Beyond the Capsule by Austin Edwards

Beyond the Capsule Austin Edwards

University of Virginia School of Architecture

Professor Matthew Jull Design Research Methods Fall 2017

(1/2)

Contents Stage I: Context Introduction: Why Mars?

Article: Why Study Mars? To Better Understand the Earth

Article: Climate change fueling disasters, disease in “potential irreversible” ways, report warns

Stage IIa: Vernacular Challenges Why the “Propane Tank”?

Regolith

Martian Weather

Gravity

Stage IIb: Vernacular Potentials Article: Will This Be The Concrete Used to Build on Mars?

Article: Bricks made from fake Martian soil are surprisingly strong

Article: A New Home on Mars: NASA Langley’s Icy Concept for Living on the Red Planet

Stage IIIa: The Write Stuff Excerpt: What Is Space Architecture? from Out of This World: The New Field of Space Architecture

Excerpt: Introduction from Placing Outer Space

Excerpt: Introduction from Space Architecture: The New Fronteir for Design Research

Excerpt: Colonising the Red Planet from Space Architecture: The New Fronteir for Design Research

Stage IIIb: By Proxy Mars Desert Research Station

106

Flashline Mars Arctic Research Station

112

HI-SEAS

124

CAVES

136

Mars500

140

(2/2)

Contents Stage IIIc: Case Studies Mars Ice House SEArch/Clouds Architecture Office

144

Mars Ice Home SEArch/Clouds Architecture Office/NASA Langley

158

Mars Utopia Alberto Villanueva

166

Mars Settlement GAMMA (Foster+ Partners)

174

Hybrid Composites Ozel Office

180

Donut House, Mk. I A.R.C.H

188

Mars Science City BIG

192

New Shanghai/Mars Vertical Gardens Stefano Boeri

200

The Space Between Aspiration and Achievement Orla Punch

204

Works Cited

214

Stage I: Context

If you opened this book, chances are you are interested in this topic already (or you’re one of my family members and I’m making you read it). Either way, the aim of this book, and specifically this first section, is to provide you with a justification for why humans should go to Mars. Furthermore, my hope is to provide a justification for why humans going to Mars is a design problem, and is a valid and valuable use of an architect’s resources and time. Someday, potentially soon, designers are going to be called upon for their expertise in human factors, information synthesis, and spatial reasoning. This book is the beginning of a preparatory journey for that day.

Introduction: Why Mars? Article: Why Study Mars? To Better Understand the Earth Article: Climate change fueling disasters, disease in “potential irreversible” ways, report warns

Why Mars? Buzz Aldrin looks toward the lunar lander during Apollo 11 moonwalk.

Modes Humanity’s place in the universe changed in the Summer of 1969. Starting with President John F. Kennedy in 1961, and continuing with his successor, President Lyndon B. Johnson, America became the first nation to send a human to the moon, have them step foot on it’s surface, and return them safely to Earth. This moment, which took place almost 240,000 miles from anyone watching it at home on their television, was the culmination of twelve years of preparation, design, and scientific urgency that to that point in history had no equal. This momentous achievement for not only the US Space Program, but the entirety the United States, cemented NASA as an integral part of the American political, economic, and nationalistic landscape and brought the nation together toward a common goal. In the years immediately following Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin,

and Michael Collins’ Apollo 11 walk, NASA used widespread support to launch six more missions using the Saturn V and the Apollo capsule, ending with Apollo 17 in 1972. All of these missions except one1 reaffirmed the American commitment to putting feet on the lunar surface, and were part of what Robert Zubrin, President of the Mars Society, appropriately refers to as NASA’s “Apollo-mode.”2 This mode was NASA’s most productive period during which they were able to fund 25 manned orbital missions3, the development, launch, and subsequent manned missions to the orbiting space station Skylab4, as well as all pieces of science and technology -- from the human- to the infrastructural-scale, and from the object to the system -- that facilitated those missions. These pieces included the development of the space suit as much as they did the development

of Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center’s road network. Funding, at it’s peak, was 4.41% of the Federal Budget5. So why did Americans, and the government, back NASA so heavily during this time? Why was NASA so productive? Beyond the one-upmanship of the U.S.-Russian Space Race serving as motivation, another part of the answer can be found in Zubrin’s definition of “Apollo-mode” as destination-driven6. NASA had made a public support vector: the direction, or destination, was chosen first, and the magnitude of funding, production, and pride, was directly in service of and dependent on the primacy of that destination. In contrast, it could be argued the years since the Apollo and American-only Skylab missions have lacked that vector. The Space Race with the Russians waned, as evidenced by the cohabitation of Russian cosmonauts and American astronauts on Skylab during the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project in 1975, and the remainder of manned space flights during that decade were entirely Russian Soyuz missions7. During this time, America was less concerned with matching Russian activity, which at this point had manifested itself in the form of the Salyut 6 space station, and was preoccupied by the development of the Space Transportation System (STS), or as it would come to be known, the Space Shuttle Program. The launch of STS took place on 12 April 1981, and marked the first time America had put a man in space since the ASTP. After STS-1 Columbia in 1981, NASA launched 134 more space shuttle flights, carried 355 Americans to space8 over the space of thirty years, and facilitated the construction and launch of both the Hubble Space Telescope, and the International Space Station (ISS). Now, it is easy to look at the number of shuttle missions and their contributions

to the scientific community and think of them as collectively achieving a similar magnitude to the period from 1958 to 1973. However, Zubrin argues that this period, which he again creatively names “Shuttle Mode,” hinders the impact of production due to it’s distinct lack of direction. The transition from the laserfocused days of Apollo, to the “entropic” handling of Shuttle can be understood by looking both at NASA leadership and the demands of the agency’s constituents.9 In contrast to John F, Kennedy speaking at Rice University in 1961: “We choose to go to the Moon! We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things,not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win...”

Former NASA Administrator Sean O’Keefe, who served in the role from

1Apollo 13 was intended to land on the moon, but performed only a lunar flyby due to mission abortion following the now infamous oxygen tank explosion. 2

Zubrin, Robert. “Getting Space Exploration Right,” (The New Atlantis, No. 8, Center for the Study of Technology and Society, Spring 2005), 16-18. 3

Six Mercury missions (III-IX), nine Gemini missions (III-IX), ten Apollo missions (VII-XVII) 4

Three missions: Skylab II, III, and IV, which are often misidentified as I, II, and III, respectively. 5

Rogers, Simon. “Nasa Budgets: US Spending on Space Travel since 1958 UPDATED.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 1 Feb. 2010, www.theguardian.com/news/ datablog/2010/feb/01/nasa-budgets-us-spending-space-travel. 6

Zubrin, “Getting Space Exploration Right,” 16.

Source needed.

This number includes the 14 astronauts who were killed during the Challenger (STS-51-L) disaster in 1986 and the Columbia (STS-107) disaster in 2003. 9

Zubrin, “Getting Space Exploration Right,” 16-18.

CONTEXT

2001 to 2005, said in an interview in 2014: “...while it’s exciting or interesting or intellectually stimulating to debate any of those destinations, the stark reality is none of them are possible. Let’s all understand that upfront. If any of those destinations are of value, of interest, of curiosity, whatever, that would justify such missions, great. That would be a terrific objective to then agree to. But let’s all agree that before you ever get started, we better develop the means to go to any of those places, to do any of those things, to do any of that exploration.”

Taking or leaving the political and bureaucratic elements of that response, and instead focusing on the shift in tone, confidence, and specificity of NASA’s goals, the difference is absolutely 180 degrees. Kennedy’s ambition was that we have a singular destination in mind, and develop the science to achieve it by a particular date; O’Keefe’s response justifies constituency- or science-driven space travel by saying it is a critical link in development of travel to any destination at any time. The problem with this approach is that it does not actually define a goal, even though it appears to. By saying the experimentation and science can lead anywhere, O’Keefe gives no hard target, and thereby nothing to structure the larger direction of the agency. The support vector previously discussed in relation to “Apollo-mode,” which was both defined and dependent on its direction, cannot exist, as no direction is defined. The output simply becomes a magnitude, a scalar, that counts how many missions there have been in service of science. The upshot of all of this rhetoric elucidates one conclusion: if we hope to increase and leverage public support for the United States space program, we have to reassert destination into the equation.

Other Factors Though it can be argued that the overall attitude of NASA leadership from the 80’s to early 2000’s is responsible for the state of the U.S. space program, identifying this as the only factor in the lack of both public and governmental would be a mistake. The role of public support for manned missions, to an orbiting body or otherwise, cannot be brought up without mentioning the events of January 28, 1986. Seventy-three seconds into launch, STS-51-L, callsign Challenger, exploded midair, killing all seven astronauts on board. NASA had lost astronauts before, but never during a full mission,11 and never with civilians on board. This was an important factor: schools all around the country had tuned in to watch Christa McAuliffe, the first teacher to ever be bestowed the title of astronaut, go into space. Contrary to popular belief, however, most adults in America did not see the event live, but on the news. The viewers in this misconception not withstanding, the Challenger disaster had a huge number of Americans glued to their TV’s. To underscore the magnitude of its impact on those watching, the event is currently ranked between the fourth and the seventh most memorable moment ever to air on television, behind events like the JFK Assassination, September 11th attacks, coverage of Hurricane Katrina, and the OJ Simpson murder verdict.12,13 According to TV Guide, The only other space-related event was the moon landing itself, at number two. So, to say that the national picture of the U.S. space program was abruptly changed in 1986 would be an understatement. The average person with little actual tie to the space program saw the Space Shuttle as their way of reaching the stars -- as the bastion

WHY MARS?

Time Magazine Cover from February 1986 showing the Challenger Disaster.

Source Needed.

On January 27, 1967, Virgil “Gus” Grissom, Edward H. White, and Roger Chaffee were killed when the Apollo I test capsule caught fire. 12

CBSNews.com. “TV’s Most Memorable Moments: 9/11 Tops the List.” CBS News, CBS Interactive, 11 July 2012, www. cbsnews.com/news/tvs-most-memorable-moments-9-11-topsthe-list/. 13

Battaglio, Stephen. “The 60 Biggest News Moments of All Time.” TVGuide.com, 3 Oct. 2013, www.tvguide.com/news/60biggest-news-moments-all-time-1071599/.

CONTEXT

of space travel for the everyman. This was in part because of NASA’s original prediction that STS would fly around 130 missions over the course of two years, flying 60 missions per year after that14,15, and the assumptions that entailed about both the future of space travel, and its frequency. Even though the shuttle underperformed based on that estimate, only flying 135 times over 30 years, it was hard for the public at large to not see Shuttle as a “space cargo plane.”16 Whatever amount of that optimism was left by the time STS-51-L made its eighth and final launch quickly evaporated. Though there were other disastrous events that occurred during the run of the STS program, economics and politics also took a toll. In 2010, President Barack Obama announced that he would be canceling NASA’s Constellation program, which to that point had already spent 9 billion dollars on the development of the the Ares line of rockets, and the subsequent launch vehicle. The Constellation Program was started in 2004 as the product of both the George W. Bush presidency, then NASA Administrator Michael D. Griffin, and fallout following the 2003 explosion of Columbia. Several events occurred regarding these parties that shaped a path forward. First, NASA formed an investigative body, the Columbia Accident Investigation Board, which was responsible for identifying the cause of the disaster; they released their findings in August 2003. Aside from the cause of the failure, and to refer back to Zubrin, many thought that Columbia was: “...lost on a mission with no scientific objective, certainly none commensurate with the cost of a shuttle mission, let alone the loss of a multi-billion dollar shuttle and seven crew members.”

Evidence that others saw disarray, or at least lack of tangible direction, can be found in President Bush’s launch of an internal deliberative body and subsequent announcement at NASA headquarters on January 14, 2004, that the space program would be revamped and reoriented toward the Moon.17 The Congressional en-action of Bush’s prompt came about through passing of the NASA Authorization Act of 2005, which officially defined a critical path to the Moon “no later than 2020,” called Constellation.18 It was not a lack of interest in space exploration that caused President Obama to cancel that program. Instead, Obama’s own deliberative body conducted a study that found that the project was over-budget, and had overestimated it’s target date by at least a decade, prompting a cut to funding in the wake of the 2008 economic downturn.19 The solution the Obama Administration posed, aside from canceling Constellation, was to pivot away from the accomplishing more moon landings using NASA vehicles, and instead rely for a period of time on Russian (RFSA) rides to ISS. This change was thought by many to be the final death knell for the American space program. For example, then NASA Administrator Michael Griffin was quoted as having said:20 “It means that essentially the U.S. has decided that they’re not going to be a significant player in human space flight for the foreseeable future. The path that they’re on with this budget is a path that can’t work.”

In a lot of ways, Griffin was correct. The change enacted by the Obama Administration caused job loss in Huntsville, AL, Cape Canaveral, FL (which would experience further loss

WHY MARS?

with the retirement of STS in 2011),21 and several other locations where development of Ares, etc., were taking place. This fact aside, pivoting away from Constellation opened other doors in the commercial sector that had hereto not existed. In the same move that had Obama cut money from Constellation, his administration funded the commercial development of “new crew transportation capabilities” to the tune of 6.1 billion dollars over five years.22 Much like other space exploration policy decisions made by either Bush or Obama, detractors and supporters had their say. Those against the shift said that it either made NASA into a middleman between the government and the financially-driven private market or signaled it’s end,22 while supporters saw an inevitable transition from a government agency occupying the top of a hierarchy to one that would be coplanar in several ways with private industry. Either way, enough responsibility had been shifted to private space companies that they became a legitimate part of the equation; either way, the largest scale overhaul in the space industry since Kennedy was underway.

The proposed Ares-I rocket, canceled as part of Constellation.

Faith, Ryan. “How the Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster Changed America’s Romance With Space.” VICE News, 28 Jan. 2016, news.vice.com/article/how-the-space-shuttle-challengerdisaster-changed-americas-romance-with-space. 15

Portree, David S. F. “What Shuttle Should Have Been: The October 1977 Flight Manifest.” Wired, Conde Nast, 3 June 2017, www.wired.com/2012/03/what-shuttle-should-havebeen-the-october-1977-flight-manifest/. 16

Ibid.

Zubrin, “Getting Space Exploration Right,” 18-20.

Connolly, John F. “Constellation Program Overview.” National Aeronautics and Astronautics Administration, Oct. 2006. 19

Private Industry Where once there was one name in the business of sending Americans to space, there are now several contenders vying for the spot on the launchpad. Space-X, Blue Origin, Virgin Galactic, United Launch Alliance, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Orbital ATK: these are all private companies or contractors that have a spacecraft or launch vehicle in some stage of operation.23 Not all of these companies share the same goal, however. Jeff Bezos, founder of both Amazon and Blue Origin, intends the latter of these two companies to build

“A Bold New Approach for Space Exploration and Discovery.” Obama White House Archives. 20

Achenbach, Joel. “NASA Budget for 2011 Eliminates Funds for Manned Lunar Missions.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 1 Feb. 2010, www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ content/article/2010/01/31/AR2010013101058.html. 21

Ibid.

Obama White House Archives.

Several sources found but not cited yet.

SpaceX. “Launch Manifest.” SpaceX, SpaceX, www.spacex. com/missions. 25

The latest iteration of the Space-X Falcon, the Falcon 9, can return to Earth after launch and land itself upright. 26

Hirsch, Jerry. “Elon Musk’s Growing Empire Is Fueled by $4.9 Billion in Government Subsidies.” Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Times, 30 May 2015, www.latimes.com/business/la-fihy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html.

CONTEXT

hardware for travel to and use in Earth orbit. This includes the New Sheppard suborbital booster and crew capsule, the New Glenn orbital launch vehicle, and BE-3 and BE-4 liquid fuel engines, the latter of which was contracted by ULA.28 While Blue Origin has yet to transport any humans into space, they have been able to procure funding from NASA via the CCtCap initiative, which delivers government funding for development of launch vehicles, crew modules, etc., from independent contractors.29 Among those who share a piece of that funding, both The Boeing Company and Lockheed Martin have been developing capability not only for Earth orbit but for eventual use on Mars missions. Boeing has been integral in the development of NASA’s current Space Launch System (SLS), and in the continuing development of the Deep Space Gateway plan, which aims to put a station in cis-lunar orbit as a return point for craft venturing beyond the moon. In concert with both NASA’s Orion technology and their the Deep Space Gateway approach, Lockheed Martin has also developed a technology roadmap for “Mars Base Camp,” as well as a lander.30,31,32 The largest player in the Mars debate however, is Space-X, which was founded by Paypal billionaire Elon Musk in 2002. Since their conception, the company has launched 45 times using their Falcon launch vehicle,24,25 procured 4.9 billion dollars in government support,26 and become a known entity in space travel to even the average American. All of this progress would be neutered somewhat if it’s final goal was to perform trips to ISS as Shuttle did, or return to the Moon as the Constellation Program had planned. Instead, Elon Musk has been absolutely adamant about the role he wants his company to play in space exploration. In a recent

National Geographic article, the author said of Musk and his company:27 “Elon Musk doesn’t just want to land on Mars, the way Apollo astronauts landed on the moon. He wants to build a new civilization there before some calamity, possibly self-inflicted, wipes us out on Earth. SpaceX employees in Hawthorne often wear “Occupy Mars” T-shirts. Just around the corner from Musk’s no-frills desk, twin images of Mars hang on a wall: One shows the red, parched planet today, and the other shows a blue Mars, ‘terraformed’ by engineers, with seas and rivers.”

While Musk is not the only player, he is one of the only ones looking at Mars in such a way, saying the company will make it to Mars by 2022.33 This stance, potentially the most aggressive, visionary, and confident since Kennedy at Rice in 1961, has positioned Musk and his company towards one familiar concern: destination. This ever-present variable, one presented so far here as having no substitute in the direction of United States space travel, has reemerged into the equation in a strong way. The question remains however, why Mars, and more importantly why should I care?

I’m Glad You Asked The vision of Mars as a target is now a real and present probability. The technology, science, and logistics are under development, and it could be argued that a second, smaller space race between the government and private enterprise is fueling ambition on either side. In short: Mars is happening. What remains, however, is the question of why Mars is such a fixation, and why it should matter to those that happen to read this book -- namely, architects.

WHY MARS?

An artist’s rendering of Space-X’s Falcon 9 launch vehicle

Bowman, David C. “Mars: Inside the High-Risk, High-Stakes Race to the Red Planet.” National Geographic, 14 Oct. 2016, www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2016/11/spacex-elonmusk-exploring-mars-planets-space-science/. 28

Source Needed.

“Boeing Unveils Deep Space Concepts for Moon and Mars Exploration.” Boeing MediaRoom, The Boeing Company, boeing. mediaroom.com/2017-04-03-Boeing-Unveils-Deep-SpaceConcepts-for-Moon-and-Mars-Exploration#assets_117:20175. 31

Hambleton, Kathryn. “Deep Space Gateway to Open Opportunities for Distant Destinations.” NASA, NASA, 28 Mar. 2017, www.nasa.gov/feature/deep-space-gateway-to-openopportunities-for-distant-destinations. 32

Lockheed Martin. “Lockheed Martin Reveals New Details to Its Mars Base Camp Vision - Sep 28, 2017.” Media - Lockheed Martin, PRNewswire, 28 Sept. 2017, news.lockheedmartin. com/2017-09-28-Lockheed-Martin-Reveals-New-Details-toits-Mars-Base-Camp-Vision.

CONTEXT

A poster released by the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory depicting Mars as a tourist destination

WHY MARS?

For starters, Mars is the closest habitable planet to Earth, which makes it the most logical target. Habitable in this particular case, means that it has a rocky surface that astronauts could land and walk on, an atmosphere that would not immediately destroy a craft or spacesuit, and a stable enough weather pattern that a base could reliably be set up to house human beings. Additionally, Mars requires the smallest leap in technological advancement from the current state of the art, which is economically, politically, and logistically very important. This minimizes the amount of time the technology will take to create, the amount of dollars that it will cost, and the amount of policy that will have to be created in order to make it actually happen. While the systems in place are certainly of concern, one must also think about boundary conditions on the astronauts themselves. A round-trip to Mars is currently the most plausible duration flight beyond the Moon that a human could reliably and safely sustain in space (between six and eight months, one way),34 both mentally and physically. Such critical factors narrow the field of feasible places that humanity has not already gone. Beyond the technical aspects of the mission, Mars is the most obvious choice for rekindling a romance between the space program and the average American (taxpayer). Going to another planet would be humanity’s greatest achievement, and would capture the imagination of those who witness it the same way that the Moon landed did; as a crystallization of what awe-inspiring things humanity if capable of.35 In other words, if destination is the key to a strong American space program, Mars represents the best combination of reliability, advancement, and wonder that is currently attainable, and people

from physics, chemistry, engineering, psychology, geology, biology, and several other disciplines, sitting down at the table to make it a reality. Plan and simple: as designers, we have to have a seat at that table. In theses critical years before the first man or woman leaves a bootprint on Martian soil, a first generation of Martian architects, many of whom are already working, need to be making sure that our expertise is being utilized for the mission where a built structure, meant to house humans, will be the furthest from our planet one has ever been. Not only does this habitat, be it a command module interior or a full-fledged base, represent an opportunity to push-our profession forward, it represents the chance to have a real and measurable impact on the men and women who will undergo the trip; to be an integral part of the design of their life, work, leisure time, and ultimately their health and well-being, on an alien world in a way only we can. We as designers, then, have a responsibility to use our expertise for the achievement of these ends, for the betterment of humanity, and against the greatest challenges we as a human race face. I think Mars qualifies. ___

Pham, Sherisse, and Jackie Wattles. “Elon Musk Is Aiming to Land Spaceships on Mars in 2022.” CNNMoney, Cable News Network, 29 Sept. 2017, money.cnn.com/2017/09/29/ technology/future/elon-musk-spacex-mars-iac-conference/ index.html. 34

Mars One. “How Long Does It Take to Travel to Mars? - A Mission to Mars.” Mars One, www.mars-one.com/faq/missionto-mars/how-long-does-it-take-to-travel-to-mars. 35

Andrews, Kate. “200,000 People Apply to Permanently Live on Mars.” Dezeen, 11 Sept. 2013, www.dezeen. com/2013/09/11/over-200000-people-apply-to-live-onmars/.

This page left intentionally blank.

CONTEXT

This page left intentionally blank.

CONTEXT

Stage IIa: Vernacular Challenges

This section will describe the unique challenges that are posed by designing, building, and living on Mars. Understanding these problems means that one must understand both the phenomenon which occur on Mars and how they differ from similar occurrences on Earth, if they exist, as well as how those problems are handled by the current state of the art. Only then can opportunities, and their relationship to certainties, be fully leveraged.

01.

Why the â&#x20AC;&#x153;Propane Tankâ&#x20AC;??

02.

Regolith

03.

Martian Weather

04.

Gravity

01.

Why the “Propane Tank”?

Buzz Aldrin looks toward the lunar lander during Apollo 11 moonwalk.

You have probably seen some version of a capsule space habitat before. Whether in videos of the International Space Station, or scenes from the movie The Martain starring Matt Damon, the capsule, or pressure vessel, has been presented to the general public as the ubiquitous vernacular architecture in space travel. This is not an accident. As it stands today, the pressure vessel is not only the most ubiquitous architectural type, it is the only type. The reason that the pressure vessel habitat, which often looks like a propane tank -- a smaller pressure vessel, itself -- is one of practicality on several levels. First and foremost it is important to understand why pressure differential dictates the particular forms it does, namely a sphere or a cylinder with hemispherical or torispherical caps called “heads.”1 These shapes are used because they allow for the best ratio

of vessel mass to volume and pressure capability. Without getting into the math, it is easy to picture that these geometries allow for the most even distribution of force over their surface area (where pressure is force per unit area), which drastically reduces both their potential for stress concentrations and their overall wall thickness, thereby reducing their mass. This is important because all places that humanity has the current technology to visit require a pressurized volume in which the astronauts live. The vacuum of space is just that, a vacuum, and astronauts must be insulated from extraordinarily low pressure so they can continue living and breathing. The Moon, the closest orbiting body we could explore, does not have an atmosphere, meaning that it subjects astronauts to the same pressure conditions that a vehicle floating through space would.

Mars, which has an atmosphere about 70% as strong as Earth’s sea-level pressure, still presents problems. While the demands on the pressure vessel would not be near as great as on the Moon or in space while the habitat was on the surface, it remains that the habitat would have to reach the surface at all for this to even matter. This point brings us to another practice that explains the continued use of the pressure vessel: integration with the launch vehicle. In the Mars example, it makes sense that at first the surface habitat would have several uses through the course of the mission. Most likely, during the transfer between Mars and Earth it could serve as the main crew quarters, or an extension of another crew module. As the craft was captured by Mars, the module would become part of the Mars Descent Vehicle (MDV), given that the entire craft was not descending. Only once descent was completed would the pressure vessel actual serve as the surface habitat module. In short, this means that the current state of the art is dependent on the ability of the eventual surface habitat to interface with the launch vehicle in a variety of ways, while withstanding atmospheric escape from earth, vacuum, and mars descent. It makes the most sense, then, that the habitat would be somehow designed to fit within the system of pressure vessels currently in use. This not only minimizes the amount the new technology that must be created in order to integrate the habitat within the launch vehicle, but also reduces cost and weight while increasing design commonality. Commonality, as defined by Kriss J. Kennedy, is the “use of a single design element in multiple design settings throughout [a] program architecture.”2 This is a defining design criterion for current space architecture, and beyond the challenge and science of pressure

vessels is almost entirely responsible for the morphology of habitats today. To this point, all habitats launched from Earth have been “preintegrated and intact”3 as part of their respective launch vehicles. The only example of an actual planetsurface architecture is the cabin of the lunar module (LM), otherwise know as the lunar lander, which followed this preintegrated logic. You may be wondering after reading through the reasons why they are used, why exactly one would step away from the “propane tank” as a viable design solution. The answer lies not in stepping away from the idea of the habitat acting as a pressure vessel, but instead distancing the design from being so heavily reliant on fullyintegrated, Earth-built systems. As space travel progresses, and as we begin to step foot on Mars and even the Moon, techniques for leveraging materials found on the surface of either will allow for the construction of reliable, robust, and most importantly non-launch vehicle dependent habitat designs. We will “live off the land,”4a technique that is referred to in the space community as in-situ resource utilization (ISRU). ___

VERNACULAR CHALLENGES

Concept Art for The Martian showing “the Hab.” Images by Steve Burg.

WHY THE “PROPANE TANK”?

The Mars Desert Research Station (MDRS) outside of Hanksville, Utah run by the Mars Society.

VERNACULAR CHALLENGES

WHY THE “PROPANE TANK”?

NASA Habitat Demonstration Unit, Arizona (2011)

02.

Regolith

Wheel of the Curiosity rover partially submerged in sand at Hidden Valley (August 6, 2014).

Regolith is defined as a layer of unconsolidated rocky material which covers bedrock,1 and describes a geological phenomenon found not only on Mars, but also the Earth and Moon. Martian soil, which falls under the umbrella of regolith, is comprised of fine grain material that can be “mobilized by wind,” and falls below the scale of 10 centimeters in size and one centimeter in layer thickness.2,3 This includes both the smaller bits of rocks scattered across the Martian landscape, as well the extremely fine dust that covers most of the surface. This dust is arguably the most recognizable part of the Martian landscape, and contains iron oxide (rust) which gives the planet its reddish color. Since the dust is so fine, a certain amount of it is also perpetually suspended in the atmosphere, which also gives the sky its red tint. A compositional breakdown of Martian soil is shown in Figure X, along

with an excerpt from NASA-JPL. It should be noted that there is widespread disagreement about what exactly constitutes a non-terrestrial “soil.” The definition used here is cited, but in all actuality is not too important for the purposes of this particular book. Certainly, as designs begin to incorporate things like agriculture, mining, or chemical extraction, understanding soil composition will be important, however, the scope of what architects might be responsible for, as well as what this book needs to most critically concern itself with, fall well outside of a detailed understanding of either the chemistry or the semantics of this disagreement. Beyond the classification or composition of the soil, we as designers must understand what challenges regolith presents to a potential habitat. There is only limited knowledge of how

actual Martian regolith acts, but we can look to the Apollo missions and their experiences with lunar regolith, and the promising chemical analyses done by Viking and Pathfinder landers which have led to Mars global simulants. First of all, lunar regolith and Martian regolith are not the same. They very greatly in composition, and the differences in gravity and atmosphere cause them to act differently. However, the threats that each present to potential habitation are similar, and by understanding one we can more completely understand the other. Lunar regolith is, for the most part, finer than its Martian counterpart, and is often so fine that particles cannot be seen by the naked eye.4,5 The friction generated by these particles, along with anhydrous vacuum of the Moon, cause these particles to electrostatically cling to almost everything. This makes them incredibly easy to track into the airlock or habitat, where the extremely fine particles can easily penetrate and destroy electronic equipment. Additionally, the hardness of the lunar dust makes it highly abrasive, meaning it is also a threat to the continued function of non-electronics, like the fabric of spacesuits.6,7 While the Martian soil is not quite as fine, it is still a relatively fine dust that has the potential to present the same types of issues. It is still largely a metallic dust and will damage electronic equipment in much the same way lunar dust will. Also, it is still abrasive enough to cause large scale wear-and-tear on things like fabrics and gaskets (This is highly exacerbated by dust storms, which do not occur on the Moon, and are discussed in Section 03 of this chapter. Because these specific problems with regolith are similar for both locations, they can theerby be fixed with similar solutions. For example, it was found that

Citation needed.

Karunatillake, Suniti; Keller, John M.; Squyres, Steven W.; Boynton, William V.; Brückner, Johannes; Janes, Daniel M.; Gasnault, Olivier; Newsom, Horton E. (2007). “Chemical compositions at Mars landing sites subject to Mars Odyssey Gamma Ray Spectrometer constraints”. Journal of Geophysical Research. 112. 3

Certini, Giacomo; Ugolini, Fiorenzo C. (2013). “An updated, expanded, universal definition of soil”. Geoderma. 192: 378–379 4

Sherwood, Brent A. and Larry Toups. “Design Constraints for Planet Surface Architecture,” Out of This World: The New Field of Space Architecture. 171-173. 5

Certini, Ibid.

Sherwood, Ibid.

Bell, Trudy E. “Lunar Dust Buster.” NASA, NASA, 19 Apr. 2006, science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-atnasa/2006/19apr_dustbuster. 8

Ibid

Sherwood, 177-178.

Wall, Mike. “Mars Soil May Be Toxic to Microbes.” Space. com, 6 July 2017, www.space.com/37402-mars-life-soil-toxicperchlorates-radiation.html. 12

Ibid.

Diep, Francie. “Curiosity Finds Water And Poison In Martian Soil.” Popular Science, 26 Sept. 2013, www.popsci.com/ article/technology/curiosity-finds-water-and-poison-martiansoil#page-2. 14

Allen, Carlton C., et. al. “Martian Regolith Simulant JSC Mars1.” Lunar and Planetary Science, XXIX, pp. 1–2.

VERNACULAR CHALLENGES

From NASA JPL/Caltech/University of Guelph: This graph compares the elemental composition of typical soils at three landing regions on Mars: Gusev Crater, where NASA’s Mars Exploration Rover Spirit traveled; Meridiani Planum, where Mars Exploration Rover Opportunity still roams; and now Gale Crater, where NASA’s newest Curiosity rover is currently investigating. The data from the Mars Exploration Rovers are from several batches of soil, while the Curiosity data are from soil taken inside a wheel scuff mark called “Portage” and examined with its Alpha Particle X-ray Spectrometer (APXS). These early results indicate that the samples investigated by Curiosity are very similar to those at previous landing sites. Error bars indicate the variations for the given number of soils measured for the Mars Exploration Rovers along the traverse. Note that concentrations of silicon dioxide and iron oxide were divided by 10, and nickel, zinc and bromine levels were multiplied by 100.

the same technology responsible for cleansing lunar regolith could be used to clear solar arrays on Mars after coverage from dust storms occurs.8 While the Moon and Mars share these issues, there are several problems that Martian regolith presents that are unique. For one, the frequency with which Martian soil moves is absolutely higher (Figure X). This movement in both the horizontal and vertical directions causes several issues. For one, the solution of simply elevating

the habitat off the ground to avoid contamination as one would do on the moon no longer works,9 and other strategies must be devised. Next, the movement is responsible for causing coverage of potentially dangerous or challenging ground conditions like dry ice, ravines, rock outcrops, and volcanic hotspots. The loose soil can also build up on itself, and create a loose, soft pocket where vehicles or astronauts can get stuck, which actually happened to Spirit

REGOLITH

and Opportunity rovers.10 This almost certainly precludes the use of simple foundation pads, or at least makes them impractical when compared with the moon. Perhaps the most pressing concern for astronauts as they step foot on the red planet, will be the chemical composition of the surface on which they step. Recent research has shown that chlorine compounds within Martian regolith yield perchlorate compounds when exposed to UV radiation, which bombards Mars all the time. While these perchlorates have some benefits, like reducing the freezing point of ice, or offering a possible energy source to bacteria, it has been recently posited that they may do more harm than good.11 A paper from the University of Edinburgh in Scotland puts forward that “the combined effects of at least three components of the Martian surface, activated by surface photochemistry, render the present-day surface more uninhabitable than previously thought.”12 Beyond the potential threat to bacterial lifeforms, perchlorate concentrations also are not great for human health as they are toxic if ingested. So one large design problem will be how to shelter humans from a toxin that is literally going to cling to

everything they touch and use.13 In order to start to diagnose and design for these problems, and since the only actual interface we have had with Martian soil is through chemical tests run by rovers, scientists have begun to approximate the soil through the use of similar materials found on Earth. The approximations are called Mars Regolith Simulants, or Mars Global Simulants, the most well known of which is JSC Mars1, which uses weathered volcanic ash from Punu Ne’e, a volcano in Hawai’i.14 Recently, Bjarke Ingels of BIG was seen holding a batch of simulant on his Instagram. This is proof that the soil approximation is already of major import to designers if they hope to accurately model ground conditions for structural, foundational, and material testing, and thus participate in the growing community of space architecture. The material is available for purchase for academics and companies. ___

VERNACULAR CHALLENGES

REGOLITH

03.

Martian Weather

A scene from the opening of The Martian, starring Matt Damon and based on the novel by Andy Weir.

If you have seen or read The Martian, you may recall the diabolus ex machina that strands Mark Watney on Mars: a huge, powerful, and seemingly deadly dust storm that snaps an antenna from one of the nearby habitats and flings it into Watneyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s stomach. This makes for a good opening conflict within the story, but it unlikely that a similar threat would face real Martian astronauts. The wind that blows on Mars is hardly strong enough to rip an antenna and impale someone1, but the storms absolutely present other dangers. Unlike projectiles, electro-static build up, loss of power, and the scale of the storms themselves threaten the safety of whoever and whatever we send there. We discussed in a previous section that, like on the moon, the Martian dirt and dust is extremely fine, allowing the grains to easily slip past each other and develop charge. This

causes it to cling to most things. The Martian dust, unlike the moon however, is highly transient, and subject to wind forces. This means that large amounts of the dust can be kicked up into the air, and continue to generate electricity, causing highly violent lightning storms within the dust clouds.2 Calculations by scientists at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center even predict that the forces present are so strong within the clouds that they could separate both water and carbon dioxide molecules present in the Martian atmosphere. The constituent chemicals then recombine into compounds like ozone and hydrogen peroxide, the latter of which is so prevalent that â&#x20AC;&#x153;it would snow out of the atmosphere.â&#x20AC;?3 This is not great on multiple fronts, since hydrogen peroxide outside of a diluted solution is harmful to humans and equipment and the design parameters for all equipment

must necessarily contain some type of lighting avoidance or redirection mechanism, similar to tall buildings on Earth. Another electrical obstacle that must be overcome has nothing to do with lightning, but instead with the build up of dust on solar panels during storms, which would disallow the flow of solar energy whatever equipment it was hooked up to. To again reference The Martian, Watney spends some time everyday brushing off the solar panels that he and his crew installed, so that they are as efficient as possible -- and this is while there are no storms taking place. The amount of dust displaced from the ground and replaced on solar cells is an even larger burden, the weight of which was experienced in 2007 by the rovers Oppurtunity and Spirit, which were cut off from communication with Earth as a result of storms.4 In addition to the physical depositing of dust on solar arrays, the efficiency of solar energy can also be threatened from the air. Dust storms can kick up enough dust that the sun’s rays no longer reach the surface as strongly. This causes a dip in the amount of light reaching the arrays, thereby decreasing efficiency.6 In The Martian, Watney was able to predict a storm based on a trend of lower solar power efficiency readouts even though he was performing the aforementioned dusting. Both electric and solar problems present design problems which have to be solved if we hope to make it to Mars. And though these are certainly important, one more criterion must be considered when testing the feasibility of designs -- the sometimes immense scales of the storms themselves. Martian storms work similarly to how storms on Earth work. Heat from the sun creates a warm layer of air close to the ground. This leaves a layer of cool air overhead,

which becomes unstable. As the warm air begins to rise, it takes dust from the ground with it, and this combined with the instability creates a dust storm. These dust storms can sometimes be as large as Earth continents, enveloping the entirety of Mars for weeks or even months during the Martian summer.7 The challenges presented to designers by this phenomenon go beyond the inability to access solar power, or to withstand lightning, but to somehow accommodate astronauts who will be cut off from EVA, communications, sunlight, etc. and relegated to their hab for the duration of the storm. If the approach is anything like the powereddown, hibernation mode of Spirit and Opportunity in 2007, we as designers of human space will have to design a living space that can withstand prolonged turbulence outside, and prolonged psychological turbulence inside. ___

Hille, Karl. “The Fact and Fiction of Martian Dust Storms.” NASA, NASA, 18 Sept. 2015, www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/ the-fact-and-fiction-of-martian-dust-storms. 2

Dunbar, Brian. “Electric Dust Storms on Mars.” NASA, NASA, 31 July 2006, www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/ mars_soil_chem.html. 3

Ibid.

Thompson, Amy. “Scientists Think Mars Dust Storms Could Wreak Havoc for Humans.” Inverse, 6 Oct. 2016, www.inverse. com/article/21870-mars-dust-storm-prediction. 5

Dunbar, Ibid.

Ibid.

VERNACULAR CHALLENGES

MARTIAN WEATHER

Satellite images from Mars in 2001, showing global coverage by a dust storm. NASA/JPL-Caltech/Malin Space Sciences Systems

04.

Gravity

Chances are that you have seen the footage of Buzz Aldrin walking on the moon. You may have noticed while watching that Aldrin has some pretty long hang time as he hops around thanks to the reduced gravity of the moon (17% of Earth’s 9.81 m/s2).1 Though Mars gravity is not quite as lax as the moon’s, it is still less than the Earth’s -- approximately 40% (3.7 m/s2 to 9.81 m/s2)2 -- and therefore produces some interesting design consideration relative to full Earth gravity. As far as positive changes are concerned, there is something to be said for things weighing less on Mars. Something that weighs 100lb on Earth would only weigh only 37 pounds on Mars. This change certainly has an impact on the amount astronauts can lift and carry, making logistical tasks easier, but it also has a structural benefit. Reduced gravity means reduced gravity

loading, which means more efficient structural systems. For any structural member on Earth, it’s use on Mars offers a little less than three times the weight bearing capacity.3 The static properties differ in this way, so the dynamic properties also change. Lateral loads have a greater effect, especially on taller structures,4 and have to be taken into consideration, especially with the prevalence of Martian wind.5 Columns and beams are not the only structural system affected by reduced gravitational forces. The human body’s structural system also reacts but in a largely detrimental way. Bones lose their density, since bones are loaded at a lesser rate. Muscle fibers begin to atrophy due to 100lb being lifted as if it’s 37. These changes tax the human body, and, over time, erode astronauts mechanical abilities.6 On the International Space

Station, astronauts currently have small work out apparatuses so that they can combat the onset of these deficiencies with rigorous physical activity. When considering a mission to Mars, designers will have to confront the effects of the reduced gravity once astronauts get to Mars, but also their state after eight months of transit in the microgravity of space. Solutions will have to be designed for the Martian habitat that account for the onset of bone density and muscle loss prior to the astronauts ever setting foot on the surface of the Mars. This will dictate not only the design of some type of EVA program of work out machine for reduced gravity, it will dictate even the construction sequence of the habitat. Insofar as the design on the habitat is dependent on the astronauts putting it together once they land, it is just as dependent on the successful maintenance of those passengers’ physical well-being in reduced gravity conditions. If the design is ingenious, yet the astronauts are not in good enough shape to construct it (through no fault of their own), then it is a useless design, and results in the death of those astronauts. To summarize, there are both benefits and penalties that occur due to time away from the gravitational condition in which we evolved. It is our job as designers to consider not only the structural and physical ramifications of this, but also the biological and architectural. Beyond this, it is also our job to consider the logistics and construction of the architectural design so that the design is most suited for the “mission architecture.” Integration is the name of the game.

___

“The Moon’s Gravity - How Much You Would Weigh on the Moon?” Moon’s Gravity, www.moonconnection.com/ moon_gravity.phtml. 2

Long, Gary, et al. “Mars’ Gravity Could Be a Double Edged Sword for Future Explorers » Science and Technology News Site.” Science and Technology News Site, 14 Nov. 2017, www. cosmicnovo.com/2017/11/08/mars-gravity-explorers/. 3

Sherwood, Brent A. and Larry Toups. “Design Constraints for Planet Surface Architecture,” Out of This World: The New Field of Space Architecture. 172-183. 4

Podnieks, E. R. (1990), “Lunar Mining Outlook,” AIAA Paper 90-3751, Sept. 5

These statements do not take into consideration the properties of Martian ground/substrate with regard to foundation systems and loading, nor do they take into account pressure systems that would put further tax on any dead load condition. 6

Long, et al., Ibid.

Stage IIb: Vernacular Potentials

We have already analyzed briefly certain of the challenges that the Martian environment will pose on a mission, it’s people, and it’s architecture. However, it has not yet been shown what Mars stands to contribute to that architecture. Presented here are articles which outline potentials for ISRU material -- vernacular building materials which could shape the aesthetic of the first non-capsule.

01. CONCRETE “Will This Be The Concrete Used on Mars?” Rory Scott of ArchDaily 02.

BRICK “Bricks made from fake Martian soil are surprisingly strong” Sarah Fecht of Popular Science

03.

ICE “NASA Langley’s Icy Concept for Living on the Red Planet” Eric Gillard of NASA Langley

If you think building a house on Earth is hard, try building one on Mars. Every pound of material that we ship to the red planet will cost thousands of dollars, so scientists want to construct our future martian colonies out of locally sourced materials—namely, martian dirt. But that’s more difficult than it sounds. Mars is cold, which makes 3D printing with wet martian concrete a challenge. We could melt the regolith into lava and pour it into molds, or melt it with lasers, but both of those methods would take a lot of energy. We could try to make the dirt stick together with polymers, but then we’d spend a lot of money shipping polymers to Mars. A new strategy, proposed in Nature’s Scientific Reports, is appealing in its simplicity: what if we just smoosh the Martian soil into super strong bricks? Researchers at the University of California at San Diego tried just that. Using nothing but a piston press and some soil that simulates the properties of martian dirt, mechanical engineer Yu Qiao and his colleagues formed nickel-sized bricks that are stronger than steel-reinforced concrete. The team accidentally discovered this unique property. At first they were experimenting with making martian bricks using polymer binders. To cut down on the hypothetical trips between Earth and Mars, they gradually lowered the amount of binder in their samples to see what was the lowest amount needed. “As we reduced the binder content to 0 and it still

had some strength,” says Qiao, “we realized that there is something interesting about the material itself.” When it’s compressed using about as much force as a swinging hammer, the iron oxide particles in the soil simulant—those are the particles that give Mars its characteristic red color—seem to bond together, which is what makes make the brick surprisingly strong. Philip Metzger, a planetary physicist who studies martian soil mechanics at the University of Central Florida, says the results are interesting, but he cautions that real Martian soil might behave differently. “That is also our worry—everyone’s worry,” says Qiao. The simulant he used was developed by NASA, and is considered one of the best Mars soil simulants. But its composition varies from what we’ve seen on Mars—for example, the simulant has about three times as much aluminum oxide, and six times as much titanium oxide as the martian regolith. And it comes from rainy Hawaii, where the weathering processes that affect the grain size and the minerals are significantly different from our dry, icy neighbor. Or in other words, says Metzger, “It looks like Mars, but there is no guarantee that it acts like Mars.” Ideally, future spacecraft will bring back real soil from the red planet some day so scientists can learn all about it and test its properties, but no such mission is on the books yet. Until then, or until they can send a brick-making robot to Mars, the best that Qiao and his team can do is experiment with different chemical compositions and grain sizes and shapes. “This will be a continued effort,” says Qiao. And there’s another potential limitation, says Metzger: the iron oxides that bind the bricks together are only found in a thin layer across much of Mars’ surface, which would make it hard to efficiently collect enough material to build a human shelter in most places. There are some places where the red dust piles up to hundreds of feet deep, and this brick-making strategy might be a very good option there. Metzger (who has worked extensively with NASA) says that while the space agency is more likely to invest in a technology that can be used anywhere on the planet, and one that they’re sure would work on Mars, the UCSD team’s work might still find a use on the Martian surface. “This might not be good enough for NASA, since it limits the location of an outpost,” says Metzger, “but for Elon Musk’s Mars colony it might be perfect.”

57 01

This page left intentionally blank.

Stage IIIa: The Write Stuff

Having read (or at least skimmed) the past section, you may have noticed the footnotes, sources, etc. This section will contain excerpts from certain of those sources which I think are particular valuable to read verbatim. The value lies in particular syntheses or arguments each author has managed to make (that I could not quote at full length in the Introduction: Why Mars?), which respond to the question of whether or not Mars is a valid and valuable design problem.

01.

What is Space Architecture? Out of This World: The New Field of Space Architecture A. Scott Howe, Brent Sherwood

02.

Introduction Placing Outer Space Lisa Messeri

03.

Introduction Space Architecture: The New Frontier for Design Research Neil Leach

04.

Colonising the Red Planet: Humans on Mars in Our Time Space Architecture: The New Frontier for Design Research Robert Zubrin

This page left intentionally blank.

100

101

102

103

104

105

This page left intentionally blank.

Stage IIIb: By Proxy

Stage IIIb presents case study experiments that have either been conducted or are currently underway. Each of these experiments was successful in simulating some aspect of a Martian astronauts experience. Whether duration, extra-vehicular activities and experiments, physiology, psychology, or a combination of each, these missions give scientists, engineers, and designers the closest approximation possible for data collection and precedent.

01.

Mars Desert Research Station The Mars Society Hanksville, Utah

02.

Flashline Mars Arctic Research Station The Mars Society Baffin, Canada

03.

HI-SEAS NASA/University of Hawaii at Monoa Mauna Loa Volcano, Hawaii

04. CAVES ESA Sa Grutta Caves, Sardinia 05.

Mars500 ESA/Russian Institute for Biomedical Problems Moscow, Russia

01.

Mars Desert Research Center The Mars Society Hanksville, Utah

109

110

BY PROXY

MDRS

111

112

BY PROXY

This page left intentionally blank.

02.

Flashline Mars Arctic Research Station The Mars Society Baffin, [Unorganized], Canada

115

From The Mars Society: The Flashline Mars Arctic Research Station (FMARS) is the first of two simulated Mars habitats (or Mars Analog Research Stations) established and maintained by the Mars Society.The station is located on Devon Island, a Mars analog environment and polar desert, approximately 165 kilometres (103 mi) north east of the hamlet of Resolute in Nunavut, Canada. The station is situated on Haynes Ridge, overlooking the Haughton impact crater, a 23 kilometres (14 mi) diameter crater formed approximately 39 million years ago. FMARS is operated by Mars Society researchers and is made available to NASA and selected scientists, engineers and other professionals from a variety of institutions worldwide to support science investigations and exploration research at the Mars analog site. As an operational testbed, the station serves as a central element in support of parallel studies of the technologies, strategies, architectural design, and human factors involved in human missions to Mars. The facility also brings to the field compact laboratories in which in-depth data analysis can begin before scientists leave the field site and return to their home institutions. The station helps develop the capabilities needed on Mars to allow productive field research during the long months of a human sojourn. The facility will evolve through time to achieve increasing levels of realism and fidelity with the ultimate goal of supporting the actual training of Marsbound astronauts.

116

CASE STUDIES

F-MARS

117

118

BY PROXY

From Robert Zubrin: â&#x20AC;&#x153;Our crews at FMARS are required to conduct a sustained program of geological, microbiological and climatological field exploration in a cold and dangerous remote environment while operating under many of the same constraints that a human crew would face on Mars. It is only under these conditions, where the crew is trying hard to get real scientific work done, while dealing with bulky equipment, cold, danger, discomfort, as well as isolation, that the real stresses of a human Mars mission can be encountered, and the methods for dealing with them mastered. It is only under these conditions that all sorts of problems that Mars explorers will face can be driven into the open so they can be dealt with. Only by doing these missions can we make ourselves ready to go to Mars. Nothing like this has ever been done before.â&#x20AC;? Dr. Robert Zubrin President, The Mars Society as published on The Mars Society Website

F-MARS

119

Final Mission Report, Mission 160: Hello from Mars, This is the final expedition of the Mars 160 program. We are 6 people living in the F-MARS, in the High Arctic, far from home. Over here we can only rely on ourselves. The nearest city is Resolute Bay, 1 hour of flight from the station. We have this unique opportunity to sojourn in one of the greatest Mars analog environment on Earth! Mars atmosphere is quite cold and Polar climate is similar. Patterned ground features, characteristic of the permafrost, are observed here and there. On Mars, you would find impact craters in various size and age. Haughton crater is 15 km in diameter and 39 million years old. The station sit on its edge. However, unlike Mars, this place is populated by living extremophile organisms. But some of them could be the key to the survival of the first Mars settlers or to find past life on this planet! Our goal is to experience some of the remoteness of Mars to learn how to conduct field science operation in such conditions. The scientific investigations are diverse and ambitious. LIFE 30 days in Arctic felt like 80 days in Utah desert. Time stretched here and we are adjusting to the environment, just as the humans will do on Mars. By looking at the landscape, almost nothing reminds us of Earth. No signs of any civilization. No signs of life. Just as it will be on Mars. FMARS station showed us vividly how it would feel like to live and work in the alien world. Resources are also more limited here than at MDRS, especially power. This imposes a limit on what we do and when we do it. To conserve fuel, the generator is ran 9 hours a day, with gaps up to two hours. When the generator is off, there is no heater, no comms, no cooking. Hopefully we all have laptops that can ran for few hours on the battery, allowing us to keep working. During comms windows, Internet is our only regular way to communicate. Satellite based communication imposes new constraints on how we use it. The bandwidth of few kB/s and the latency rarely below few seconds, if not losing the satellite signal, does not allow us for much more than emailing with the remote team and our relatives. Unlike the MDRS journeys, we are self-sufficient regarding the water supply which is fetched from a river few hundred meters down the hill. However, we arrived at the station with the food we would get for the entire mission. As the end of the expedition approaches we have seen our food supplies shrinking. Even with safety margin, it is a strange feeling to have noticed that we are actually limited in food supply. This is not something we usually experienced in our regular life. Therefore, we are taking care that nothing got wasted!

120

BY PROXY

The Arctic is a much more extreme environment than Utah. Our operations have to be much more autonomous and self-sufficient on a day to day basis. Communications are more limited, requiring independence of thought and action. This is not a bad thing, with a crew of competent, motivated people this is actually liberating. It does, however, mean that more time must be spent on basic Hab tasks, underlying the importance of automation to crewed missions to Mars and elsewhere. Being in an extreme environment means that safety considerations come first. There is a greater awareness when we are on EVA of distance from the Hab and the instability of the weather. After this expedition got delayed by more than 3 weeks due to bad weather and ground conditions that prevented us to land on schedule, the mission objectives had to be redefined under the new time constraints. Therefore, no engineering project is conducted during this expedition. The unique features of the field gives priority to the field science activities over all the rest. That is why we have directed all our efforts to fulfill as many field science objectives as we can. GEOLOGY The month at FMARS has been a very valuable experience for us in that it has better equipped us to assess previous Mars analogue research at Haughton crater and provided an opportunity for our own investigations. Part of what makes FMARS an ideal Mars analog facility is its location in a periglacial environment along the rim of an ancient impact crater. This is a rare setting to have on Earth, but it is repeated planet-wide on Mars. Based on observations by the Phoenix mission in 2008, the role of water ice permafrost in the formation of periglacial features on Mars was confirmed making many periglacial processes on Earth a direct analog for Mars. This provides an opportunity to study some of the younger geological processes that are active on Mars today, right here on Earth. One periglacial feature that is common between Mars and Earth is patterned ground. Formed as a result of expansion and contraction from freezing and melting permafrost, over time this process etches patterns into the ground ranging from a few meters to several tens of meters across. When comparing satellite images of the patterned ground in Haughton Crater to patterned ground on Mars, it is easy to see why these are such intriguing subjects to study near FMARS. Over the course of Mars 160, dozens of samples have been collected from a variety of patterned ground types that once analyzed in a laboratory setting back on Earth will shed new insights into how these landforms evolve. By performing most of these field tasks in-sim as weather conditions allowed, it also provided insight into how a crewed mission might investigate similar features on Mars in the future. The results from this investigation will ultimately be submitted for peer-review in an applicable

F-MARS

121

professional journal. We have been able to collect extensive imagery of the Devon Island landscape that will enable me to refine the regolith landscape mapping methodologies previously developed for cold climate landscapes. Especially valuable have been the landscape features poorly expressed at previous study sites, such as different types of polygons, and a greater appreciation of role of near-surface hydrology in Arctic landscapes. The bedrock geology of the rim of Haughton crater near the FMARS station is composed on the Allen Bay Formation. Two main facies (rock types with similar characteristics) are present, a dark brown dolostone and a white dolostone. The dark brown facies is rich in megafossil remains, especially of sponges (stromatoporoids), corals (tabulate and both colonial and solitary rugose), and molluscs, most prominently straight nautiloid cephalopods. This facieses commonly intensely bioturbated and may be thrombolitic (a microbial structure with a clotted fabric). The white facies is dominated by laminated and often stromatolitic dolostones, mudcacks and ripples have been rarely seen. Studying these rocks has been made difficult by the lack of coherent outcrop. However, the outcrops present do enable the context of the abundant displaced blocks to be placed in context. We have also taken the opportunity to familiarize ourselves with impact related features of the Haughton crater. These have included the distinctive grey-coloured polymict melt sheets containing many different rock types, the monomict breccias consisting of fractured bedrock more or less in places with numerous shatter cones, and the polymict ejecta rocks. These impact-related rock types are common on the Moon and Mars, but rare on Earth, where craters are rapidly (geologically speaking) destroyed by erosion or hidden by burial. Here these rocks are widely distributed on the walls and across the floor of Haughton crater. BIOLOGY Biological exploration here at FMARS involves an array of themes, from documenting the Arctic flora to investigating biosignatures in ancient evaporite rocks. To test the efficiency of science operations on Mars, our scientific work is supported by Earthbased scientists. Hydrothermal sulfate deposits from the Impact supersite which is located near the middle of the Haughton crater have been sampled to investigate any viable or fossilized signatures of life originated and thrived during impact-induced hydrothermal event in the past. These gypsum-bearing evaporites from outcrops belong to the midOrdovician Bay Fiord Formation (39 mya). In the Bay Fiord Formation the gypsum was deposited through evaporation of seawater. Elsewhere in the crater gypsum is known to have formed as a result of the impact driven hydrothermal activity. Both the processes are considered to be analogous to the sulfate precipitation from the low-temperature aqueous fluid on Mars. So, any microbial life that was present in the

122

BY PROXY

brine could have found refuge in tiny fluid-inclusions of the gypsum crystals in the past or potentially left their marks in the depository layers while degradation. Hence, it is fascinating to explore the idea of preservation of biomarkers in evaporite rocks. The abundance, and ecology of hypoliths and epiliths colonised on limestone in the Arctic are being documented. As well as, we intend to perform comparative genomic analysis on these hardy microbial communities. Identification and characterization of black epiliths, which are commonly seen to be growing on the melt water streaks that we call Recurrent Slope Lineae is also conducted. By studying these lithobionts – rock dwelling organisms – we are trying to understand the effect of moisture on the extent of colonization both in Polar (Arctic) and hot desert (Utah). So, this mission gives us an ideal opportunity to explore these microbial communities in two disparate environments, thereby, would provide an important baseline in this domain and help us anticipate “exophiles” in unanticipated niches of Mars. Mapping and surveying of lichen biodiversity, Arctic vesicular plants, and molecular analysis of Arctic Diatoms are being studied as well. Studying lichen biodiversity is important for this mission for two reasons. First, Lichen that form an intimate symbiosis with two very different species fungi (mycobionts) and algae (photobionts) and resistant enough to survive extremely low temperatures, high bombardment of ultra violet radiation for a long period of time and show excellent physiological adaptation in Mars-like conditions. So, they can serve as tools for understanding life in extreme environments. Second, for the operational advantage in full simulation suit we dedicate some our EVAs to sample lichen that are evident and easiest to find organisms. It is also about how we perform field science in spacesuit. In the extreme Polar environment, vascular plants are thought to flower at specific time in response to lack of nutrients, low moisture and scarcity of pollinators to maximize the reproductive advantage. It is also thought that specific flowering time (phenology) is associated with microbial activity in the root zone of these plants. We want to assess how this association between root microbiom and plant phenology works, which can help us understanding the extreme survivability of Arctic plants, and possibly adaptation of crop plants for Mars. SCIENCE SUPPORT AND GROUP DYNAMIC STUDIES 360° pictures have been taken in a square mesh pattern. Different distance between each points have been tested: 20, 50 and 100 meters. All of scenery points are navigated by GPS. The procedure at each documented point takes up to 2 minutes during a full simulated EVA of 2 to 3 hours. After the mission, it is intended to reconstruct the landscape with the 360° data in order to support the patterned ground study. A stereograph kit has been designed prior to the mission and been used on the field during suited EVA to capture stereo anaglyph images (red and blue stereo images). The kit was designed thanks to the prior mission at the MDRS. It is compact and

F-MARS

123

light weight to be carried easily during suited EVA. In addition, it is user friendly for anyone to do stereograph pictures. Finally, the main feature may be the very short time – around 3 seconds – required to take the two pictures. The delay between the shots is critical for the quality of the stereo anaglyph images. The field test involve recreating Phoenix lander anaglyph pictures of similar ground features. The height and the distance between the two pictures have been taken from the lander characteristics. More 360° pictures and 3D scanning measurements have been taken inside the Hab to later on build VR views of the habitat. This will complement the 3D reconstruction of the interior done with CAD software. Lastly, 24 hour time lapse have been taken on the 1st and 2nd floor to understand the flow pattern of the people living inside. This data may help to design better layout of space habitat. This part of the mission provided us with more interesting data about group cohesion, the influence of isolation and environment on crew behavior. Earth based science team will process the results of eight different tests and compare how the changes of location (from MDRS to FMARS) crew composition affected the psychological pattern of teamwork. This research will provide valuable data for the future Mars analogue missions and help Mars Society in a process of choosing the compatible people for long duration programs. In order to assess the positive and negative influences of various feature of the mission, the crew is conducting a guided debriefing at regular intervals. This includes individual brainstorming of the main issues experienced by each crewmember, categorized them and finally having a group brainstorming to resolve the most important ones. These session have been found very insightful for crewmembers. Sharing our issues with the whole crew and working all together toward a solution is a crucial activity for building a strong and cohesive team. This is a critical group feature for crews operating under extreme environment such as Mars. The limited internet access restricted the active outreach work during the simulation. On other side, the isolation helped to concentrate on documenting the mission in narrative genre, which can be compiled into a book. The outreach will be proceeding after the crew comes back to Earth and will be more engaging with the audience. The odds have been mostly against us. The delay induced by the bad landing conditions have made us to adapt to the constraints. There was no way around. And since our journey is a one life time opportunity, we learn how to push our boundaries to make the remaining time to be worthwhile. This is not a trivial thing to do and it has not been done without glitches. But at the end of the day, we are in this adventure all together, relying on each other. We face the unexpected events as a crew. The Mars 160 program and this expedition in particular has been supported by Earth based scientists: Dr Kathy Bywater, NASA Ames Research Center – USA Dr

124

BY PROXY

Vincent Chevrier, University of Arkansas, USA – Prof Charles Cockell, University of Edinburgh, UK – Dr Alfonso Davila, NASA Ames Research Centre, USA – Polina Kuznetsova, Institute of Biomedical Problems, Russia – Dr Chris Mckay, NASA Ames Research Centre, USA – Dr Rebecca Merica, University of Nevada, USA – Dr Irene Lia Schlacht, Politechnico di Milano, Italy – Dr Matthew Siegler, Southern Methodist University, USA – Dr Hanna Sizemore, Planetary Science Institute, USA – Dr David Wilson, NASA Ames Research Center, USA. As Principal Investigators: Dr Shannon Rupert, The Mars Society, USA – Paul Sokoloff, Canadian Museum of Nature, Canada. As The Mars Society president: Dr Robert Zubrin, USA. Mars 160 crewmemebers would like to express their sincere gratitude to them: Thank you!

This page left intentionally blank.

03.

HI-SEAS

NASA/University of Hawaii at Monoa Mauna Loa Volcano, Hawaii

127

FROM HI-SEAS:

128

BY PROXY

HI-SEAS

129

130

BY PROXY

HI-SEAS

131

132

BY PROXY

HI-SEAS

133

134

BY PROXY

HI-SEAS

135

136

BY PROXY

This page left intentionally blank.

04.

CAVES

ESA Sa Grutta Caves, Sardinia

139

140

BY PROXY

CAVES

141

05.

Mars500 Project

ESA/Russian Institute for Biomedical Problems Moscow, Russia

143

Stage IIIc: Case Studies

01.

Mars Ice House SEArch/Clouds Architecture Office

02.

Mars Ice Home SEArch/Clouds Architecture Office/NASA Langley

03.

Mars Utopia Alberto Villanueva

04.

Mars Settlement GAMMA (Foster + Partners)

05.

Hybrid Composites Ozel Office

06.

Donut House, Mk. I A.R.C.H.

07.

Mars Science City BIG

08.

New Shanghai/Mars Vertical Gardens Stefano Boeri

09.

The Space Between Aspiration & Achievement Orla Punch

01.

Mars Ice House

SEArch/Clouds Architecture Office NASA Competition Entry (First Place)

148

CASE STUDIES

MARS ICE HOUSE

149

150

CASE STUDIES

MARS ICE HOUSE

151

152

CASE STUDIES

MARS ICE HOUSE

153

5 11

154

CASE STUDIES

MARS ICE HOUSE

155

156

CASE STUDIES

MARS ICE HOUSE

157

158

CASE STUDIES

MARS ICE HOUSE

159

02.

Mars Ice Home

NASA Langley Research Center + SEArch/Clouds Architecture Office

162

CASE STUDIES

MARS ICE HOME

163

164

CASE STUDIES

MARS ICE HOME

165

166

CASE STUDIES

MARS ICE HOME

167

03.

Mars Utopia

Alberto Villanueva

170

CASE STUDIES

MARS UTOPIA

171

172

CASE STUDIES

MARS UTOPIA

173

174

CASE STUDIES

MARS UTOPIA

175

04.

Mars Settlement

GAMMA (Foster + Partners)

178

CASE STUDIES

MARS SETTLEMENT

179

180

CASE STUDIES

MARS SETTLEMENT

From Foster + Partners: Continuing the practice’s earlier design explorations for building in extreme environments and extra-terrestrial habitats with the Lunar Habitation project, Foster + Partners have been working on a NASA-backed competition for a 3d-printed modular habitat on Mars. The design for the Mars Habitat outlines plans for a settlement constructed by an array of pre-programmed, semiautonomous robots prior to the eventual arrival of the astronauts. The habitat – created in collaboration with industrial and academic partners – envisions a robust 3D-printed dwelling for up to four astronauts constructed using regolith – the loose soil and rocks found on the surface of Mars. The proposal considers multiple aspects of the project from delivery and deployment to construction and operations. The habitat will be delivered in two stages prior to the arrival of the astronauts. First, the semi-autonomous robots select the site and dig a 1.5 metre deep crater, followed by a second delivery of the inflatable modules which sit within the crater to form the core of the settlement. Given the vast distance from the Earth and the ensuing communication delays, the deployment and construction is designed to take place with minimal human input, relying on rules and objectives rather than closely defined instructions. This makes the system more adaptive to change and unexpected challenges – a strong possibility for a mission of this scale.

181

05.

Hybrid Composites

Ozel Office NASA Competition Entry (Runner-Up)

184

CASE STUDIES

HYBRID COMPOSITES

185

From Ozel Office: Created in collaboration with experts from UCLA Department of Engineering and Material Science, the competition entry for NASA and AmericaMakes 3D Printed Habitat challenge received the Runner Up Prize in more than 160 international entries. The competition brief put together by NASA required the participants to design a 100 m2 habitat which would be able to accommodate living and research facilities as well as life support

equipment for 4 astronauts for the first mission to Mars, built through the use of 3D printing technology using indigenous resources. Instead of 3D printing concrete-like shells from local sand, the team proposed to 3D print high performance composite shells through the combination of locally harvested basalt and carbon with fast curing polymer resins, a 3D printing version of how high-performance boats, planes, satellites, and spaceships are built.

186

CASE STUDIES

HYBRID COMPOSITES

187

188

CASE STUDIES

HYBRID COMPOSITES

189

06.

Donut House, Mk. I

A.R.C.H NASA Competition Entry (Best in Technical Achievement)

192

CASE STUDIES

DONUT HOUSE, MK. 1

193

From A.R.C.H.: “Team A.R.C.H’s submission uses the design and construction methodology of basalt fiber clay matrix structures for in-situ habitat construction on Mars and other celestial bodies. The basalt fiber reinforced clay is produced from soils and rocks found on most terrestrial bodies including the Earth, the Moon, and Mars. This material provides an economical solution for extraterrestrial construction, as well as eco-friendly, low cost housing on Earth. Our technique updates the proven technology of “Cobb” construction; replacing straw with basalt fibers, using additive manufacturing to produce efficient, complete, and habitable structures. Furthermore, this material is impervious to fire, chemical degradation, and radiation. Astronauts can use a hand-held nozzle to create various objects out of the clay fiber matrix. Structures requiring a contained atmosphere would be sealed with water glass, synthesized in-situ. This strong, biocompatible resin can be bonded to the clay structure, eliminating the need for a separate inflatable bladder. The habitat is a ring-shaped structure. The interior would be sectioned for redundancy in the event of damage to the structure. The roof is modeled on a gothic arch to minimize overhangs, and enable the structure to be manufactured in one operation, including electrical conduits and plumbing pipes. Construction is accomplished using a cable-driven parallel manipulator, comparable to Skycams or Spidercams

common in sports arenas. The lack of a rigid frame enables compact storage and simple assembly. Team A.R.C.H. provides a novel structure and construction technique for efficient extraterrestrial colonization and habitation utilizing in-situ resources.” ___

07.

Mars Science City BIG

196

CASE STUDIES

From Dezeen/BIG: Danish architect Bjarke Ingels has revealed designs for the Mars Science City, which will operate as a space simulation campus near Dubai where scientists will work on “humanity’s march into space”.

Ingels’ plans show four geodesic domes enveloping the Mars Science City, which will cover 17.5 hectares of desert outside Dubai – making it the largest space simulation city ever built. A team will live inside the experimental city for a year, which will recreate the conditions of the Red Planet. Scientists

MARS SCIENCE CITY

will work in laboratories dedicated to investigating self-sufficiency in energy, food and water for life on Mars. Ingels, the founder of Danish firm BIG, will work on the AED 500 million (£101 million) project with a team of Emirati scientists, engineers and designers led by the Mohammed bin Rashid Space Centre and the Dubai Municipality.

197

“The UAE seeks to establish international efforts to develop technologies that benefit humankind, and that establish the foundation of a better future for more generations to come,” said Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid, vice president and prime minister of the UAE, and ruler of Dubai. “We also want to consolidate the passion

198

CASE STUDIES

for leadership in science in the UAE, contributing to improving life on earth and to developing innovative solutions to many of our global challenges.” He announced the project earlier this week at the annual meetings for the United Arab Emirate government in Abu Dhabi.

Expected to be the “most sophisticated building in the world”, laboratories will simulate the Mars’ harsh environment by making use of 3D printing technology, as well as heat and radiation insulation. The city will also host a museum with educational areas, where progress into space exploration can be displayed to inspire future generations. The walls of

MARS SCIENCE CITY

the museum will be 3D printed using sand from the Emirati desert. “We believe in the potential of space exploration, and in collaborating with global partners and leaders in order to harness the findings of this research and movement that seeks to meet people’s needs and improve quality of life on earth,” said Sheikh Mohammed bin

199

Rashid. “We seek to set an example and motivation for others to participate, and contribute, to humanity’s march into space.”

200

CASE STUDIES

MARS SCIENCE CITY

201

08.

New Shanghai/Mars Vertical Gardens Stefano Boeri

204

CASE STUDIES

NEW SHANGHAI

205

From Dezeen:

Stefano Boeri has suggested that a “new Shanghai” made up of “vertical forests” could be built on Mars, should rising sea levels render Earth uninhabitable. The ambitious Mars-based eco city envisioned by the Italian architect would be made up of his studio’s signature plant-covered towers built under giant sealed “space-proof” domes. The hypothetical project was dreamed up in response to an invitation to imagine what Shanghai might look like in 2117 for Shanghai Urban Space and Art Season (SUSAS) 2017. The architect came up with the utopian design in collaboration with Tongji University’s Future City Lab and the Chinese Space Agency. The team proposed to deliver the spheres containing the vertical forest structures via the International Space Station. The team imagined that, by 2117, irreversible climate change would force humankind to establish a new habitat in space. Stefano Boeri realised his first “bosco verticale”, or vertical forest, in 2014, when construction completed on two 110-metre towers in Milan planted with 900 trees. The towers’ living facades create an urban habitat for wildlife, filter out dust from the city below, while providing a humid, oxygen-rich micro-climate for the occupants of the building. Boeri has planned similar towers for cities around the world including Lausanne, in Switzerland, Utrecht in the Netherlands, and Nanjing in China. Paris will also be getting it’s own vertical

forest in the eastern suburb of Villierssur-Marne. Called the Foret Blanche, it will be 54-metres high and covered with 2,000 trees. In June of this year, Boeri unveiled plans to construct an entire city in China covered in vertical forests. The Liuzhou Forest City will provide 30,000 homes and accommodate 40,000 trees, which the architects calculate will lock up 10,000 tonnes of CO2 a year, while producing 900 tonnes of oxygen. Stefano Boeri Vertical Forests on Mars Invited to imagine Shanghai in 2117, they envisioned that humankind would be looking to colonise other planets Previous attempts to create sealed biodomes suitable for use on inhospitable planets have been problematic. The infamous Biosphere 2 in the Arizona desert was the largest closed system ever created. Experiments were run in it during the early 1990s to test the viability of using such a design in space. The four scientists sealed in the dome were beset by problems maintaining the delicate balance of the biospheres. Controlling the populations of plants and animals proved challenging, fluctuating CO2 levels saw oxygen levels drop dangerously low, food became scarce and in-fighting broke out.

08.

The Space Between Aspiration & Achievement:

an architectural exploration through an extreme environment Orla Punch M.Arch. Thesis, University of Limerick (SAUL), Ireland

208

CASE STUDIES

THE SPACE BETWEEN ASPIRATION AND ACHIEVEMENT

209

210

CASE STUDIES

THE SPACE BETWEEN ASPIRATION AND ACHIEVEMENT

211

212

CASE STUDIES

THE SPACE BETWEEN ASPIRATION AND ACHIEVEMENT

213

214

CASE STUDIES

THE SPACE BETWEEN ASPIRATION AND ACHIEVEMENT

215

216

Sources Used for Original Writing

Works Cited In the order of author’s last name Achenbach, Joel. “NASA Budget for 2011 Eliminates Funds for Manned Lunar Missions.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 1 Feb. 2010, www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/31/AR2010013101058.html. Allen, Carlton C. “Martian Regolith Simulant JSC Mars-1.” Lunar and Planetary Science, XXIX, pp. 1–2. Andrews, Kate. “200,000 People Apply to Permanently Live on Mars.” Dezeen, 11 Sept. 2013, www.dezeen.com/2013/09/11/over200000-people-apply-to-live-on-mars/. Battaglio, Stephen. “The 60 Biggest News Moments of All Time.” TVGuide.com, 3 Oct. 2013, www.tvguide.com/news/60-biggestnews-moments-all-time-1071599/. Bell, Trudy E. “Lunar Dust Buster.” NASA, NASA, 19 Apr. 2006, science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/19apr_ dustbuster. “Boeing Unveils Deep Space Concepts for Moon and Mars Exploration.” Boeing MediaRoom, The Boeing Company, boeing.mediaroom. com/2017-04-03-Boeing-Unveils-Deep-Space-Concepts-for-Moon-and-Mars-Exploration#assets_117:20175. Bowman, David C. “Mars: Inside the High-Risk, High-Stakes Race to the Red Planet.” National Geographic, 14 Oct. 2016, www. nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2016/11/spacex-elon-musk-exploring-mars-planets-space-science/. CBSNews.com. “TV’s Most Memorable Moments: 9/11 Tops the List.” CBS News, CBS Interactive, 11 July 2012, www.cbsnews.com/ news/tvs-most-memorable-moments-9-11-tops-the-list/. CBSNews.com. “TV’s Most Memorable Moments: 9/11 Tops the List.” CBS News, CBS Interactive, 11 July 2012, www.cbsnews.com/ news/tvs-most-memorable-moments-9-11-tops-the-list/. Connolly, John F. “Constellation Program Overview.” National Aeronautics and Astronautics Administration, Oct. 2006. Diep, Francie. “Curiosity Finds Water And Poison In Martian Soil.” Popular Science, 26 Sept. 2013, www.popsci.com/article/technology/ curiosity-finds-water-and-poison-martian-soil#page-2.

217

Dunbar, Brian. “Electric Dust Storms on Mars.” NASA, NASA, 31 July 2006, www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/mars_soil_ chem.html. Faith, Ryan. “How the Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster Changed America’s Romance With Space.” VICE News, 28 Jan. 2016, news. vice.com/article/how-the-space-shuttle-challenger-disaster-changed-americas-romance-with-space. Hambleton, Kathryn. “Deep Space Gateway to Open Opportunities for Distant Destinations.” NASA, NASA, 28 Mar. 2017, www.nasa. gov/feature/deep-space-gateway-to-open-opportunities-for-distant-destinations. Hille, Karl. “The Fact and Fiction of Martian Dust Storms.” NASA, NASA, 18 Sept. 2015, www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/the-fact-andfiction-of-martian-dust-storms. Hirsch, Jerry. “Elon Musk’s Growing Empire Is Fueled by $4.9 Billion in Government Subsidies.” Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Times, 30 May 2015, www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk-subsidies-20150531-story.html. Karunatillake, Suniti; Keller, John M.; Squyres, Steven W.; Boynton, William V.; Brückner, Johannes; Janes, Daniel M.; Gasnault, Olivier; Newsom, Horton E. (2007). “Chemical compositions at Mars landing sites subject to Mars Odyssey Gamma Ray Spectrometer constraints”. Journal of Geophysical Research. 112. Kriss J. Kennedy, “Vernacular of Space Architecture,” Out of This World: the New Field of Space Architecture, edited by Howe, A. Scott, and Brent Sherwood. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2009. 7-10. Lockheed Martin. “Lockheed Martin Reveals New Details to Its Mars Base Camp Vision - Sep 28, 2017.” Media - Lockheed Martin, PRNewswire, 28 Sept. 2017, news.lockheedmartin.com/2017-09-28-Lockheed-Martin-Reveals-New-Details-to-its-Mars-Base-CampVision. Long, Gary, et al. “Mars’ Gravity Could Be a Double Edged Sword for Future Explorers » Science and Technology News Site.” Science and Technology News Site, 14 Nov. 2017, www.cosmicnovo.com/2017/11/08/mars-gravity-explorers/. Mars One. “How Long Does It Take to Travel to Mars? - A Mission to Mars.” Mars One, www.mars-one.com/faq/mission-to-mars/howlong-does-it-take-to-travel-to-mars. “The Moon’s Gravity - How Much You Would Weigh on the Moon?” Moon’s Gravity, www.moonconnection.com/moon_gravity.phtml. Pham, Sherisse, and Jackie Wattles. “Elon Musk Is Aiming to Land Spaceships on Mars in 2022.” CNNMoney, Cable News Network, 29 Sept. 2017, money.cnn.com/2017/09/29/technology/future/elon-musk-spacex-mars-iac-conference/index.html. Portree, David S. F. “What Shuttle Should Have Been: The October 1977 Flight Manifest.” Wired, Conde Nast, 3 June 2017, www. wired.com/2012/03/what-shuttle-should-have-been-the-october-1977-flight-manifest/. Rogers, Simon. “Nasa Budgets: US Spending on Space Travel since 1958 UPDATED.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 1 Feb. 2010, www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/feb/01/nasa-budgets-us-spending-space-travel. Sherwood, Brent A. and Larry Toups. “Design Constraints for Planet Surface Architecture,”Out of This World: the New Field of Space Architecture, edited by Howe, A. Scott, and Brent Sherwood. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2009. 171-183. SpaceX. “Launch Manifest.” SpaceX, SpaceX, www.spacex.com/missions. Thompson, Amy. “Scientists Think Mars Dust Storms Could Wreak Havoc for Humans.” Inverse, 6 Oct. 2016, www.inverse.com/ article/21870-mars-dust-storm-prediction. Wall, Mike. “Mars Soil May Be Toxic to Microbes.” Space.com, 6 July 2017, www.space.com/37402-mars-life-soil-toxic-perchloratesradiation.html. Zubrin, Robert.“Getting Space Exploration Right,” (The New Atlantis, No. 8, Center for the Study of Technology and Society, Spring 2005), 16-18.

218

Scanned Articles/Books

Works Cited In the order of appearance

219

Christensen Phillip. “Why Study Mars? To Better Understand The Earth?” HuffingtonPost, 18 Oct. 2016, https://www.huffingtonpost. com/entry/why-study-mars-to-better-understand-the-earth_us_580640ace4b0dd54ce354004 Guarino, Ben and Brady Dennis. “Climate change fueling disasters, disease in ‘potentially irreversible ways’, report warns.” Washington Post, 30 Oct. 2017. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/climate-change-fueling-disasters-disease-in-potentiallyirreversible-ways-report-warns/2017/10/30/4f450ac4-bdaf-11e7-959c-fe2b598d8c00_story.html?utm_term=.ddacf3e4af2b Scott, Rory. “Will This Be The Concrete Used to Build on Mars?” ArchDaily, 6 Jan. 2016. https://www.archdaily.com/779978/will-thisbe-the-concrete-used-to-build-on-mars Fecht, Sarah. “Bricks made from fake Martian soil are surprisingly strong.” Popular Science, April 27, 2017. https://www.popsci.com/ mars-soil-bricks Gillard, Eric. “A New Home on Mars: NASA Langley’s Icy Concept for Living on the Red Planet.” National Aeronautics and Astronautics Administration, 29 Dec. 2016. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/langley/a-new-home-on-mars-nasa-langley-s-icy-concept-for-living-onthe-red-planet Sherwood, Brent. “What is Space Architecture?” Out of This World: the New Field of Space Architecture, edited by Howe, A. Scott, and Brent Sherwood. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2009. 3-6. Messeri, Lisa. Placing Outer Space: an Earthly Ethnography of Other Worlds. Duke University Press, 2016. 1-23. Leach, Neil. “Introduction.” Space Architecture: the New Frontier for Design Research, edited by Neil Leach, vol. 232, John Wiley & Sons, 2014, pp. 9–15. Zubrin, Robert. “Colonising the Red Planet: Humans on Mars in Our Time.” Space Architecture: the New Frontier for Design Research, edited by Neil Leach, vol. 232, John Wiley & Sons, 2014, pp. 47-53. “About the MDRS.” The Mars Society. http://mdrs.marssociety.org/about-the-mdrs/ “Flashline Mars Arctic Research Station.” The Mars Society. https://sites.google.com/a/marssociety.org/fmars/home/about Zubrin, Robert. “MARS160 FMARS Final Mission Report.” The Mars Society, 16 Aug. 2017. http://fmars.marssociety.org/ “Hawai’i Space Exploration Analog and Simulation.” The University of Hawai’i at Monoa. https://hi-seas.org/ Grush, Loren. “What it’s like to spend 8 months on a fake Mars mission.” The Verge, 24 Sept. 2017. https://www.theverge. com/2017/9/24/16356876/nasa-hi-seas-mars-analogue-mission-hawaii-mauna-loa Howell, Elizabeth. “Astronauts Emerge from Cave After Underground Spaceflight Training.” Space.com, 5 Oct. 2013. https://www.space. com/23090-astronauts-caves-mock-space-mission.html Space.com. “‘CAVES’ Project Has NASA Astronauts Descending Into Sardinian Caves For Training.” Space.com, 4 Sept. 2012. https:// www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/05/caves-project-nasa-astronauts-sardinian-caves_n_1855924.html McKenna, Phil. “What’s the point of a fake 500-day Mars mission?” New Scientist, 22 Oct. 2009. https://www.newscientist.com/article/ dn18025-whats-the-point-of-a-fake-500-day-mars-mission/

Austin Edwards University of Virginia School of Architecture