the planet robotically for signs of life to ensure that we do not disrupt any indigenous organisms if a biosphere is found to be present there.
Another example of space ethics, discussed on SSP in previous posts, is determination of the gravity prescription, especially the human gestation component. The answer to this critical factor may drive the decision on where to establish permanent long term settlements so colonists can raise families. It may turn out that having children in less than 1G may not be biologically possible and therefor, for ethical reasons, may change the long term strategy for human expansion in the solar system favoring free space settlements with Earth normal artificial gravity over surface settlements. Sercel believes that determination of the gravity Rx should be a high priority and suggested on The Space Show recently a roadmap of mammalian clinical reproduction studies starting with rodent animal models producing offspring over multiple generations progressing to primates and then, only if these are successful, initiating limited human experiments. Such studies would prevent ethical issues that may arise from birth defects or health problems during pregnancy because we don’t know how lower gravity would effect embryos during gestation.
Dylan Taylor of Voyager Space Holdings has advocated for a sustainable approach to space commercial activities to ensure “…that all humanity can continue to use outer space for peaceful purposes and socioeconomic benefit now and in the long term. This will require international cooperation, discussion, and agreements designed to ensure that outer space is safe, secure and peaceful.”
Sercel is calling for the National Space Council “…to coordinate private organizations to include think tanks, advocacy groups, and the science community to work together to define the field of space ethics…to guide the development of laws and regulations that will ensure the rapid and peaceful exploration, development and settlement of space.”
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.
Schematic of the Thorium Molten Salt Reactor for space propulsion applications. Credits: Ajay Kothari / The Space Review
President Joe Biden recently signed into law a sweeping climate bill that will have very little (if any) impact on addressing global warming (a reduction of 0.028 degrees F by 2100). While there are tax credits in the bill for construction of new nuclear power plants over the next 10 years, only two are planned to add to the existing 93 facilities operating today which provide 18% of the U.S. energy production. Most of the funding in the bill is targeted at tax credits for EVs and incentives for renewable sources such and wind and solar which are subject to interruption. Nuclear energy holds enormous promise to offset the carbon emissions associated with fossil fuel energy production and can provide reliable base load power, but it is still plagued by negative public perceptions related to safety and the potential for weapons proliferation.
Is it time to reimagine our approach to sourcing clean energy in general, and nuclear power in particular while at the same time addressing climate change? Ajay Kothari thinks so – by research and development and eventual commercialization of nuclear power plants fueled by thorium rather than uranium. Dr. Kothari describes his vision in the August 1, 2022 issue of The Space Review. He believes that this powerful and sustainable power source “…will solve the world’s energy problem a thousand times over with zero carbon dioxide emission during operation, and it may be the cheapest form of energy production for us.”
“One ton of thorium is roughly equivalent to five million barrels of oil”
Thorium is abundant in the Earths crust making it relatively cheap and therefore, more affordable. It is only slightly radioactive, far less so then uranium and does not contain fissile material making it much safer and easier to moderate (i.e. switch off) in the case of an accident. This would prevent meltdowns unlike conventional reactors which have coolants that operate at much higher pressures and need far more complicated engineering safeguards to prevent disasters.
Thorium molten salt reactors are inherently safe. Flibe Energy is designing a Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) and according to the company’s website, “…any increase in operating temperature reduces the density of the salt which in turn, causes the reaction to slow and the temperature to fall. LFTR is also designed with a simple frozen salt plug in the bottom of the reactor core vessel. In the event of power loss to the reactor, the frozen salt plug quickly melts and the fuel salt drains down into a storage tank below – causing a termination in the fission process.”
Once developed for energy production on Earth, the same technology has applications in space. While it would not be used in a booster during launch, a molten salt thorium reactor upper stage, like that shown in the illustration above, could provide an efficient 700 second specific impulse by heating hydrogen as fuel for advanced propulsion for the next few decades until fusion energy comes on line. An added benefit would be that the upper stage reactor could also be used to provide energy at the destination, for example on the Moon or Mars.
“One kilogram of thorium taken from Earth [to the Moon] … can support a 2.6 thermal megawatt plant for a year.”
A thorium reactor was developed at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) back in the 1960s but was never commercialized after the then Atomic Energy Commission favored plutonium fast-breeder reactors.
Diagram of the thorium fuel cycle in molten salt reactors. Credits: Flibe Energy
There are challenges to overcome. For example, the thorium fuel cycle is complicated and still produces some radioactive waste, but far less and with much shorter half life when compared to conventional uranium nuclear reactors. But the benefits of this clean, abundant and affordable energy source could make investment by the public and private sector worth the effort.
“With US reserves at 595,000 tons of thorium, we have enough to last us 600 years at current rates.”
Kothari has been a long time proponent of Thorium reactors. He recently gave a talk on the molten salt thorium reactor via Zoom for the University of Maryland now available on YouTube. You can also hear an in-depth discussion of the technology on The Space Show when he was a guest back in October 2021 and when he returns to the show September 13, 2022.
Dr. Kothari agreed to take a deeper dive with SSP into what he calls “Thor – The Life-Saver” through an email interview. If you have questions I didn’t cover about thorium molten salt reactors please leave a comment.
SSP: Dr. Kothari, thank you for taking the time to answer my questions. With respect to the public’s fear of nuclear power in general, the safety of thorium molten salt reactors is certainly an argument in favor to the technology. But aren’t there still risks of nuclear proliferation?
AK: We have more than 400 reactors in more than 40 countries worldwide. We found ways to have countries develop their reactors but have proliferation controls. This idea, the TMSR, creates no Plutonium, and would be easier to monitor. Besides, whether we want [to] or not, other countries WILL do it. Many are. Also we can develop the technology for ourselves and [for] friendly countries OR at the very least, USE IT FOR OURSELVES! How can we deny this incredible opportunity for our (US) populace? Is that fair?
SSP: Flibe Energy appears to be the only U.S. company pursuing LFTR technology. Chicago based Clean Core is focusing on thorium-based fuels to be used in existing pressurized heavy-water reactor designs. What do you think of these two company’s approaches and are you aware of any other thorium reactor development efforts in the U.S, either in private industry or academia?
AK: MIT is developing tech to resolve some of the TMSR issues that would be quite helpful [SSP found this story from MIT Nuclear Reactor Laboratory on deployment of its “…nuclear reactor (MITR) and related testing apparatus as a proving ground for the materials and processes critical to molten-salt-cooled reactors.”]. Others are shown in the chart below with some of them being US based (bottom right).
Color coded map showing global molten salt reactor technology development activities and the sponsoring country/entities. FHR= Fluoride salt-cooled high-temperature reactor. LEU = Low Enriched Uranium. HEU= Highly Enriched Uranium. TRU=Transuranic wastes, i.e. heavier elements than Uranium. Credits: Oak Ridge National Laboratory
SSP: How difficult would it be to adapt this technology for space propulsion and power applications and is it so far off that fusion energy may be available by the time development efforts come to fruition?
AK: In my opinion, …. controlled fusion may be 100, 200 or 50 years away. We have a valley of death … between now and then. This TMSR can fill the gap but can also be used for space propulsion as my diagram above shows. Sure, the TRL of it needs to be brought up, but that’s what we are here for. It would be less heavy than [the] NERVA idea, especially if the chemical processing plant is separated and U233 is used for space propulsion rather than Th232. This would be the idea. The rate of fission is then controlled by the graphite rod moderators/controllers.
SSP: China has been working on a LFTR since 2011 and was recently cleared to start operating the reactor which is a direct descendent of the original experimental design that ORNL studied in the 1960s. It would appear that the Chinese have a significant head start. Is this concerning?
AK; Absolutely. All I can say is that we are idiots.
SSP: One of the disadvantages of thorium reactors is that large upfront costs are needed due to the significant amount of testing and licensing work for qualification of commercial reactors. The reactors also involve high fuel fabrication and reprocessing costs. How would you address these issues to attract investors?
AK: This idea really is a golden nugget, so to speak. The way to attract investors is to bring the TRL up with government (DoE, NASA and DoD) funds. When the light at the end of the tunnel is seen by investors, they will jump in with both feet. It may still be 5-10 years away but if we do not do it soon, (1) it will always remain so, and (2) some other country (China) or many other countries will DEFINITELY move ahead of us!
SSP: Another disadvantage is the presence of a significant level of gamma ray emissions due to Uranium-232 in the fuel cycle. How will this be dealt with safely?
AK: The Gamma ray radiation occurs from Protactinium 233 absorbing another neutron (before it Beta decays) to become Pa234 If it is separated in a chemical processing plant, it would remain easier to handle. From Wiki[pedia]: “The contamination could also be avoided by using a molten-salt breeder reactor and separating the 233Pa before it decays into 233U)”.
SSP: What regulatory and policy changes are needed to realize this technology in the U.S.?
AK: [The] NRC and DoE should allow smaller (~2 MW) size experimental reactors at Universities and research institutions right now.
SSP: On a related note, what efforts can leaders in private industry, academia and government undertake to begin the research and technology needed to commercialize thorium molten salt reactors.
AK: There are a few uncertain items in this nuclear process that Universities, small businesses and government research institutions can resolve. Government agencies need to fund SBIR/STTR type of initiatives to address the following technical issues:
The sustainability of the heat exchangers whether they are to be made of Hastelloy-N or some other composite. This characterization is needed w.r.t. neutron flux intensity, temperature reached and time exposed (in months to years)
The same as above for reactor containment vessels and pipes carrying the hot molten salt.
Chemical separation for in-line or off-line work for Protactinium and U233.
Tritium mitigation ideas (probably using CO2 in closed loop for electricity generation) or sequestration of it for later use in fusion when and if available. Designing and demonstrating tritium separators are key elements of DOE’s solid fuel MSR program at both universities and national laboratories
Gamma ray mitigation or reduction
Thorium doesn’t spontaneously undergo fission – when an atom’s nucleus splits and releases energy that can generate electricity. Left to its own devices it decays very slowly, giving off alpha radiation that can’t even penetrate human skin, so holidaymakers don’t need to worry about sunbathing on thorium-rich beaches.
We don’t have as much experience with Thorium. The nuclear industry is quite conservative, and the biggest problem with Thorium is that we are lacking in operational experience with it. When money is at stake, it’s difficult to get people to change from the norm.
Irradiated Thorium is more dangerously radioactive in the short term. The Th-U cycle invariably produces some U-232, which decays to Tl-208, which has a 2.6 MeV gamma ray decay mode. Bi-212 also causes problems. These gamma rays are very hard to shield, requiring more expensive spent fuel handling and/or reprocessing.
Thorium doesn’t work as well as U-Pu in a fast reactor. While U-233 an excellent fuel in the slow-neutron regime, it is between U-235 and Pu-239 in the fast spectrum. So for reactors that require excellent neutron economy (such as breed-and-burn concepts), Thorium is not ideal.
Proliferation Issues
Thorium is generally accepted as proliferation resistant compared to U-Pu cycles. The problem with plutonium is that it can be chemically separated from the waste and perhaps used in bombs. It is publicly known that even reactor-grade plutonium can be made into a bomb if done carefully. By avoiding plutonium altogether, thorium cycles are superior in this regard.
Besides avoiding plutonium, Thorium has additional self-protection from the hard gamma rays emitted due to U-232 as discussed above. This makes stealing Thorium based fuels more challenging. Also, the heat from these gammas makes weapon fabrication difficult, as it is hard to keep the weapon pit from melting due to its own heat. Note, however, that the gammas come from the decay chain of U-232, not from U-232 itself. This means that the contaminants could be chemically separated and the material would be much easier to work with. U-232 has a 70 year half-life so it takes a long time for these gammas to come back.
The one hypothetical proliferation concern with Thorium fuel though, is that the Protactinium can be chemically separated shortly after it is produced and removed from the neutron flux (the path to U-233 is Th-232 -> Th-233 -> Pa-233 -> U-233). Then, it will decay directly to pure U-233. By this challenging route, one could obtain weapons material. But Pa-233 has a 27 day half-life, so once the waste is safe for a few times this, weapons are out of the question. So concerns over people stealing spent fuel are largely reduced by Th, but the possibility of the owner of a Th-U reactor obtaining bomb material is not.
One especially cool possibility suitable for the slow-neutron breeding capability of the Th-U fuel cycle is the molten salt reactor (MSR), or as one particular MSR is commonly known on the internet, the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTR). In these, fuel is not cast into pellets, but is rather dissolved in a vat of liquid salt. The chain reaction heats the salt, which naturally convects through a heat exchanger to bring the heat out to a turbine and make electricity. Online chemical processing removes fission product neutron poisons and allows online refueling (eliminating the need to shut down for fuel management, etc.). None of these reactors operate today, but Oak Ridge had a test reactor of this type in the 1960s called the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment [Wikipedia] (MSRE). The MSRE successfully proved that the concept has merit and can be operated for extended amounts of time. It competed with the liquid metal cooled fast breeder reactors (LMFBRs) for federal funding and lost out. Alvin Weinberg discusses the history of this project in much detail in his autobiography, The First Nuclear Era [amazon.com], and there is more info available all over the internet. These reactors could be extremely safe, proliferation resistant, resource efficient, environmentally superior (to traditional nukes, as well as to fossil fuel obviously), and maybe even cheap. Exotic, but successfully tested. Who’s going to start the startup on these? (Just kidding, there are already like 4 startups working on them, and China is developing them as well).
Loss of coolant accident consequences are significantly different than for Light Water Reactors
– Low driving pressure and lack of phase change fluids
– Guard vessels employed on some designs
– Planned vessel drain down to cooled, criticality-safe drain tanks on some designs
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
Diagram depicting the layout of the Photonic Laser Thruster (PLT). Credits: Young K. Bae, Ph.D.
SSP reported last year on the promise of an exciting new Photonic Laser Thruster (PLT) that could significantly reduce travel times between the planets and enable a Phonic Railway opening up the solar system to rapid exploration and eventual settlement. The inventor of the PTL, Dr. Young K. Bae has just published a paper in the Journal of Propulsion and Power (behind a paywall) that refines the mathematical underpinnings of the PLT physics and illuminates some exciting new results. Dr. Bae shared an advance copy of the paper with SSP and we exchanged emails in an effort to boil down the conclusions and clarify the roadmap for commercialization.
Illustration of a Photonic Railway using PLT infrastructure for in-space propulsion established at (from right to left, not to scale) Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Pluto and beyond. Credits: Young K. Bae.
In the new paper, Dr. Bae refines his rigorous analysis of the physics behind the PLT confirming previous projections and discovering some exciting new findings.
As outlined in the previous SSP post linked above, the PLT utilizes a “recycled” laser beam that is reflected between mirrors located at the power source and on the target spacecraft. Some critical researchers have argued that upon each reflection of the beam off the moving target mirror, there is a Doppler shift causing the photons in the laser light to quickly lose energy which could prevent the PLT from achieving high spacecraft velocities. The new paper conclusively proves such arguments false and confirming the basic physics of the PLT.
There were two unexpected findings revealed by the paper. First, the maximum spacecraft velocity achievable with the PLT is 2000 km/sec which is greater than 10 times the original estimate. Second, the efficiency of converting the laser energy to the spacecraft kinetic energy was found to approach 50% at velocities greater than 100 km/s. This is surprisingly higher than originally thought and is on a par with conventional thrusters – but the PLT does not require propellent. These results show conclusively that once the system is validated in space, the PLT has the potential to be the next generation propulsion system.
I asked Dr. Bae if anything has fundamentally changed recently in photonic technology that will bring the PLT closer to realization. He said that the interplanetary PLT can tolerate high cavity laser energy loss factors in the range of 0.1-0.01 % that will permit the use of emerging high power laser mirrors with metamaterials, which are much more resistant to laser induced damage and are readily scalable in fabricating very large PLT mirrors.
With respect to conventional thrusters, he said the PLT can be potentially competitive even at low velocities on the order of 10 km/s, especially for small payloads. This is because system does not use propellant which is very expensive in space and because the PLT launch frequency can be orders of magnitude higher than that of conventional thrusters. Dr. Bae is currently investigating this aspect of the system in terms of space economics in depth.
The paper acknowledges that one of the most critical challenges in scaling-up the PLT would be manufacturing the large-scale high-reflectance mirrors with diameters of 10–1000m, which will likely require large-scale in-space manufacturing. Fortunately, these technologies are currently being studied through DARPA’s NOM4D program which SSP covered previously and Dr. Bae agreed that they could be leveraged for the Photonic Railway.
Artist’s concept of projects, including large high-reflectance mirrors, which could benefit from DARPA’s (NOM4D) plan for robust manufacturing in space. Credits: DARPA
I asked Dr. Bae about his timeline and TRL for a space based demo of his Sheppard Satellite with PLT-C and PLT-P propellantless in-space propulsion and orbit changing technology. He responded that such a mission could be launched in five years assuming there were no issues with treaties on space-based high power lasers. There is The Treaty on the Prevention of the Placement of Weapons in Outer Space but I pointed out that the U.S. has not signed on to this treaty. Article IV of the Outer Space Treaty states that “…any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction…” can not be placed in orbit around the Earth or in outer space. Dr. Bae said “We can argue that the [Outer Space] treaty regulation does not apply to PLT, because its energy is confined within the optical cavity so that it cannot destroy any objects. Or we can design the PLT such that its transformation into a laser weapon can be prevented.”
He then went on to say: “For space demonstration of PLT spacecraft manipulation including stationkeeping, I think using the International Space Station platform would be one of the best ways … I roughly estimate it would take $6M total for 3 years for the demonstration using the ISS power and cubesats. The Tipping Point [Announcement for Partnership Proposals] would be a good [funding mechanism] …to do this.”
Once the technology of the Photonic Railway matures and is validated in the solar system Dr. Bae envisions its use applied to interstellar missions to explore exoplanets in the next century as described in a 2012 paper in Physics Procedia.
Conceptual illustration of the Photonic Railway applied to a roundtrip interstellar voyage to explore exoplanets around Epsilon Eridani. This application requires four PLTs: two for acceleration and two for deceleration. Credits: Young K. Bae
Be sure to listen live and call in to ask Dr. Bae your questions about the PLT in person when he returns to The Space Show on March 29th.
SSP featured a post in 2020 on the promise of lava tubes as ideal natural structures on the Moon or Mars in which space settlements could be established. Some are quite voluminous and could contain very large cities. Lava tubes provide excellent protection from radiation, micrometeorite bombardment and temperature extremes while being very ancient and geologically stable.
How would a city be established inside a lava tube? What would it be like to live and work there? Brian P. Dunn paints a scientifically accurate picture of such a future in Tube Town – Frontier, a hard science fiction book visualizing life beneath the surface of the Moon. Dunn recently appeared on The Space Show where he provided tantalizing details on his book scheduled to be published later this year. You can also get a taste of the story through excerpts available on his website.
I’ve had the opportunity to get an advanced copy of his book and will be providing feedback to Dunn prior to publication. He agreed to an interview via email, summarized below, answering some of my initial questions:
SSP: Your first chapter of the book takes place in 2028 and starts out with teleoperated “SciBots” networked together in swarms to explore and prospect for resources at the Moon’s south pole. They are battery powered and need to periodically recharge at stations at the base of solar power towers at the Peaks of Eternal Light, similar to what Trans Astronautical Corp. is planning with their Sunflower system. This time frame seems overly optimistic given that NASA’s Artemis program won’t return astronauts to the Moon until the mid 2020s and Jeff Foust reported recently that a second landing won’t take place until 2 years later. Would it be more realistic to move out the timeline 5-10 years?
BPD: As Kathy Lueders at NASA has said, our strategy with both Moon and Mars is ‘Bots then Boots’. There is much scientific and ISRU work that can be done before the humans arrive. (See the article on my blog “The Mother of All CLPS Missions.”) With the Moon’s close proximity and communications satellites, we can teleoperate rovers much easier than on Mars. Regarding the SLS/Artemis timeline, I don’t believe it will ever reach full fruition. The Artemis/Gateway architecture is too expensive and too slow. There is a paradigm shift happening now as the concept of large, re-usable, re-fuel able, high payload, quick launch cadence rockets is being proven out with SpaceX’s Starship.
SSP: After discovery of the lava tube in which Tube Town is eventually established, the public “was clamoring for more” and the “excitement of the discovery of the tube breathed new life into lunar and space exploration”. I know that I would be excited, and most space cadets would be as well, but why would the general public be so supportive of space exploration because of the discovery of a lava tube on the Moon? A recent poll found that a majority of people think that sending astronauts to the moon or Mars should be either low or not a priority.
BPD: Now that we’re starting to get the rockets, the American public will soon see landers and rovers return to the Moon. This time it will be in HD TV. At some point Americans will return to the Moon. This will be must-see TV. Taikonauts will eventually land on the Moon. This will definitely light a fire under the Americans. Interest in the Moon and lunar exploration will go up. The problem will be sustaining interest (We have an incredibly short attention span). After the world record TV event, interest will wane. We will only be able to put a few astronauts in small habitats on the surface for short periods of time. Upon discovery of an intact lava tube people will know that we could actually build a town on the Moon. Even better than that guy described in that book… what was it called?
SSP: Tube Town is operated by an umbrella organization of national space programs led by NASA called the International Space Program. How do you envision this cost sharing structure getting started?
BPD: Although much cheaper than a comparable sized surface base, outfitting a lava tube for human habitation will not be cheap. Much of the materials can be made in situ, such as aluminum sheeting for the floors and airlocks, waterless concrete, steel for pressure vessels to hold volatile gasses, but much will need to come from Earth such as Factory machines, computers, electronics, medical equipment, etc.
In Tube Town, this cost is spread among the space programs of 27 countries of the International Space Program (NASA, ESA plus 9 countries that signed the Artemis Accords).
US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea, India, Brazil, Israel, United Arab Emirates, and the 17 member countries of the European Space Agency (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom). Notable holdouts were China (CNSA) and Russia (Roscosmos).
The ISP is a cost and opportunity sharing umbrella organization for building and maintaining a large Moon base and robotic creation of a Mars base and the first crewed mission to Mars.
NASA would be the lead partner of the ISP, but project decisions were approved and administered by the ISP Board of Directors consisting of the member countries of the organization with weighted voting rights proportionate to their contribution. Many countries wanted to get in on the ground floor of a new space economy but couldn’t afford to duplicate the resources and infrastructure that already existed at NASA. With their combined buying power, the ISP could source rockets, landers, robotics, space suits, etc. from the most efficient and innovative private suppliers. In return, ISP countries received habitation services (shelter, atmosphere, food, water) and discounted rates for:
leasing habitation space in the Tube for scientific or commercial enterprise,
buying propellant and other in situ resources, and
payload return to Earth
ISP construction costs of the Tube are initially off-set by lunar tourism and bespoke mining. Tourism licenses are issued by the ISP to private companies. The contracts include revenue sharing, ISP Code of Conduct compliance and Space Heritage sites preservation requirements. In exchange, the licensees get transportation, medical emergency and habitation services on the Moon.
In Tube Town, the first ISP tourism licensee is with Lunar Experience, LLC. LE licensed 50 seats for a seven Earth day stay. They ran two tours per Earth month to take advantage of the Nearside lunar day (in early days, most of the popular attractions were on the Nearside). LE agreed to give away 25% of the seats to people who could not afford the price. So, of the 50 seats per trip, 12 were free and 38 were paying customers. Assuming a ticket price of $5m for a trip to the Moon for a week, a flight made $190m. The revenue sharing agreement with the ISP was 60/40 (LE 60%, ISP 40%) so for that $190m flight, LE earned $114m and ISP $76m. If only two trips were completed per month, the yearly income would be LE $1.3B and ISP $912m. The ticket price would double to watch the uncrewed launches to Mars and the price would triple to be a part of history to witness the crewed launch to Mars.
In addition, the ISP or commercial customers could take advantage of very reasonable freight rates to backhaul refined payload on the returning tourist rockets to Earth. When would the price become affordable for regular people? Probably after the third tube is discovered. I could see an ISP member like UAE opening a large lava tube exclusively as a vacation resort.
SSP: The main product produced by Tube Town’s factory is spacecraft for Mars exploration and the eventual establishment of an outpost on the Red Planet. Presumably, at least at first, not all electronic components can be made on the Moon so will have to be imported from Earth via a space-based supply chain. Elon Musk is designing Starship to go directly to Mars from Earth. Why does building spacecraft on the Moon for a Mars mission make economic sense when compared to “going direct” like Starship, and why isn’t Starship mentioned in the book?
BPD: The book is a work of fiction so I try not to use real names or products. Although I think Starship is the first of its class of big, reusable rockets, I also think the concept will be replicated (like airliners) and hopefully there will be several options in the Earth to Moon supply chain. If you can make a big re-usable rocket on a beach in Texas, you can make one inside a nice lava tube on the Moon. We will also need to get lots of bots and machinery to Mars before the humans. This can also be manufactured on the Moon. When you launch, you don’t have to fight the giant gravity well of Earth (12.6 km/s vs 2.6 km/s) and you may not even have to re-fuel to head for Mars. Huge payloads will be much more economical from the Moon.
Artist conception of a spacecraft manufacturer inside a lava tube. Credit: Riley Dunn
SSP: Tube Town has a Farm devoted to food production, waste re-cycling, and ice processing. However, without insects or wind pollination it is not possible to grow desirable fruits and vegetables like apples, squash, melons and many more. You devised an innovative way to pollinate the plants. Tell us about that!
BPD: Nearly all of the technology described in the book is based on existing technology, whether in the lab or in production. Harvey’s pollinating space bees are based on a combination of miniature drone-delivered soap bubble pollination and AI image recognition software.
SSP: In your book, the Apollo 11 landing site becomes a tourist destination. What steps are taken to preserve this fragile heritage site?
BPD: I think the Apollo 11 site is the must-see tourist attraction on the Moon. Part of that attraction is that you can still see the boot prints of the astronauts in the regolith. On the moon, boot prints are forever- unless another human destroys them. It only takes one knucklehead.
In my book, a regolith wall is built around the site to protect from plume drift from vehicles. The entrance is a good distance away from the site. Access into the site is in a plexiglass pod that is suspended above the surface. A cable system mounted on tall towers maneuvers pods of tourists through the site from above, giving them a close-up encounter, yet not disturbing the artifacts nor the regolith.
There should be multiple Space Heritage Sites on the Moon consisting of artificial artifacts from multiple countries and natural wonders like Schroter’s Valley. They should be identified and preserved by the tourist licensees that will profit from them.
Vallis Schröteri (Schroter’s Valley), believed to be volcanic in origin, is the largest sinuous rille on the Moon seen here as imaged by Apollo 15. Credits: NASA via Wikipedia
SSP: Tube Town has a centrifuge in the Rec Section to provide artificial gravity for residents to maintain their physical health, but very little detail is provided. How often do residents use this facility, on average, and is it’s radius optimized to minimize Coriolis forces? You might consider this well thought out design for a centrifuge.
BPD: I love this design for a lunar lava tube environment! The Rec section of Tube Town is over 400m wide so this is the perfect place for a floor mounted Dorais Gravity Train. In my book, this would be used for scientific study of the effects of artificial gravity treatment in a low gravity environment. They would do studies on both animals, plants and humans. I see crewmembers and tourists using the gravity train as a health spa and treatment against ‘gravity sickness’.
SSP: There are a couple of resident dogs in Tube Town and one them actually becomes pregnant. This has huge implications for biomedical research on mammalian reproduction in lunar gravity and in particular, determination of the gravity prescription for healthy human gestation. In my opinion, determination of the gravity prescription is one of the most significant questions to be answered for long term space settlement. Tell us about how this research is carried out in Tube Town in an ethical manner?
BPD: The studies would start with mice. Only when and if the studies show that mammalian reproduction in low gravity is safe, would the crew move up to higher level mammals. If safe, the female dog would be taken off the canine birth control medication she is on. BTW, all the ISP crewmembers and commercial residents must agree to be on birth control medication while living on the Moon. Many may choose to freeze eggs or sperm on Earth before a long deployment in space.
SSP: Where on the Moon should we look for lava tubes?
BPD: Nearly all of the volcanic activity of the Moon was on the Nearside, not the Farside. So we should definitely concentrate on the Nearside. We can see lots of collapsed lava tubes on the surface of the Moon, the intact ones are probably in the same regions.
My suggestion is to look for them where we would like to find them, in other words, lets look in strategic lunar base locations where there is water and power and easy access to other useful minerals (like metals).
I’m sure NASA knows better than me, but my target priorities would be:
North Pole – because its near water and solar power and metals (the Northern Oceanus Procellarum and the highlands between the maria).
South Pole – because its near water and solar power. The South Pole-Aitken basin is a large impact crater but apparently there was some later volcanic activity so it is possible to find tubes in the South Pole area but they may be smaller in size and length than the ones in the Maria.
Marius Hills (southwest of Schroter’s Valley in Oceanus Procellarum) – because there is lots of volcanic activity and collapsed tubes and it is near minerals and metals.
SSP: Thanks Brian for your exciting vision of our future on the Moon and for the opportunity to get a sneak peek. I’m enjoying the story of Tube Town and wish you much success with the release of the book.
Conceptual illustration depicting the deployment sequence of a LEO Moon-Mars dumbbell partial gravity facility serviced by SpaceX’s Starship. Left: Starship payloads being moored by a robot arm. Center: 1.6 m ID inflatable airbeams (yellow) play out from spin access and mate with dumbbell end modules. Rectangular solar arrays deploy by hanging at either end as spin is initiated via thrusters at Mars module. Right: Full deployment with Starship and Dragon docked at spin axis hub. Credits: Joe Carroll via The Space Review
There may be no single human factor more important to understand on the road to long term space settlement than determination of the gravity prescription (GRx) for healthy living in less than Earth normal gravity. What do we mean by the GRx? With over 60 years of human space flight experience we still only have two data points for stays longer than a few days to study the effects of gravity on human physiology: microgravity aboard the ISS and data here on the ground. Based on medical research to date, we know that significant problems arise in human health after months of exposure to microgravity. To name a few, osteoporosis, immune system degradation, diminished muscle mass, vision problems due to changes in interocular pressure and cognitive impairment resulting memory loss and lack concentration. Some of these problems can be mitigated with a few hours of daily exercise. But recovery upon return to normal gravity takes considerable time and we don’t know if some of these problems will become irreversible after longer term stays. We have virtually no data on human health at gravity levels of the Moon and Mars, as shown in this graph by Joe Carrol:
The more important question for permanent space settlements is can humans have babies in lower gravity? If we go by the National Space Societies’ definition, an outpost will never really become a permanent space settlement until it is “biologically self-sustaining”. We evolved over millions of years at the bottom Earth’s gravity well. How will amniotic fluid, changes in cell growth, fetal development and human embryos be affected during gestation under lower gravity conditions on the Moon or Mars? There are already indications that problems will arise during mammalian gestation, at least in microgravity as experienced aboard the ISS.
To answer these questions, Joe Carroll suggests the establishment of a crewed artificial gravity research facility in LEO which he described last month in an article in The Space Review. He proposes a Moon-Mars dumbbell with nodes spinning at different rates to simulate gravity on both the Moon and Mars, which covers most of the planetary bodies in the solar system where settlements would be established if not in free space. The facility could be launched and tended by SpaceX’s Starship once the spacecraft is flight worthy in the next few years in parallel with Elon Musk’s plans to establish an outpost on Mars. Musk may even want to fund this facility to inform his long term plans for communities on Mars. If his goal is for the humanity to become a multiplanetary species, surely will want to know if his settlers can have children.
Carroll’s design connects the Moon and Mars modules with radial structures called “airbeams” which will allow crew to access the variable gravity nodes in a shirtsleeve environment. The inflatable members are composed of polymer fiber fabric which can be easily folded for storage in the Starship payload bay. Crews would be initially launched aboard Dragon until the Starship is human rated.
“Eventually, rotating free-space settlements will get massive enough to use other shapes, but dumbbells plus airbeams seem like the key to useful early ones.”
The paper addresses details on key operating concepts, docking procedures, emergency protocols, and the implications for long term settlement in the solar system.
There may even be a market for orbital tourism to experience lower gravity that could make funding for the facility attractive to space venture capitalists, especially if it is located in an equatorial orbit shielded from ionizing radiation by the Earth’s magnetic fields. As the technology matures, older tourists may even want to retire in orbital communities that offer the advantage of lower gravity as their bodies become frail in their golden years.
Humankind’s expansion out into the solar system depends on where we can survive and thrive in a healthy environment. If ethical clinical studies on lower mammals in a Moon/Mars dumbbell clears the way for a healthy life in lunar gravity then we can expand out to the six largest moons including our own plus Mars. If the data shows we need at least Mars gravity, then the Red Planet or even Mercury could be potential sites for permanent settlement. But if nothing below Earth normal gravity is tolerable, especially for mammalian gestation, it may be necessary to build ever larger rotating O’Neillian free space settlements to expand civilization across the solar system. There are vast resources and virtually unlimited energy if we need to do that. But it will take considerable time and careful planning to establish the vast infrastructure needed to build these settlements. If human physiology is constrained by Earth’s gravity then space settlers will want to know this information soon so that the planning process can be integrated into space development activities about to unfold on the Moon and beyond. If Musk finds out that Mars inhabitants cannot have children and wants to establish permanent communities beyond Earth, would he change course and switch to O’Neillian free space settlements?
“If we do need sustained gravity at levels higher than that of Mars, it seems easier to develop sustainable rotating settlements than to terraform any near-1g planet.”
Listen to Joe Carroll answer my questions about his Moon/Mars dumbbell facility from earlier this month on this archived episode of The Space Show.
