Approaches to Outfitting an Inflatable Habitat: Moon to Mars Exploration Systems and Habitat (M2M X-hab) 2022 Academic Innovation Challenge
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
David L Akin↗
SEARCH · Engineering Papers
Results for “Habitats”
Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Smart Habitat: Assessment of Commercial-Off-The-Shelf "Smart" Technologies For Applications in Long-Duration Exploration Mission Habitats
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Patrick K. Pischulti↗
2016 Deep Space Habitat Designs in Support of the Exploration Habitat Academic Innovation Challenge (X-Hab): Final Report
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Fabian Clarkson↗
Surface Habitat Systems
The Surface Habitat Systems (SHS) Focused Investment Group (FIG) is part of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Johnson Space Center (JSC) effort to provide a focused direction and funding to the various projects that are working on human surface habitat designs and technologies for the planetary exploration missions. The overall SHS-FIG effort focuses on directing and guiding those projects that: 1) develop and demonstrate new surface habitat system concepts, innovations, and technologies to support human exploration missions, 2) improve environmental systems that interact with human habitats, 3) handle and emplace human surface habitats, and 4) focus on supporting humans living and working in habitats on planetary surfaces. The activity areas of the SHS FIG described herein are focused on the surface habitat project near-term objectives as described in this document. The SHS-FIG effort focuses on mitigating surface habitat risks (as identified by the Lunar Surface Systems Project Office (LSSPO) Surface Habitat Element Team; and concentrates on developing surface habitat technologies as identified in the FY08 gap analysis. The surface habitat gap assessment will be updated annually as the surface architecture and surface habitat definition continues to mature. These technologies are mapped to the SHS-FIG Strategic Development Roadmap. The Roadmap will bring to light the areas where additional innovative efforts are needed to support the development of habitat concepts and designs and the development of new technologies to support of the LSSPO Habitation Element development plan. Three specific areas of development that address Lunar Architecture Team (LAT)-2 and Constellation Architecture Team (CxAT) Lunar habitat design issues or risks will be focused on by the SHS-FIG. The SHS-FIG will establish four areas of development that will help the projects prepare in their planning for surface habitat systems development. Those development areas are the 1) surface habitat concept definition, 2) inflatable surface habitat development, and 3) autonomous habitat operations, and 4) cross-cutting / systems engineering. In subsequent years, the SHS-FIG will solicit a call for innovations and technologies that will support the development of these four development areas. The other development areas will be assessed yearly and identified on the SHS-FIG s Strategic Development Roadmap. Initial investment projects that are funded by the Constellation Program Office (CxPO), LSSPO, or the Exploration Technology Development Projects (ETDP) will also be included on the Roadmap. For example, in one or two years from now, the autonomous habitat operations and testbed would collaborations with the Integrated Systems Health Management (ISHM) and Automation for Operations ETDP projects, which will give the surface habitat projects an integrated habitat autonomy testbed to test software and systems. The SHS-FIG scope is to provide focused direction for multiple innovations, technologies and subsystems that are needed to support humans at a remote planetary surface habitat during the concept development, design definition, and integration phases of that project. Subsystems include: habitability, lightweight structures, power management, communications, autonomy, deployment, outfitting, life support, wireless connectivity, lighting, thermal and more.
Kennedy, Kriss J.↗
Options for Offloading a 90-Ton Common Habitat from its Lander on the Surface of Mars
The Common Habitat is a large, long-duration habitat being explored as part of a conceptual study (not an active NASA program) that uses an SLS core stage liquid oxygen (LOX) tank as its primary structure. Measuring 8.4 meters in diameter and 15.6 meters in length, it is manufactured as a habitat and launched as such into space. It is intended for use on the Moon as part of a permanently occupied outpost, on Mars as part of an outpost that will be occupied for hundreds of days at a time, and in deep space as part of the Deep Space Exploration Vehicle where it will support crewed missions up to 1200 days in duration. A study of internal orientation and crew size resulted in a Common Habitat configuration sized for a crew of eight with a three-deck horizontal orientation. There are obvious challenges associated with the delivery of such a large habitat, which may mass as much as 90-tons when initially deployed. The Mars destination in particular imposes extreme challenges due to Martian gravity. This paper identifies initial options for the offloading of a 90-ton Common Habitat from a lander spacecraft on the surface of Mars. On Mars, the Common Habitat is part of a surface outpost where a Habitation Zone includes the Common Habitat docked to a two-chamber airlock node, up to two logistics modules, and up to two pressurized rovers. It is connected by underground conduit to a radiator farm and communications tower assembly. These elements and other surface infrastructure, including robotic systems for surface preparation, are landed prior to the Common Habitat. In the baseline Common Habitat Architecture, the Common Habitat is delivered on the third heavy cargo flight. The Habitation Zone configuration dictates that the Common Habitat needs to be offloaded from the lander. All of the docked elements require direct access to the surface and the Common Habitat must actually be placed in a trench to lower its docking ports to be level with those of the mated elements. Additionally, the habitat must be emplaced in a horizontal configuration, while for any conceivable Earth launch system it must be launched in a vertical configuration. It is true that the Common Habitat must be offloaded from its lander on both the Moon and Mars and a common offloading system must therefore work in both destinations. Mars, however, is considered the driving case for offloading in most, but not all, aspects. A four-day internal study in 2021 recommended that a modified Starship be used to land the Common Habitat on Mars and considered multiple approaches to offload the Common Habitat from the payload section and lower it to the surface. The topic was presented at a public hackathon organized by the Johnson Space Center’s Emerge Employee Resource Group. One team took on the challenge and proposed a concept in some ways similar to the previously considered jib crane. Despite the excellent innovation in the team’s work, a number of study refinements are necessary to truly establish feasibility. These and other future work needed to mature the concept are discussed in this work.
Lander Offloading↗
CisLunar Habitat Internal Architecture Design Criteria
BACKGROUND: In preparation for human exploration to Mars, there is a need to define the development and test program that will validate deep space operations and systems. In that context, a Proving Grounds CisLunar habitat spacecraft is being defined as the next step towards this goal. This spacecraft will operate differently from the ISS or other spacecraft in human history. The performance envelope of this spacecraft (mass, volume, power, specifications, etc.) is being defined by the Future Capabilities Study Team. This team has recognized the need for a human-centered approach for the internal architecture of this spacecraft and has commissioned a CisLunar Phase-1 Habitat Internal Architecture Study Team to develop a NASA reference configuration, providing the Agency with a "smart buyer" approach for future acquisition. THE CISLUNAR HABITAT INTERNAL ARCHITECTURE STUDY: Overall, the CisLunar Habitat Internal Architecture study will address the most significant questions and risks in the current CisLunar architecture, habitation, and operations concept development. This effort is achieved through definition of design criteria, evaluation criteria and process, design of the CisLunar Habitat Phase-1 internal architecture, and the development and fabrication of internal architecture concepts combined with rigorous and methodical Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) evaluations and testing of the conceptual innovations in a controlled test environment. The vision of the CisLunar Habitat Internal Architecture Study is to design, build, and test a CisLunar Phase-1 Habitat Internal Architecture that will be used for habitation (e.g. habitability and human factors) evaluations. The evaluations will mature CisLunar habitat evaluation tools, guidelines, and standards, and will interface with other projects such as the Advanced Exploration Systems (AES) Program integrated Power, Avionics, Software (iPAS), and Logistics for integrated human-in-the-loop testing. The mission of the CisLunar Habitat Internal Architecture Study is to become a forcing function to establish a common understanding of CisLunar Phase-1 Habitation Internal Architecture design criteria, processes, and tools. The scope of the CisLunar Habitat Internal Architecture study is to design, develop, demonstrate, and evaluate a Phase-1 CisLunar Habitat common module internal architecture based on design criteria agreed to by NASA, the International Partners, and Commercial Exploration teams. This task is to define the CisLunar Phase-1 Internal Architecture Government Reference Design, assist NASA in becoming a "smart buyer" for Phase-1 Habitat Concepts, and ultimately to derive standards and requirements from the Internal Architecture Design Process. The first step was to define a Habitat Internal Architecture Design Criteria and create a structured philosophy to be used by design teams as a filter by which critical aspects of consideration would be identified for the purpose of organizing and utilizing interior spaces. With design criteria in place, the team will develop a series of iterative internal architecture concept designs which will be assessed by means of an evaluation criteria and process. These assessments will successively drive and refine the design, leading to the combination and down-selection of design concepts. A single refined reference design configuration will be developed into in a medium-to-high fidelity mockup. A multi-day human-in-the-loop mission test will fully evaluate the reference design and validate its configuration. Lessons learned from the design and evaluation will enable the team to identify appropriate standards for Phase-1 CisLunar Habitat Internal Architecture and will enable NASA to develop derived requirements in support of maturing CisLunar Habitation capabilities. This paper will describe the criteria definition process, workshop event, and resulting CisLunar Phase-1 Habitat Internal Architecture Design Criteria.
Jones, R.↗
Future Homes in Space: Development of Concepts for Exploration Space Habitats
NASA’s Artemis campaign seeks to return humans to the moon and establish a sustained presence on the lunar surface. This session will emphasize how habitation capabilities on the moon and in cislunar space can potentially contribute to the sustainability objectives of Artemis. Habitable elements represent opportunities to enable longer duration stays, increase the number of crew members present, enhance science and utilization activities, drive technology development for future Mars exploration, perform analog missions, and fuel economic opportunities for US industry. Panelists include Paul Kessler (NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, deputy lead for lunar surface habitation); Andrew Choate (NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Mars habitation lead); Krystofer Dudzinski (NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, a space architect within the MSFC Advanced Concepts Office); and Larry Toups (retired from NASA Johnson Space Center, currently an adjunct professor at University of Houston in space architecture). The panel is moderated by Tracie Prater (NASA Marshall Space Flight Center, Habitation Systems Development Office). The panel will begin with an overview of the history of habitation concepts and an academic perspective on general considerations in space habitat design (Larry Toups). Paul Kessler and Andrew Choate will introduce NASA’s principle of “architecting from the right” to help define objectives for Artemis missions, needs/characteristics, use cases, and functions (as published in the agency’s Architecture Definition Document) and provide perspective on how this principle informs habitation concept development work. NASA panelists will discuss key engineering challenges identified for developing, deploying, and operating habitable assets on the lunar surface and/or in deep space. These may include dust mitigation, outfitting of inflatable softgoods (for concepts which may use softgoods as a primary structural material), survival in lunar darkness, human health and performance considerations, maintenance/repair/sparing, and autonomy. These identified challenges represent risks for habitation systems development and relate closely to capability gaps identified by the agency. While the work of NASA Marshall Space Flight Center’s habitation development office is primarily focused on habitats which are launched from earth pre-integrated (referred to as Class I in the framework previously developed by NASA space architects Kennedy/Cohen) or launched from earth and deployed at the point of use (Class II), there is also extensive work in NASA, academia, and companies on constructed habitats, which would be built on a planetary surface using indigenous resources (Class III habitats). Panelist Krystopher Dudzinski will discuss potential evolutionary pathways from Class I and Class II habitats to Class III habitats, unique and common architectural challenges within each habitat class, and key gaps in implementing Class III habitats from an architectural perspective. NASA panelists and the moderator will also provide an overview of partnership opportunities and avenues for further engagement to advance habitation systems for the SpaceCom audience. NASA is currently developing notional concepts for a lunar surface habitat and Mars transit habitat, which will be discussed during this panel session and used as examples. These concepts represent options for habitation system design and are a point of departure. They do not represent a final plan or formal recommendation on the part of the agency. Based on the most recent analysis cycle, NASA’s lunar surface habitat (SH) concept nominally supports two crew members for 30 days, with the capacity to support four crew during a surge period where crew will swap between the SH and another surface asset, such as a pressurized rover. This example design has a metallic airlock for ingress/egress and the upper portion is an inflatable material system which serves as the habitation module. The notional interior of the habitat is a three-deck layout/configuration which supports all crew mission functions, including exercise, stowage, extravehicular activity (EVA), sleep, hygiene waste collection, maintenance and repair, and meal preparation. Under analysis assumptions for habitation, the Mars Transit Habitat (TH) concept would support four crew on an up to 1,200 day Mars mission. One option for the concept is to initially dock Transit Habitat at Gateway, where it can be used to increase the duration of crew stays in cislunar space and perform shakedown and analog missions prior to a Mars departure. One challenge in longer duration missions which involve both surface exploration and transit is understanding crew adaptation when transitioning between partial gravity and microgravity environments. TH at Gateway offers an opportunity to study this transition and in doing so reduce risks associated with future Mars exploration. Like lunar SH, the most recent analysis cycle concept of a Mars TH is a hybrid structure design, with a metallic section supporting EVAs, axial/radial docking, and Safe Haven capabilities, and an inflatable softgoods structure for the primary habitation function. Interior layouts to optimize crew usability and livability are currently under trade. The panel will include presentation material, but also seeks to engage the audience in a highly interactive conversation regarding the potential role for habitation in future exploration initiatives. Potential topics for discussion include the influence of the crew experience on habitation systems design and livability/usability considerations, the benefits of space habitation development in terrestrial applications, and challenges and opportunities in “feeding forward” lunar surface habitation systems development to Mars exploration.
space habitats↗
Measuring Metapopulation Characteristics of the Southeastern Beach Mouse on Kennedy Space Center using a Dynamic Habitat Occupancy Approach
The Cape Canaveral Barrier Island Complex (CCBIC) represents the largest (72 km) continuous coastal habitat supporting the core population of the threatened southeastern beach mouse (Peromyscus polionotus niveiventris) in Florida. Despite protection throughout the subspecies’ remaining range, storm activity during the past two decades has de-stabilized coastal dune and coastal strand habitat required for beach mouse survival. Our long-term goal is to provide information to the management process to ensure a sustainable population on the CCBIC in light of sea-level rise, extreme storm events, and continued land development supporting the multi-user spaceport.Because beach mice populations are affected by storms (hurricanes, tropical storms, nor’easters), it is important to understand the species-habitat relations during periods with and without storm impacts. Conventional wisdom is that coastal dune and coastal strand are the preferred habitats, but coastal scrub habitat may be important because it is less affected by storm impacts (e.g., overwash, escarpment, sand deposition, etc.) and thus may serve as a refugia. In addition, genetic studies have shown some evidence for reduced dispersal between regions on CCBIC (Kalkvik et al., 2012; Zimmerman et al., 2015). We compared site occupancy dynamics for coastal dune, coastal strand, and coastal scrub habitat over three quarters (seasons) and determined the pattern of spatial correlation in habitat occupancy dynamics for locations at a range of distances in coastal dune, coastal strand, and coastal scrub habitats along the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) coastline (Figures1 and 2). Although habitat occupancy is very useful for understanding species-habitat relationships,in its simplest form it ignores differences in abundance between sites. Because information on abundance may inform management efforts and provide knowledge regarding status of the population, we tested measuring abundance state based on the number of detections in tracking tubes. Small mammal populations often fluctuate in a cyclic manner over time. These fluctuations make populations more susceptible to extinction and make trend detection more difficult. Efficient methods of measuring abundance across time and space are needed for monitoring trends.The purpose of this project was to:1.Estimate southeastern beach mouse habitat occupancy parameters in coastal dune, coastal strand, and coastal scrub habitats using a combination of tracking tubes and traps; 2.Model the spatial relationships of the effect of habitat (coastal dune, coastal strand, and coastal scrub) on parameters as a function of distance; and 3.Compare the reliability and efficiency of our survey methods and evaluate the potential to develop an abundance index.
Eric Douglas Stolen↗
Informing Dionaea muscipula (Venus Flytrap) Conservation Through Habitat Modeling and Forecasted Land Cover Change
The carnivorous Dionaea muscipula (Venus flytrap, Droseraceae) is threatened by habitat loss, fire suppression, and poaching. For rare plant species like D. muscipula with specialized habitat requirements and fragmented distribution, habitat suitability modeling is an important method for guiding conservation efforts. To support the D. muscipula conservation, this study: 1) modeled suitable habitat across the extent of the species’ known range and 2) forecasted land cover change due to development in the study area to the year 2050. Habitat modeling was conducted by overlaying high-confidence presence data observed since 1980 (n=292) with environmental predictor variables (n=23). Suitable habitats were then compared with land cover change to identify areas at risk of habitat loss due to human development. According to those models, nearly half (107.1km2) of modeled highly suitable D. muscipula habitat outside of protected lands are likely to face development pressure. On the other hand, 39.4% (139.9km2) of highly suitable habitats overlap with protected lands and may serve as lasting D. muscipula habitat. Results from this study can inform D. muscipula conservation, including targeted seed banking of populations at risk of extirpation, prioritization of habitats for protection and management, and reintroduction to suitable habitats within protected areas.
Kathryn Caruso↗
Surface Transportation of the Common Habitat from Lander to Habitation Zone
The Common Habitat Architecture is a feasibility study surrounding the use of an SLS core stage liquid oxygen tank as the pressure vessel for a long-duration habitat intended for use in multiple gravity environments. The Common Habitat is used within this study as the primary habitation element in both Moon and Mars surface base camps. The Common Habitat Architecture offloads the Common Habitat from its lander and transports it to a Habitation Zone instead of leaving the habitat integrated with the lander. In this study, the Landing Zone is assumed to be approximately 3.5 kilometers from the Habitation Zone. Given the physical size and estimated 90-ton mass of the Common Habitat, a four-week trade study encompassing Moon and Mars lander identification, offloading, surface transport, and emplacement was conducted in February 2021 to assess whether there are any credible options for landing the Common Habitat on the Moon or Mars and deliver it to its intended point of use. Constrained to use only public data, the study applied subject matter expert opinion to each component of the study. The surface transportation component of the trade study assumes the habitat has been successfully offloaded from its lander and is at a point of handover to the surface transportation system. It is assumed that there are no crew present, and all human operations are performed remotely by Mission Control personnel. Three core cargo handling elements from prior NASA studies were used as the basis from which to derive surface transportation options – the Chariot, the All-Terrain Hex-Limbed Extra-Terrestrial Explorer, and the Lightweight Surface Manipulator System. Variations and hybrid combinations of these elements were used to develop transportation options for the Moon and Mars, given different habitat masses. Ultimately, several potentially feasible solutions were identified, and a solution was recommended that is common to both the Moon and Mars, with the potential to use a dissimilar system as a backup during lunar Common Habitat delivery. Next steps for sizing and additional development and analysis of the recommended surface transportation system are included as forward work.
Surface Mobility↗
Room to Live: the sizing of Lunar and Martian Habitats
In order for man to return to space or extra terrestrial bodies for long duration missions it is important that adequate habitat volume be defined early to avoid costly delays and redesign. To properly define a habitat volume two major factors need to be considered. The first factor is the free or open space. This is the space that allows the crew room to move about the habitat. This space will vary based on crew size and length of the mission. The second major factor is the stowage space required for equipment and supplies. This includes both fixed volumes and consumables. Fixed volumes include items such as tools, communication equipment, Advanced Life Support (ALS) equipment, and support equipment. Consumables include items like filters, food, water and oxygen. This space is also dependent on crew size and mission length. A review of past missions into alien environments, such as deep sea habitats as well as space based habitats will be used to validate the assumption made in this paper. Once these key factors are defined trades must be run to optimize the overall volume of a habitat. This includes trades of disposable vs. reusable for items such as clothing, dishes, and water. Another factor to consider is the availability of in situ resources to aid in the construction of the habitat structure as well as re-supply of consumable items. A review of past missions into alien environments, such as deep sea habitats as well as space based habitats will be used to validate the assumption made in this paper. The result is a habitat sizing tool to provide a first order estimate of habitat volumes for extended mission to the surface of the moon and Mars.
McGregor, Walter L.↗
Down-Selection of Four Common Habitat Variants
The Common Habitat is a large habitat developed as an alternative architecture study, not part of the current NASA baseline, that uses the SLS core stage liquid oxygen tank as its primary structure. It has a gravity-independent internal architecture, such that identical units can be used on the lunar surface, Mars surface, and in microgravity. In developing the habitat, two key architectural questions emerged. Should the internal layout use a vertical or horizontal orientation of the tank? Should the crew size be four or eight? This led to the design of four variants: a four-crew horizontal, four-crew vertical, eight-crew horizontal, and eight-crew vertical. The four-crew variants use a shortened version of the tank while the eight-crew variants use the entire tank. The primary consideration applied for down-selection is the crew experience living and working in the habitat, inclusive of crew productivity, well-being, and survivability. Based on this consideration, a series of seven assessments were performed to compare the variants. This analysis was performed as an unfunded, volunteer activity leveraging civil servants across multiple field centers, most with expertise working in various Artemis teams. Additionally, the evaluation was limited to the use of CAD models, images, and spreadsheet data, with no resources available for mockups or Virtual Reality. A logistics analysis developed a standard logistics module and then estimated how much stowage could be carried onboard each Common Habitat and how many logistics modules are required by each variant for a given mission duration. It also considered the amounts of water to be stored in each variant. A functional analysis identified and compared the living and working functions across the habitats, ranking them relative to each other. A crew time assessment first estimated the total crew time, building a weekly crew timeline for both four and eight-person crews. It then allocated time to activities linked to living and working functions, comparing how much time was available for each function in each variant. A science productivity assessment developed a relative metric using crew time, science stowage, and assumed rates of experiment consumables use to analytically compare the four variants. It also comparatively ranked the habitats with respect to a number of subjective parameters and a workstation acceptability rating. A maintenance capacity assessment identified and compared eleven generic maintenance capabilities across the variants and also ranked them for their predicted ability to complete twelve fabrication, maintenance, and repair scenarios. A contingency responsiveness analysis examined twelve serious in-flight contingencies. For each scenario, the number of crew needed to respond were predicted and acceptability of various aspects of contingency response were evaluated, comparing the variants against each other. Finally, in a habitability assessment, 120 habitability characteristics reflecting 13 major categories were evaluated for each habitat. These results were compared to identify the most acceptable habitat in each category. Ultimately, the data favored the horizontal orientation over the vertical and an eight-person crew over four. Implications of selecting this variant are discussed, including specific architectural challenges that result from the use of the full tank.
Habitability↗
Down-Selection of Four Common Habitat Variants
The Common Habitat is a large habitat that uses the Space Launch System core stage liquid oxygen tank as its primary structure. It has a gravity-independent internal architecture, such that identical units can be used on the lunar surface, Mars surface, and in microgravity. In developing the habitat, two key architectural questions emerged. Should the internal layout use a vertical or horizontal orientation of the tank? Should the crew size be four or eight? This led to the design of four variants: a four-crew horizontal, four-crew vertical, eight-crew horizontal, and eight-crew vertical. The primary consideration applied for down-selection was the crew experience living and working in the habitat, inclusive of crew productivity, well-being, and survivability. Based on this consideration, a series of seven assessments was performed to compare the four variants. A stowage assessment developed a standard logistics module and then considered the amounts of water to be stored in each variant. It then estimated how much stowage could be carried onboard each Common Habitat and how many logistics modules are required by each variant for a given mission duration. A functional analysis identified and compared the living and working functions across the four habitat, ranking them relative to each other. A crew time assessment first estimated the total crew time, building a weekly crew timeline for both four and eight-person crews. It then allocated time to activities linked to living and working functions, comparing how much time was available for each function in each variant. A science productivity assessment developed a relative metric using crew time, science stowage, and assumed rates of experiment consumables use to analytically compare the four variants. It also comparatively ranked the habitats with respect to a number of subjective parameters and a workstation acceptability rating. A maintenance capacity assessment identified and compared eleven generic maintenance capabilities across the four variants and also ranked the variants for their predicted ability to complete twelve fabrication, maintenance, and repair scenarios. A contingency responsiveness analysis examined twelve serious in-flight contingencies. For each scenario, the number of crew needed to respond was predicted and acceptability of various aspects of contingency response was evaluated, comparing the four variants against each other. Finally, in a habitability assessment, 120 habitability characteristics reflecting 13 major categories were evaluated for each habitat. These results were compared to identify the most acceptable habitat in each category. Ultimately, the data was shown to favor the horizontal orientation over the vertical and an eight-person crew over four. Implications of selecting this variant are discussed, including specific architectural challenges that result from the use of the full SLS liquid oxygen tank.
Habitability↗
Influence of local river hydraulics on Kootenai River white sturgeon ( Acipenser transmontanus ) habitat selection during four spawning years, 2017–2020
Understanding fine-scale habitat selection of endangered Kootenai River white sturgeon ( Acipenser transmontanus) is an important component for monitoring and recovery efforts. Fine-scale habitat selection and quantifying temporal changes in suitable habitat contributes to the work of addressing recruitment failure within the Kootenai River population. Habitat suitability indices were developed using over 96 000 acoustic telemetry sturgeon detections and two-dimensional hydrodynamic model simulations near Bonners Ferry, Idaho, USA. The selected habitat was assessed to develop habitat suitability indices for sturgeon; females undergoing spawn migrations and non-spawners. The most frequented locations were 8–9 m deep and water velocities of 0.3–0.7 m·s −1 . These observations suggest sturgeon with different spawning capabilities selected similar habitat. Weighted usable area was calculated to understand temporal variability in habitat quality, which showed a positive relationship with increases in flow. Results help understand the habitat limiting factors in regulated hydrologic regimes; provide biologists insight for monitoring efforts in discrete habitat conditions; guidance for water managers and the regulation of upstream water resources; and guidance to restoration practitioners for in-stream structure designs.
Dudunake, Taylor J. (ORCID:0000000176502419)↗
Structural Definition and Mass Estimation of Lunar Surface Habitats for the Lunar Architecture Team Phase 2 (LAT-2) Study
The Lunar Architecture Team Phase 2 study defined and assessed architecture options for a Lunar Outpost at the Moon's South Pole. The Habitation Focus Element Team was responsible for developing concepts for all of the Habitats and pressurized logistics modules particular to each of the architectures, and defined the shapes, volumes and internal layouts considering human factors, surface operations and safety requirements, as well as Lander mass and volume constraints. The Structures Subsystem Team developed structural concepts, sizing estimates and mass estimates for the primary Habitat structure. In these studies, the primary structure was decomposed into a more detailed list of components to be sized to gain greater insight into concept mass contributors. Structural mass estimates were developed that captured the effect of major design parameters such as internal pressure load. Analytical and empirical equations were developed for each structural component identified. Over 20 different hard-shell, hybrid expandable and inflatable soft-shell Habitat and pressurized logistics module concepts were sized and compared to assess structural performance and efficiency during the study. Habitats were developed in three categories; Mini Habs that are removed from the Lander and placed on the Lunar surface, Monolithic habitats that remain on the Lander, and Habitats that are part of the Mobile Lander system. Each category of Habitat resulted in structural concepts with advantages and disadvantages. The same modular shell components could be used for the Mini Hab concept, maximizing commonality and minimizing development costs. Larger Habitats had higher volumetric mass efficiency and floor area than smaller Habitats (whose mass was dominated by fixed items such as domes and frames). Hybrid and pure expandable Habitat structures were very mass-efficient, but the structures technology is less mature, and the ability to efficiently package and deploy internal subsystems remains an open issue.
Dorsey, John T.↗
Constellation Architecture Team-Lunar: Lunar Habitat Concepts
This paper will describe lunar habitat concepts that were defined as part of the Constellation Architecture Team-Lunar (CxAT-Lunar) in support of the Vision for Space Exploration. There are many challenges to designing lunar habitats such as mission objectives, launch packaging, lander capability, and risks. Surface habitats are required in support of sustaining human life to meet the mission objectives of lunar exploration, operations, and sustainability. Lunar surface operations consist of crew operations, mission operations, EVA operations, science operations, and logistics operations. Habitats are crewed pressurized vessels that include surface mission operations, science laboratories, living support capabilities, EVA support, logistics, and maintenance facilities. The challenge is to deliver, unload, and deploy self-contained habitats and laboratories to the lunar surface. The CxAT-Lunar surface campaign analysis focused on three primary trade sets of analysis. Trade set one (TS1) investigated sustaining a crew of four for six months with full outpost capability and the ability to perform long surface mission excursions using large mobility systems. Two basic habitat concepts of a hard metallic horizontal cylinder and a larger inflatable torus concept were investigated as options in response to the surface exploration architecture campaign analysis. Figure 1 and 2 depicts the notional outpost configurations for this trade set. Trade set two (TS2) investigated a mobile architecture approach with the campaign focused on early exploration using two small pressurized rovers and a mobile logistics support capability. This exploration concept will not be described in this paper. Trade set three (TS3) investigated delivery of a "core' habitation capability in support of an early outpost that would mature into the TS1 full outpost capability. Three core habitat concepts were defined for this campaign analysis. One with a four port core habitat, another with a 2 port core habitat, and the third investigated leveraging commonality of the lander ascent module and airlock pressure vessel hard shell. The paper will describe an overview of the various habitat concepts and their functionality. The Crew Operations area includes basic crew accommodations such as sleeping, eating, hygiene and stowage. The EVA Operations area includes additional EVA capability beyond the suit-port airlock function such as redundant airlock(s), suit maintenance, spares stowage, and suit stowage. The Logistics Operations area includes the enhanced accommodations for 180 days such as closed loop life support systems hardware, consumable stowage, spares stowage, interconnection to the other Hab units, and a common interface mechanism for future growth and mating to a pressurized rover. The Mission & Science Operations area includes enhanced outpost autonomy such as an IVA glove box, life support, and medical operations.
Toups, Larry↗
NASA's Advanced Exploration Systems Mars Transit Habitat Refinement Point of Departure Design
This paper describes the recently developed point of departure design for a long duration, reusable Mars Transit Habitat, which was established during a 2016 NASA habitat design refinement activity supporting the definition of NASA's Evolvable Mars Campaign. As part of its development of sustainable human Mars mission concepts achievable in the 2030s, the Evolvable Mars Campaign has identified desired durations and mass/dimensional limits for long duration Mars habitat designs to enable the currently assumed solar electric and chemical transportation architectures. The Advanced Exploration Systems Mars Transit Habitat Refinement Activity brought together habitat subsystem design expertise from across NASA to develop an increased fidelity, consensus design for a transit habitat within these constraints. The resulting design and data (including a mass equipment list) contained in this paper are intended to help teams across the agency and potential commercial, academic, or international partners understand: 1) the current architecture/habitat guidelines and assumptions, 2) performance targets of such a habitat (particularly in mass, volume, and power), 3) the driving technology/capability developments and architectural solutions which are necessary for achieving these targets, and 4) mass reduction opportunities and research/design needs to inform the development of future research and proposals. Data presented includes: an overview of the habitat refinement activity including motivation and process when informative; full documentation of the baseline design guidelines and assumptions; detailed mass and volume breakdowns; a moderately detailed concept of operations; a preliminary interior layout design with rationale; a list of the required capabilities necessary to enable the desired mass; and identification of any worthwhile trades/analyses which could inform future habitat design efforts. As a whole, the data in the paper show that a transit habitat meeting the 43 metric tons launch mass/trans-Mars injection burn limits specified by the Evolvable Mars Campaign is achievable near the desired timeframe with moderate strategic investments including maintainable life support systems, repurposable structures and packaging, and lightweight exercise modalities. It also identifies operational and technological options to reduce this mass to less than 41 metric tons including staging of launch structure/packaging and alternate structural materials.
Simon, Matthew↗
NASA Centennial Challenge: 3D Printed Habitat, Phase 3 Final Results
NASA's Centennial Challenges program uses prize competitions with the goal of accelerating innovation in the aerospace industry. Competitions in the Centennial Challenges portfolio have previously focused on advancements in space robotics, regolith excavation, bio-printing, astronaut suit design, small satellites, and solar-powered vehicles. NASA's Three Dimensional (3D) Printed Habitat Centennial Challenge represents a partnership between NASA and the non-profit partner: Bradley University, with co-sponsors Caterpillar, Bechtel, Brick and Mortar Ventures, the American Concrete Institute, and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC) to spur development in automated additive construction technologies. The challenge asks teams to design and construct a scaled and simulated Martian habitat using indigenous materials and large scale 3D automated printing systems. Phase 1 of the competition, held in 2015, was an architectural design competition for habitat concepts that could be 3D printed. Phase 2, completed in 2017, asked teams to develop feedstocks from indigenous materials and hydrocarbon polymer recyclables, and demonstrate automated printing systems to manufacture these feedstocks into test specimens to assess mechanical strength. This paper will discuss the Phase 3 competition, focusing on technology outcomes that can potentially be infused into both terrestrial and planetary construction applications. The Phase 3 competition was divided into two sub-competitions: 1) virtual construction, where teams created a high fidelity building information model (BIM) of their 3D-printed habitat design and 2) the construction competition, which required teams to 3D print a structural foundation and subject materials samples to freeze/thaw testing and impact testing (level 1), produce a habitat element and complete a hydrostatic test (level 2), and additively manufacture a 1:3 scale habitat onsite in a head to head competition at Caterpillar, inc.'s Edwards Demonstration & Learning Center near Peoria, Illinois over the course of three days (level 3). While the Phase 2 competition focused primarily on the development of novel feedstocks and robotic printing systems, Phase 3 emphasized the scale-up of these systems and autonomous operation (demonstrating the capability to operate systems on precursor missions prior to the arrival of crew, or terrestrially in field operation settings where human tending of a manufacturing system may be limited). The Phase 3 virtual construction levels yielded a number of novel habitat designs, including both modular habitats and vertically-oriented habitat concepts. The Phase 3 construction competition also challenged teams to autonomously place penetrations and interfacing elements in additively manufactured structures. The paper will emphasize potential applications for the new materials and technologies developed under the umbrella of the competition within NASA's portfolio and in Earth-based applications such as disaster response and infrastructure improvement.
Construction↗