Content uploaded by Corrado Testi
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Corrado Testi on Jul 26, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
53rd International Conference on Environmental Systems
21-25 July 2024, Louisville, Kentucky
ICES-2024-386
A Proposed Strategy for the Assembly Concept of Operations of
a Permanent Lunar Habitat
Corrado Testi∗, David Nagy†, Joshua Dow‡, Andrew Bond§
SICSA, Houston, TX, 77004
and
Dr. Olga Bannova¶
SICSA, Houston, TX, 77004
The evolution to sustainable habitation on the Lunar surface presents an array of challenges,
from the technical, administrative, and operational. A phased approach to using increasingly
sustainable elements includes three types of habitats – class 1, 2, and 3. Class 1 habitations include
rigid and unchanging element structure. Class 2 habitations include deployable or expandable
elements on the lunar surface. Class 3 habitats incorporate in-situ resource utilization (ISRU)
to bolster or form the outpost’s element(s). The proposed outpost will primarily utilize a hybrid
of class 1 and 2 habitat types. The team’s approach intends to show an evolution of habitat
types on the lunar surface by defining scientific objectives, research, and technical drivers, with
inspiration from existing habitats in low-Earth orbit. The project will utilize habitat designs
the team created considering sustainability, standardization, expandability, and relocatability.
Focus was given to the concept of operations of a habitat design that is applicable across several
targeted landing sites. The team further considered risk mitigations to ensure the best chance
of crew survival, science survival, and mission success.
I. Nomenclature
𝑀𝑆𝐹 𝐶 = Marshall Space Flight Center
𝐼𝑆𝑅𝑈 = In-Situ Resource Utilization
𝐾 𝑅𝑈𝑆𝑇 𝑌 = Kilopower Reactor Using Stirling Technology
𝑅𝐹 𝑃 = Request for Proposal
𝑆𝑘 𝑦 𝐹 𝑙𝑜 𝑤𝑒𝑟 = A transport vehicle used to shuttle materials, modules or supplies to/from the low lunar orbit/surface
𝐸𝑉 𝐴 = Extravehicular Activity
𝐿𝐷𝐿𝑀 = Legged Deployable Landing Mechanism
𝐸𝐶 𝐿𝑆 𝑆 = Environmental Control and Life Support System
𝑚= meters
𝑘𝑚 = kilometers
𝐼𝑆𝑆 = International Space Station
𝐿𝑆 𝑀 𝑆 = Lunar Surface (Robotic) Manipulator proceSes
𝐴𝑇 𝐻 𝐿𝐸 𝑇 𝐸 = All-Terrain Hex-Limbed Extra-Terrestrial Explorer
𝑘𝑊 = kilowatt
𝑘𝑊 ℎ = kilowatt/hour
𝑇 𝐹 𝐵 = Triple Friction Pendulum Bearing
𝐶𝑜 𝑛𝑂 𝑝𝑠 = Concept of Operations
𝐺𝑆𝐹𝐶 = Goddard Space Flight Center
𝐶𝑅 = Connecting Ridge
∗Graduate Student, University of Houston Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture, ctesti@cougarnet.uh.edu
†Graduate Student, University of Houston Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture, dznagy@cougarnet.uh.edu
‡Graduate Student, University of Houston Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture, jedow@cougarnet.uh.edu
§Graduate Student, University of Houston Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture, abond@uh.edu
¶SICSA Director, University of Houston Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture, obannova@central.uh.edu
Copyright ©2024 SICSA, University of Houston
𝑆𝑅 = Shackleton Rim
𝑃𝑆 𝑅 = Permanent Shadowed Region
𝑋 𝑅 = Extended Reality
𝑉 𝑅 = Virtual Reality
𝑆𝐼 𝐶 𝑆 𝐴 = Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture
II. Introduction
T
his paper focuses on the habitat assembly concept of operations (ConOps) derived from a larger project outlined by
Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) in which the team was tasked to design a pathway to a sustainable presence
on the lunar south pole. The task given to the team is as follows: to develop an integrated lunar habitation roadmap, that
captures common challenges and development opportunities between habitat classes, defines sustainable habitation
and identifies attributes that facilitate growth to a sustainable state, and considers approaches to decrease logistical
dependency on Earth resupply for habitation systems. The project was constrained to the lunar south pole, at latitudes
between 84-90 degrees south, with a maximum slope of 5 degrees, and the minimum sustainment target was set to 3
crewed launches per year, no dormancy on habitation systems, and a continuous presence of 8 crew, with a 30-day surge
capacity of 12 crewmembers.
The starting assumption point for this proposal is based upon NASA’s Moon to Mars Strategy and Objectives
Development
1
and Moon to Mars Planning Manifest
2
, wherein the logistics and space program capabilities exist to
support this paper’s proposed technical assumptions.
A. Drivers
Behind all decisions made during the research and design aspect of this project were the drivers for doing so. The
’why’ aspect factored into almost every decision made during these stages. The team laid out several VMGOS (Vision,
Mission, Goals, Objectives & Strategies) that drove the design and purpose for the expansion of the habitat. These points
include standardization, expansion, re-usability, relocation, interchangeability, and a non-site-dependent architectural
approach. The goals accomplished for each phase of the habitat will grow in scope and complexity as more capabilities
and systems become active. The initial driver for bringing systems online is just that – a working outpost that can
sustain human presence for an initial mission duration of 15 days. Additional capability and resiliency is inherent in the
expansion of the outpost.
III. Assets
The design of the team’s lunar outpost will operate under several assumptions outlined in the project guidelines. A
lunar gravitational field of 1/6th that of Earth’s gravity is a universal given. In addition, the existence of a lunar gateway
in orbit at a distance varying between 3,000km – 70,000km is assumed and will be a critical element for resupply,
communications relay, evacuation point, and a scientific outpost of its own.
The robotics resources will be used to transport habitat elements as well as crew members from landing sites, and all
elements are assumed to be brought to the surface with the SkyFlower lander/hopper, a theoretical lunar lander that is
currently a work-in-progress master thesis topic.
A. Energy Infrastructures
While the team was allowed to assume the use of 40 kW nuclear power units and 10 kW solar arrays, efficient power
generation, and storage is a complex topic with considerable opportunity for innovation and progression beyond the
dated ISS systems. Lunar-based energy systems are anticipated to be almost exclusively electrical in nature, with heat
scavenging and rejection as required. The electrical system can be broken into four key components: generation, storage,
surface operations, and habitat systems. Each component supports and feeds each other via the distribution grid, with a
communications and software control management layer.
When examining power requirements for system design, two numbers are critical: peak power (kW) and energy
consumption (kWh) over time. Electrical systems are physically designed to support the highest momentary peak power
load (kW), with a specified margin of error for safety. However, not all loads will be operating at any one time, thus
the peak design load may be considerably less than the sum of all rated capacities. Increasing the rated power of a
system in turn demands larger diameter cables, more capable electronics, and increased heat generation, resulting in
2
International Conference on Environmental Systems
increased mass and demands on other systems. This is especially critical given the high cost of sending equipment to
the lunar surface, and thus prioritization and reducing peak power specifications are typically seen as having a high
return on system efficiencies and design time. This is especially apparent when compared to solar-only concepts, as
nuclear capacity is unaffected by the lunar night.
NASA demonstrated the concept with its Kilopower Reactor Using Stirling Technology (KRUSTY)
3 4
project,
utilizing a novel Uranium Molybdenum fission power unit with self-extinguishing controls and sodium thermal heat
rejection generating 10kW. In 2021, the US Department of Energy issued an RFP
5 6
to develop commercial variants of
the technology, delivering 40kW of electricity in a cylinder under 4m diameter, 6m long, and a mass under 6000kg. A
fail-safe mode should continue to provide 5kW.
B. Skyflower Landing System
The "skyflower" is a conceptual landing system inspired by the Martian Skycrane
7
, which was used to deliver the
Curiosity and Perseverance rovers to the Martian surface. The concept involves a lander that is capable of delivering
heavy cargo, such as a surface habitat, to the lunar surface. Key features of this system include the ability to deliver
cargo from the bottom while avoiding leaving the lander integrated with the first habitat. This landing system is designed
to be reusable and can deliver a surface habitat while minimizing the risk of dust interaction during cargo offload. The
re-usability of this lander opens up the possibility of delivering more modules to the lunar surface. Its capabilities are
20 tons reusable (with low lunar orbital refueling before re-use) and more than 30 tons for a one-way mission.
C. Surface Transportation Systems
For the initial stage of the project, a pressurized rover and two different robotic vehicles are assumed to be in place.
Critical to the early stages of construction and activation of the outpost is a pressurized and enclosed rover. This rover
assumes the dimensions of the JAXA rover, however it includes several docking capabilities that allow for the mating
of the rover to different pressurized elements of the outpost. This is desired so that fewer EVAs are required when
transitioning between the rover and the habitat elements, and thus the crew incurs less risk.
ATHLETE and Venturi Astrolab were used as reference robotic systems for unmanned transportation for cargo and
modules between the proposed landing sites and destination habitat sites. These references informed the unmanned
transportation scheme which allows for a range of cargo and module transportation with varying mass and dimensions
8 9
.
The LSMS Crane System was selected for the loading and offloading of cargo and modules at both landing and
destination habitat sites. It was selected due to its light system weight and flexibility in handling a range of mass and
payload dimensions. The system has existing NASA test cases of loading and unloading large payloads10 .
IV. Habitation Elements
It was discovered that each high-level design decision (such as the expansion of modules in a linear vs. branched vs.
closed-loop fashion) would have ramifications on every other part of the design. While a simple linear/straight-line
design seems straightforward, this choice has several safety implications in the case that hatch closure is needed
during an emergency. By contrast, a closed-loop design offers crewmembers more resilience during a hatch closure
scenario, and additional places to remain in safe-haven. On the other hand, a closed-loop design increases the amount of
construction time (in addition to construction flights/deliveries) and increases cost, complexity, and greatly complicates
any maintenance to the interior of the loop formed by the layout. Ultimately, a branched design was selected, which
allows for several primary habitat types to offer connections to shared science and mixed-use horizontal elements. A
branched design was found to be a middle-ground for cost and complexity, but more consideration had to be given to
how the crew utilizes each space. A representation of each module can be seen below in Figure. 1.
3
International Conference on Environmental Systems
Figure. 1 Vertical Habitat (Middle Top), Node (Middle Bottom), and Horizontal Type I (Left) and Type II
(Right)
A. Vertical Habitat
There are several primary element types used in the habitat. The vertical surface habitat is a figurative and literal
anchoring point in the outpost construction. Initially brought to the lunar surface in a compressed format, the upper two
floors will be inflated to maximize interior space utilization. The vertical habitat contains all life-sustaining elements
and systems and can be used independently on the lunar surface. This initial surface habitat is equipped with landing
legs and is deployed directly on the lunar surface using the SkyFlower lander/hopper. Inspiration for the leg system
was taken from a 2022-published paper featuring a Watt-II 6-bar linkage-based LDLM (Legged Deployable Landing
Mechanism.) used on the Falcon 9
11
, with adaptations made to the dimensions to raise the height to 4m, permitting the
pressurized rover to dock underneath the habitat. This leg system also allows for variation in the habitat’s landing profile
and provides tolerance as the habitat becomes loaded with outfitted goods, experiences moonquakes
12
, and is mated to
other modules. The inflated portion of the vertical habitat measures 5m in width, and the module stands 11.8m tall.
B. Nodes
Follow-on nodes act as connecting points, and expandable structures themselves. Additionally, nodes can allow for
horizontal type 1 or type 2 modules to branch out at 90, 120, or 180 degrees, allowing for flexible expansion options to
space program customers. At 3m in width, the nodes allow for a degree of tolerance when attaching modules to them as
the expandable portions can be moved slightly in all directions prior to inflating and becoming rigid. With a 10cm
thick inner layer enriched with Hydrogen, the nodes further act as that outpost’s primary radiation shelter haven, with a
capacity of four crewmembers per node.
C. Horizontal Modules
The outpost will utilize two types of horizontal habitats – referred to as type 1 and type 2. Both horizontal module
types have an undeployed diameter of 3m to allow fitment to a larger variety of launch fairings. The type 1 horizontal
habitat is slimmer, but more modular in how rack space is laid out
13
. It features an undeployed length of 5m but deploys
to a length of 10m. The type 2 horizontal module has a length and width of 7m. Early in the habitat’s evolution, a
pressurized rover is planned to be docked and parked below the class 1 vertical habitat and will be replaced with a
node connection point to allow expansion to horizontal module segments. Horizontal segments also contain a vibration
isolation mechanism built into the legs of the modules, that absorb vibration, seismic activity, and outpost movement.
The feet of the horizontal modules utilize a Triple Friction Pendulum Bearing (TFB) element to achieve this14.
4
International Conference on Environmental Systems
V. Design Methodology and Trade Studies
A. Design Analysis
The design of the habitat elements and concept of operations were primarily governed by the requirements set in the
project, defined by the team as expansion through a timeline of phases, in addition to environmental, mass, volume,
energy, and crew requirements. These high-level design decisions fed into the ConOps, concept design, capabilities, and
mass estimation of the habitation elements in an iterative approach whereby if a result yielded unfeasible through the
project assumptions the requirements would be re-checked in a new iteration. If all checks yielded favorable results, the
habitat elements would then pass through a virtual reality analysis in which the team looked deeper at the habitation
aspects of the element. This design process is represented below in Figure. 2
Figure. 2 Design Decision Tree
B. Mass Considerations
Mass estimation was a critical aspect in the creation of the concept of operations (ConOps), proving their feasibility
in being able to be brought to the lunar surface with current (or near-current) technologies. The goal of the mass
estimation was to provide a proof of concept for each module as opposed to a final mass summary, wherein we have
provided a base mass to depict the density and thickness of the modules in the outpost.
The methodology behind the mass estimation began by determining three main material groups: rigid shell, inflatable
shell, and module legs. The densities of the rigid shell and inflatable shell were derived from existing habitats due to
their complex substructure and makeup of different materials - taking the mass of the module and dividing it by the total
volume of material. The rigid shell was derived from the ISS Destiny module, with a mass of 14,515 kg, and the volume
modeled as a cylindrical shell with a diameter of 4.2 m, length of 8.4 m, and thickness of 0.1m
15
. The density of the
inflatable shell was inspired and derived from the Bigelow BEAM module, with a mass of 1,413 kg and the volume
modeled as an ellipsoid with a diameter of 3.2 m, length of 4 m, and thickness of 0.15m
16
. The module legs were
assumed to be aluminum, with a density of 2,700 kg/m3. The volumes of each of these material groups represented on
our project were found using the team’s models from Blender, and the final mass and volume results can be found in
Table 1.
5
International Conference on Environmental Systems
Table 1 Mass Properties of Primary Modules
Module Mass (kg)
Vertical 33,986
Node 10,145
Horizontal Type 1 11,029
Horizontal Type 2 13,560
Through this analysis, usable payload fairings shown in Figure. 3 were accounted for during design of the outpost’s
elements. Launch diameters of the modules were determined to be 5m for the vertical module and 3m for the other
modules.
Figure. 3 Fairing Selections
Additional mass analysis revealed
17
a dry consumable requirement for a crew complements of four for 30 days
resulted in a total mass of 688kg. Water requirements revealed an additional 603kg of water required during this period.
VI. Expandability
As the outpost expands beyond an initial vertical habitat, two module types will be integrated and mated onto
the lower section of the vertical outpost. The mating system below the vertical habitat (nodes) is then able to branch
off to differing horizontal segments, as seen in Figure. 4. The evolution of the outpost increases in complexity as
additional functions are needed in the outpost. This inherently increases the number of interfaces of the Node and
possible directions of expansion.
6
International Conference on Environmental Systems
Figure. 4 High-Level Expansion Plans
Critical to moving elements around the lunar surface is the choice of transport vehicles; the conceptual SkyFlower
Lander/Hopper
18
, the Venturi Astrolab Rover
8
, the ATHLETE surface rover
9
, the LSMS crane
10
, and a pressurized
crew/cargo rover. Following the initial landing of power, habitat consumables, ECLSS, and several rover systems,
the type 1 vertical habitat can then be allowed to begin as the first phase 1 of the outpost’s mission. As described in
the introduction to the project, the initial mission outcomes desired are to assemble and make use of these transport
components to complete assembly and activate the first habitat. After the expansion of the initial habitat to sustain four
crewmembers, additional EVAs can be conducted to assist in mating modules to the node below the vertical habitat. As
future missions land additional vertical habitats, crew complements increase from 4, 8, and eventually a 12-crew total
complement.
A. Phases of Expansion
In the construction of a lunar habitat, a proposed phased approach is advantageous, providing milestones that can be
reached before the entire construction is complete. This project proposes a possible phased framework, wherein each
phase marks a new milestone in the expansion of the habitat and its crew capacity. Phase 1 begins when the first vertical
habitat is landed on the lunar surface. At this stage, the habitat can host a crew of four, and the pressurized rover docks
underneath the habitat. Expanding the habitat with more modules marks the beginning of phase 2, wherein the habitat
still only has a crew capacity of 4 but the operational capabilities expand with each new module. Phase 2 expansion
continues until the second vertical module is brought to the surface, providing space for an additional 4 crew, totaling 8
inhabitants and marking the beginning of phase 3. Each subsequent phase lasts until the next vertical module is brought
to the surface, and increases the crew capacity by 4. Figure. 5 depicts the first four phases of the project.
Figure. 5 Phases of Expansion
B. Orbital Concept of Operations
The project ConOps begin on Earth, where preliminary mass analysis shows the outpost’s modules fit into existing
payload fairings and thus will work with existing/proposed orbital ConOps that NASA has in place for Artemis missions
7
International Conference on Environmental Systems
to reach lunar orbit
19
. The orbital ConOps are proposed to begin in the orbit of the Lunar Gateway. Here, a conceptual
shuttle carrying the SkyFlower Lander/Hopper brings cargo to a low moon orbit of 100km, where the SkyFlower then
separates and starts its descent maneuver. At the end of the landing phase, the system drops the cargo off at the landing
site before re-entering low lunar orbit. Next, the SkyFlower will dock again with the shuttle, which will carry the
system back to the lunar Gateway where it is able to be refueled and to pick up and deliver the next cargo mission. A
visualization of the orbital ConOps can be seen in Figure. 6. The reusable nature of this system is desired to minimize
the cost of delivery for the many assets required to construct a sustainable lunar outpost. In the long term, we propose
that this concept of operations will enable the utilization of in-situ resources (such as fuel production) by providing a
solution for refueling on the lunar surface. Allowing for the ability to relocate payloads on the lunar surface between
sites presents an additional logistical opportunity.
Figure. 6 Diagram of Orbital ConOps
C. Surface Concept of Operations
The Surface ConOps begins after the SkyFlower has delivered the initial vertical surface habitat, with solar power,
nuclear power, a pressurized rover, and a Venturi Astrolab rover already on the surface. Before anything else, the Venturi
Astrolab rover will lay power lines from the two power areas (nuclear and solar) and connect them to the landed vertical
surface habitat. Next, a cargo lander will be brought in prior to the crewed mission delivering consumables, furniture
for the habitat, and any other elements not already outfitted inside the habitat. Then the cargo will be offloaded into
the pressurized rover using the Lunar Surface (Robotic) Manipulator processes (LSMS) crane. The rover will then
autonomously drive to the surface habitat and dock underneath it, and the cargo will be unloaded using the surface
habitat’s crane/pulley system. At this stage, the surface habitat is ready for its first crewed mission. It is important to set
up this autonomous infrastructure prior to the arrival of the crew to minimize the amount of time the first crew would
need to spend on the lunar surface outfitting the habitat.
We propose two methods of crew transport, with safety and complexity as established tradeoffs. The first method
involves the use of the pressurized rover for transport. While this is the safest option (as it requires no EVA from landing
to entering the surface habitat) it is also more complex, as a system needs to be in place prior to crew transportation in
which the rover can mate with the pressurized habitat. The second option is to use the unpressurized rover as crew
8
International Conference on Environmental Systems
transport, requiring eight total EVAs (1 per crew member from the lander to the rover, and 1 per crew member from
the rover to the surface habitat). The second method adds additional risk in its EVA requirements but is simpler in its
operational complexity.
This same set of crew and cargo ConOps will be used until the SkyFlower lander system brings the first new module
for outpost expansion. For new modules brought to the lunar surface, the LSMS crane will need to unload the module off
the lander utilizing two Astrolab rovers as movable anchor points on the ground, ensuring that the module stays level and
does not rotate during the unloading process. Also, it is important to ensure that each module is lifted about its center of
mass to minimize any uncontrolled movement during the unloading process. Next, the ATHLETE/Tri-ATHLETE
20
system will transport the module to the habitat site and install them in place with the assistance of crew EVAs to monitor
the process and ensure success. This procedure will be repeated with all additional modules (Nodes and Horizontal
modules) brought to the habitat site until the base has reached the desired number of modules.
Finally, we propose a high-level ConOps system to achieve relocation of the habitat, whereby the base needs to be
disassembled and reassembled at a new site of interest. Each piece may be relocated one by one utilizing the SkyFlower
hopper. A simplified diagram of the surface ConOps can be seen in Figure. 7.
Figure. 7 Diagram of Surface ConOps
Crew involvement in the assembly of the outpost will need to be as limited as possible for crew safety and consumable
concerns, but this paper proposes that several EVAs will be necessary to complete connections, conduct structural
surveys and checkouts, and measure/verify slope requirements and metrics. This EVA schedule could be seen as an
element of the proposed architecture to work further on, as any hard number of EVA requirements are only a best
estimation. This involvement in the construction and mating of the first horizontal nodes and elements are the primary
goals and achievements that are desired in phases 1-2 of the outpost stages. As crew complement and mission duration
increase, crews will be allotted additional time to conduct scientific activities.
D. Risks In Concept of Operations
The risks of spaceflight in general are great, especially operating in an environment that is difficult to evacuate or
generate a rescue to. The lunar surface is not as easily evacuated as retreating to an escape vehicle and de-orbiting (as is
the plan in orbiting space environments)
21
. In the event of any emergency, the crew may be performing an EVA, asleep,
or working in separate environments that are not close to the visiting escape vehicle. Trajectories must be developed
and stored for an immediate return to the Lunar Gateway where the crew can be safe and return-to-Earth plans can
be developed, as opposed to a direct return-to-Earth escape concept. In most emergency scenarios (e.g. fire, toxic
atmosphere, and rapid depressurization) pre-coordinated hatch closures are the primary mitigation step. Buying time
in an emergency is paramount to crew survival and mission success. Some thought had to be given to this aspect in
comparison to habitats in low-Earth orbit, as pre-coordinated hatch closure protocol is the first rehearsed crew response,
9
International Conference on Environmental Systems
and ground teams following in a control center. While this paper will not cover detailed plans on crew movements and
contingency scenarios, these situations did factor into the layout and design of the outpost and eliminating complex crew
movements in order to save themselves. In the event a vertical habitat becomes unsafe to inhabit, the crew can shelter in
a separate vertical habitat or module, sharing resources until a rescue plan can be formed. Risks and scenarios were
formed from existing NASA risk evaluation processes, utilizing the NASA GSFC risk Matrix22 .
Considering radiation risk, a shelter is critical to mitigate risks in an environment that lacks the protection of the
magnetic fields of Earth. In the case of a radiation incident, such as a solar event, crews may retreat to the Node, which
acts as a radiation-safe haven as described in Section IV B. As mission duration becomes longer, the necessity for a safe
haven increases, making a dedicated radiation shelter such as the Node to be present from early project phases more
important.
Another inherent risk on the lunar surface comes from the uncertainty in the terrain, and other terrain hazards such
as vibrations from moonquakes. Structural design in the outpost allows for a slope tolerance of up to five degrees, due to
the flexible mating system between major components and the site-agnostic energy generation scheme. On the vertical
outpost, a spring loading/shock-resistant system will absorb and balance weight on surfaces that may not be perfectly
level. This loading system also allows for a softer deployment phase, absorbing shock from the outpost landing on the
surface. Inspiration for a slope-tolerant (and inherently, a moonquake tolerant) design structure was gained through
trade studies on analysis in seismic isolation for structures on Earth14.
E. Site Independence
The focus on site independence allows for the possibility to choose different sites to begin the human presence on
the lunar south pole surface. The team analyzed three different sites
23
(Connecting Ridge (CR), Shackleton Rim (SR),
and the Permanent Shadowed Region (PSR) closest to the CR area). Using the same design and ConOps approach while
varying the usable/available area, power generation methods, and use of in-situ resources showed that this approach was
applicable to the previously mentioned sites, as seen below in Figure. 8, Figure. 9, and Figure. 10. For example, the
Connecting Ridge (CR) area presents a good balance between usable space for habitat construction, PSR regions in
proximity, and high illumination areas, while the Shackleton Rim (SR) area is more limited in terms of flat space but
maximizes the usage of solar power. In contrast, the PSR region closest to the CR area maximizes the proximity to
ISRU resources but lacks high illumination areas, necessitating more nuclear power. These figures also highlight the
minimum distances needed between the landing site and habitat area to minimize the risk of debris collision from a
lunar descent
24
. Furthermore, the possibility of relocation with the heavy lifter SkyFlower lander/hopper offers different
solutions for site selection in the long-term exploration of the lunar south pole.
Figure. 8 ConOps Design Approach for Connecting Ridge
10
International Conference on Environmental Systems
Figure. 9 ConOps Design Approach for Shackleton Rim
Figure. 10 ConOps Design Approach for PSR Closest to Connecting Ridge
VII. Conclusions and Future Work
There are several areas of the outpost that could use additional time in research and shortcomings that could be
addressed. This paper did not cover trade-study depth on the costs and feasibility of each mission, and whether each
phase of the outpost evolution could be fully utilized assuming no additional expansion. The largest component of
the habitat – the type 1 vertical habitat, is limited in space when factoring in life support systems, crew complements,
stowage, and consumables. While the phase 1 stage of the outpost allows for human presence on the lunar surface, the
length of mission duration is limited without expansion for additional consumables and supply stowage. Relying on an
expansion plan could make long-term mission success a risk if a program or customer implements cuts or withdraws
from the project. Furthermore, Virtual Reality (VR) can be used in the final evaluation to test various aspects regarding
the habitability and feasibility of the ConOps of the project, thus developing a clearer picture of how they may work. A
more complete and scientific evaluation of these procedures can be tested using the XR Framework developed at SICSA
(Sasakawa International Center for Space Architecture) in collaboration with Boeing 25.
Acknowledgments
The authors would first like to acknowledge and thank Paul Kessler and James Johnson of the Habitation Systems
Development Office at Marshall Space Flight Center for dedicating their time to tasking and evaluating SICSA students
11
International Conference on Environmental Systems
with this challenging project. In addition, we would like to thank our dedicated instructors and assistants for their
continual helpful nudging of our project in the right direction; Larry Toups, Larry Bell, Vittorio Netti, and Logan Miller.
References
1
Merancy, N. F., “Moon to Mars Architecture Executive Overview,” , Jan. 2024. URL
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/
20240000449
, nTRS Author Affiliations: Johnson Space Center NTRS Document ID: 20240000449 NTRS Research Center:
Headquarters (HQ).
2
Harris, D. W., Kessler, P. D., Nickens, T. M., Choate, A. J., Horvath, B. L., Simon, M. A., and Stromgren, C., “Moon to
Mars (M2M) Habitation Considerations: A Snap Shot As of January 2022,” Tech. Rep. M-1538, NASA, Jan. 2022. URL
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20220000524
, nTRS Author Affiliations: Marshall Space Flight Center, Jacobs (United
States), Langley Research Center, Analytical Mechanics Associates (United States) NTRS Document ID: 20220000524 NTRS
Research Center: Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC).
3
Mohon, L., “Kilopower - NASA,” , Dec. 2017. URL
https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/stmd/tech-demo- missions-
program/kilopower-hmqzw/, section: Technology Demonstration Missions Program.
4
Gibson, M., “Kilopower Reactor Development and Testing,” , May 2018. URL
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/
20180004937
, nTRS Author Affiliations: NASA Glenn Research Center NTRS Report/Patent Number: GRC-E-DAA-TN55857
NTRS Document ID: 20180004937 NTRS Research Center: Glenn Research Center (GRC).
5
Gibson, M. A., Oleson, S. R., Poston, D. I., and McClure, P., “NASA’s Kilopower reactor development and the path to higher
power missions,” 2017 IEEE Aerospace Conference, 2017, pp. 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1109/AERO.2017.7943946, URL
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7943946.
6
Palac, D., Gibson, M., Mason, L., Houts, M., McClure, P., and Robinson, R., “Nuclear Systems Kilopower Overview,” , Feb.
2016. URL https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20160012354, nTRS Author Affiliations: NASA Glenn Research Center, Los Alamos
National Lab. NTRS Meeting Information: Nuclear and Emerging Technologies for Space 2016; 2016-02-22 to 2016-02-25;
undefined NTRS Report/Patent Number: GRC-E-DAA-TN29740 NTRS Document ID: 20160012354 NTRS Research Center:
Glenn Research Center (GRC).
7
Way, D. W., Powell, R. W., Chen, A., Steltzner, A. D., Martin, A. M. S., Burkhart, P. D., and Mendeck, G. F., “Mars
Science Laboratory: Entry, Descent, and Landing System Performance,” 2007 IEEE Aerospace Conference, 2007, pp. 1–19.
https://doi.org/10.1109/AERO.2007.352821, URL https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/4161337, iSSN: 1095-323X.
8
Matthews, J. B., and Asnani, V. M., “Endurance A in 2026 with Astrolab’s Flexible Logistics and Exploration (FLEX) Rover,”
Vol. 2985, 2023, p. 3008. URL https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023LPICo2985.3008M, conference Name: LPI Contributions
ADS Bibcode: 2023LPICo2985.3008M.
9
Wilcox, B. H., “ATHLETE: A cargo and habitat transporter for the moon,” 2009 IEEE Aerospace conference, 2009, pp. 1–7.
https://doi.org/10.1109/AERO.2009.4839568, URL https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/4839568, iSSN: 1095-323X.
10
Wong, I. M., “LSMS – L35, Miniature Crane for Payload Off-loading and Manipulation: Development, and Application,”
ASCEND 2022, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2022. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2022- 4237, URL https:
//arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2022-4237, _eprint: https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/6.2022-4237.
11
Yu, H., Tian, B., Yan, Z., Gao, H., Zhang, H., Wu, H., Wang, Y., Shi, Y., and Deng, Z., “Watt Linkage–Based Legged Deployable
Landing Mechanism for Reusable Launch Vehicle: Principle, Prototype Design, and Experimental Validation,” Engineering,
Vol. 20, 2023, pp. 120–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eng.2022.05.015, URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S2095809922004854.
12
Khan, A., and Mosegaard, K., “An inquiry into the lunar interior: A nonlinear inversion of the Apollo lunar seismic
data,” Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets, Vol. 107, No. E6, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1029/2001JE001658, URL
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2001JE001658.
13
Thallner, M., Häuplik-Meusburger, D. S., and Cowley, D. A., “FLEXHAB WORKING MODULE - ARCHITECTURAL
REQUIREMENTS AND PROTOTYPING FOR A LUNAR BASE ANALOGUE,” th International Astronautical Congress,
2018. URL https://doi.org/10.34726/hss.2018.54444.
12
International Conference on Environmental Systems
14
AlHamaydeh, M., Maky, A., and ElKafrawy, M., “Probabilistic Incremental Dynamic Analysis for Seismic Isolation Systems
through Integration with the NHERI-SimCenter Performance-Based Engineering Application,” Buildings, Vol. 13, No. 6, 2023, p.
1413. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13061413, URL https://www.mdpi.com/2075-5309/13/6/1413, number: 6 Publisher:
Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute.
15
Hall, A., “Destiny Laboratory Module - NASA,” , Sep. 2023. URL https://www.nasa.gov/international-space-station/destiny-
laboratory-module/, section: International Space Station (ISS).
16
Fishman, C., “This Expandable Structure Could Become the Future of Living in Space | Science| Smithsonian Magazine,” , Apr.
2016. URL https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/robert-bigelow-visio-future- living-space- 180958698/.
17
Ewert, M. K., and Stromgren, C., “Astronaut Mass Balance for Long Duration Missions,” Boston, Massacheusetts, 2019, p. 8.
URL https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20190027563/downloads/20190027563.pdf.
18
Connolly, J. F., “After LM: NASA Lunar Lander Concepts Beyond Apollo,” , Oct. 2019. URL https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/
20190031985, nTRS Author Affiliations: Johnson Space Center NTRS Report/Patent Number: JSC-E-DAA-TN69151 NTRS
Document ID: 20190031985 NTRS Research Center: Johnson Space Center (JSC).
19
Williams, C. E., and Mohon, L., “Artemis III: NASA’s First Human Mission to the Lunar South Pole - NASA,” , Jan. 2023. URL
https://www.nasa.gov/missions/artemis/artemis- iii/, section: Artemis.
20
Heverly, M., Matthews, J., Frost, M., and Quin, C., “Development of the Tri-ATHLETE Lunar Vehicle Prototype,” 2010. URL
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20100021930, nTRS Author Affiliations: Jet Propulsion Lab., California Inst. of Tech. NTRS
Document ID: 20100021930 NTRS Research Center: Kennedy Space Center (KSC).
21
Louis-Charles, H. M., Kalokoh, A., Torres, J., and Jamieson, T., “Emergency management and the final frontier: Prepar-
ing local communities for falling space debris,” Risk, Hazards & Crisis in Public Policy, Vol. 14, No. 3, 2023, pp.
247–266. https://doi.org/10.1002/rhc3.12266, URL https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/rhc3.12266, _eprint:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/rhc3.12266.
22
Dezfuli, H., Benjamin, A., Everett, C., Maggio, G., Stamatelatos, M., Youngblood, R., Guarro, S., Rutledge, P., Sherrard, J., Smith,
C., and Williams, R., “NASA Risk Management Handbook,” , Nov. 2011. URL https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20120000033,
nTRS Author Affiliations: NASA Headquarters, Information Systems Labs., Inc., Idaho National Lab., Aerospace Corp., Quality
Assurance and Risk Management Services NTRS Report/Patent Number: NASA/SP-2011-3422-Version-1.0 NTRS Document
ID: 20120000033 NTRS Research Center: Headquarters (HQ).
23
Speyerer, E. J., Lawrence, S. J., Stopar, J. D., Gläser, P., Robinson, M. S., and Jolliff, B. L., “Optimized traverse planning for future
polar prospectors based on lunar topography,” Icarus, Vol. 273, 2016, pp. 337–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2016.03.011,
URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0019103516001524.
24 Netti, V., Bannova, O., Spolzino, R., and Kaur, J., “Lunar Surface Systems Architecture Study to Enable Potential for the Large
Scale Infrastructure Development,” 2021. URL https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355668346_Lunar_Surface_Systems_
Architecture_Study_to_Enable_Potential_for_the_Large_Scale_Infrastructure_Development, publisher: 72nd International
Astronautical Congress, at: Dubai.
25
Netti, V., Rajkumar, A., and Bannova, O., “XR Testing Framework for Human-System Interaction Design Validation,” 2023. URL
https://hdl.handle.net/2346/94631, publisher: 2023 International Conference on Environmental Systems.
13
International Conference on Environmental Systems
