At the Dawn of Space Architecture What can Architects learn from International Space Station and Arc by Kutlu Enç

At the Dawn of Space Architecture: What can Architects learn from International Space Station and Architectural Design Challenges for Outer Space Kutlu ENÇ*, Lale BAŞARIRa *Jade University of Applied Sciences Department of Architecture, Oldenburg Ofener Str. 16/19, 26121 enckutlu@gmail.com a Izmir University of Economics, Assistant Professor, Department of Architecture, Izmir

Abstract Space has not only been a huge field for exploration but also a possible prospective home for humanity. The International Space Station (ISS) therefore has been the longest-term space habitat since 1998. The extreme conditions, such as microgravity, excessive radiation and airlessness, challenged experts at several stages to create a secure, and sustainable structure accommodating three to six humans in ISS. Therefore, in this study, space architecture is explored as an essential type of sustainable and smart architecture. Authors sought typologies to reveal several approaches within space architecture. Space agencies have also challenged design teams to come up with concepts for Mars habitats. Some of these competitions were also chosen for an extensive analysis of design criteria for extra-terrestrial living. The main focus of this study is to analyse the smart construction technologies with sustainable and structural solutions of ISS and Mars suggested in architectural design challenges in order to generate a design framework for space settlements. As an outcome, a typology classification for orbital and surface structures with shaping forces of extra-terrestrial environments is suggested in the scope of the sustainable structures and smart construction technologies. Keywords: ISS, space architecture, extreme environment, sustainable structure

Introduction Smart environments have been envisioned when possible futures were predicted. The intelligence that is expected to be displayed by smart buildings and cities has been very appealing in the case of human sheltering is the case. This expectation is rooted in the quest for controlling the environment and staying safe and secure. (Aldrich, 2003) Therefore, safety and security are the elementary purpose of architecture. Smart environments are nevertheless considered as the inevitable next step for the governing human. Within the context of smart habitats, the authors scanned the smartest and most secure and safe building typologies to find out that spaces built for extreme environments displayed most evident sustainability cases that are built by humans. This approach led to an inquiry of the typologies that might have been revealed by analysing architecture created for extra-terrestrial and extreme earth conditions. Thus, in this work smartness is defined as the overall sustainability of the built-in properties of habitats; safety, security and autonomy of healthy and adaptive structures to shelter humans even in extreme environments. Lunar missions between 1968 and 1972 and Skylab, Mir and International Space Station (ISS) missions have followed one another in order to push the limits in extreme conditions of outer space. (Adams & Jones, 2014) After the first long-term-missions in ISS occurred, the experts of space agencies had huge questions about physiological and psychological concerns for the habitation of astronauts and researchers. However, these questions were not new for architects. Humans had already been asking about how we eat, sleep or take a shower etc. through the discipline of architecture. However, architecture has spun-off a brand-new side field titled “Space Architecture” in order to focus on the extreme living conditions in Space.

Background Space Architecture Space exploration as a scientific endeavour has its initial reports and suggestions as early as the 1960's. The spatial considerations though did not involve architectural expertise as seen from the literature until one of the first interdisciplinary design studies on settlements in outer space. (Johnson, 1977) The interdisciplinary group contained scientists, engineers, astronomers, and one architect. The group worked on a possible lunar colonization and came up with several terms and details of considerations. From psychological needs of colonizers and standards for spatial requirements of a whole colony to structural and geometric solutions 1

Proceedings of the ATI 2020: “Smart Buildings, Smart Cities” 27-30.04.2020, Yaşar University – Izmir - Turkey for these settlements were suggested in this scientific group work. As an outcome of the work, it was suggested that a large space laboratory should be placed in low-earth orbit and establish a base on the moon. This has also been the same approach that orbital and surface missions are categorized within the extra-terrestrial architectural domain. However, there are different views. Kennedy categorizes launch vehicles, pressure vessels (living units) and systems to support human life as the three main architectural components of space architecture. (Kennedy, 2002) Space architecture therefore is a field of study that focuses on shaping sustainable habitats in outer space and on other planets as extreme environments. (Miller, 2016) Over the last five years, NASA started conducting studies on proper architectural spaces with 3D-Printed Habitat Challenges in order to make the “Moon to Mars” mission a reality (NASA, 2015). It is therefore significant that the requirements of ISS, extreme conditions on earth and challenges to create habitat should be beneficial to understand the environmental rules. (Leach, 2014) In the first International Space Architecture Symposium at the World Space Congress in Houston in 2002, 46 practitioners and students came up with a definition of space architecture: “The theory and practice of designing and building inhabited environments in outer space.” (Kennedy, 2002) The theory has become a more practicable field with cutting edge technologies in space explorations in order to investigate profoundly and live long term on other celestial bodies. The focus is to design habitable systems not only with the requirements of occupants, but also with the serious consideration of extra-terrestrial conditions. Kennedy pointed out that the architecture elements that are required in this new field are the same with the traditional needs; Transportation System, Infrastructure and Utilities in order to function. However, some of the major elements for these requirements that change radically due to the extreme conditions are Habitat, Laboratory, Node, Airlock, Berthing/Docking, Logistic Supply, Structural System, Power System, Thermal System, Communication System, and Propulsion. Fig.1 shows a classification of habitat technology. Class I: structures that are manufactured and constructed on Earth and launched to the intended area. Class II: structures that are manufactured on Earth, but required assembly or deployment in space. Class III: structures that require manufacturing and construction in space. Figure 1: Habitat Classifications

Source: Kennedy, K. J. (2009). Vernacular of Space Architecture. Out of this World: The New Frontier of Space Architecture. Edited by A S. Howe & Brent Sherwood

Smart Habitability in extra-terrestrial Environment The topological and climatic conditions are the most significant parameters besides human factors on an extra-terrestrial site to generate the optimal habitat, and a better environment for mental health. The functions of sleeping, hygiene, food, work and leisure in an isolated environment are identified as the main zones when the astronauts in ISS were interviewed about their experiences of daily routine. (Häuplik-Meusburger, 2014) Also, space habitat design environment considerations and Orbital, Transfer and Surface approaches are separately examined with the challenging considerations in space. (Kennedy, 2002) These general considerations for outer space show architects how space architecture varies according to three different extraterrestrial environments. (Tab. 1) Nevertheless, space architects and experts know more nowadays with the help of many space exploration missions and the table can be filled with many other criteria and considerations today. (Kennedy, 2002)

Proceedings of the ATI 2020: “Smart Buildings, Smart Cities” 27-30.04.2020, Yaşar University – Izmir - Turkey Table 1: Space Habitat Design Environment Considerations Consideration

Earth Orbital

Lunar/Mars Transfer

Pressurized enclosure

2. Debris

Growing problem requiring heavy shielding

None

3. Gravity

Microgravity

Microgravity Induced gravity

Partial (less than 1 earth g) changes interior architecture

Protected by Van Allen Belts South Atlantic Anomaly potential problem

Lunar transfer protection probably not required Mars transfer protection required

Lunar protection required Mars partial protected by atmosphere, possible protection required

None

Lunar dust is a design challenge Mars dust a potential issue, but only really known

1. Vacuum

4. Radiation

5. Dust

Lunar/ Mars Surface Pressurized enclosure None

Source: Kennedy, K. (2002). The Vernacular of Space Architecture. AIAA Space Architecture Symposium Table 2: Trades and Rules of Thumb for Space Habitat Design Configuration Driver

Trade

Rule of Thumb

Habitat Function

Habitat Layout, Hab/Lab

Separate Hab & Lab Functions & Activities for long duration missions.

Number of Crew

Volume Required

Vol/Crew Member: larger no. of crew require much more volume.

Mission Duration

Habitat Size

Short duration = less volume; long duration requires much more volume.

Structure

Alum, Composites, Inflatables

Alum. for Pre-integrated short duration Habs. Inflatables for pre-fab long duration Habs.

Life Support

% Open, partial, closed

Open for short missions. Try for 100% closure for long duration habs.

Data Handling & Management

Computers, Automation

Open architecture with fault tolerant parallel processing. Automated integrated habitat health monitoring for long duration habs.

Communications

Direct, Relay

Utilize deep space networks. Emplace array network satellites for planetary colonies.

Thermal Control

Body mount, deployable radiators, thermal sink

Body mount on transfer vehicle when possible. Deployable for large heat rejection. Utilize heat sink underground if on another planet.

Power

Generation Source: battery, fuel cell, solar, nuclear

Look at nuclear for long duration missions that require a lot of power deep in space.

Crew Accommodations

Social interaction, privacy, exercise, recreation

Space condition for short transfers. Privacy and social interaction required for long duration.

Environmental Protection

Radiation, Dust, Orbital Debris, Micrometeoroids

Orbital Hab requires protection from Radiation, Orbital Debris & Micrometeoroids. Transfer Hab requires protection from Radiation & some Micrometeoroids. Lunar Mars requires some protection from Radiation, Dust & Micrometeoroids.

Risk

Level of Redundancy

Fall Op-Fail Safe on Critical hardware

Source: Kennedy, K. (2002). The Vernacular of Space Architecture. AIAA Space Architecture Symposium

Proceedings of the ATI 2020: “Smart Buildings, Smart Cities” 27-30.04.2020, Yaşar University – Izmir - Turkey The matrix where the space habitation design trades were examined (Tab. 2) according to required configurations of space missions and they were applied on rule of thumb. (Kennedy, 2002) The table emphasizes the wide range of criteria in extraterrestrial architecture clearly. Figure 2: Detailed View of Berthing, Dining and Workspace Functional Areas Inside Habitat for Exploration Class Missions

Source: Whitmire, A., Leveton, L., Broughton, H., Basner, M., Kearney, A. (2014). Minimum Acceptable Net Habitable Volume for Long-Duration Exploration Missions Subject Matter Expert Consensus Session Report. Human Research Program. Retrieved from https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20140016951

Minimum acceptable net habitable volume (NHV) for long‐duration exploration missions is identified as part of the human research program (HRP) of NASA and is 25 m3 per person. The figures of the same program show the sections of different habitat types and required areas. (Fig. 2) The cross and longitudinal sections represent spatial arrangement of seven functional areas in microgravity environment in terms of the acceptable NHV. (Fig. 3) Moreover, the drawings helped the authors understand the criteria of a smart and sustainable structure in 0-G condition in order to generate a typology. (Whitmire, 2014) Figure 3: Functional Areas and Volumes Within Habitat

Proceedings of the ATI 2020: “Smart Buildings, Smart Cities” 27-30.04.2020, Yaşar University – Izmir - Turkey

ISS Architecture The ISS is the only extra-terrestrial habitat built for long-term living in space. It is therefore a unique sample in order to measure and inspect the conditions and requirements of a pressurized enclosure. (NASA, 2010) Being the only isolated long-term habitat makes ISS a very significant and unique project to examine the behaviour and necessities of a real space settlement. Excessive radiation level is a significant issue in outer space. Only an Earth-facing small module “Cupola” has windows facing to Earth to observe extravehicular activities (EVA) and robotic activities outside of ISS. Figure 4: ISS exploded overall modular design

Source: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. (2019). Space Station Assembly. Retrieved from https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/structure/elements/space-station-assembly

Modularity and reconfigurability are the strongest characteristics of ISS structure. (Fig. 4) The layers of the modules are like bulletproof material against micrometeoroid debris. Beside the effective thermal insulation layers, the cylindrical form helps to distribute the extreme temperature differences between sunlit and shady surfaces. Minimum volume is also a decisive constraint for mental health while the diameter of a module has to be maximum 4,4 meters due to the limitation of rocket launches. (NASA, 2019) ISS helps understand the structural and spatial conditions of an isolated habitat in orbit in terms of several significant criteria, which are net habitable volume, translation paths, hatches and doorways, windows, lighting and hardware or structure. (NASA 2010) Therefore, the future Mars settlements will be shaped mainly by these criteria that come from ISS as a great sample of space habitat. The design team had considered ISS architecture not only with its morphological features but also with functions and features such as work, private, social, dirty, clean, quiet, noisy zones. (NASA, 2010)

Mars Characteristics Mars as a construction site has many disadvantages compared to the traditional construction techniques on Earth. The extreme range of temperature between day and night, dust storms with planet scale and thin atmosphere layers are why construction on Mars has to be different. However, the 1/3 gravity of Mars is beneficial to create less bending stress. Also, an interesting calculation study shows that the transportation of an ordinary brick to the Moon costs $2 million. Earth is 585 times farther from Mars than the Moon. All these conditions lead to seeking for in-situ materials on Mars. (Leach, 2014) The biggest difficulty is transportation cost of supplies that a Martian researcher or colonist needs. The amount of ice can become an ocean covering the red planet with 100 metres depth in case it melts. Water electrolysis also gives another essential final product: oxygen. The other promising advantage is the existence of carbon and hydrogen that are used to get silicon needed for photovoltaic panels and all main electronics. The other option for energy supply is deuterium in order to make fusion reactors. Mars' atmosphere is as thin as 1% of Earth’s atmosphere. (Leach, 2014) Air pressure is equally lower and 16 to 40 times weaker magnetic shield is also a great handicap for living on the surface of Mars. The habitats need to be isolated with controlled pressure and a special type of glass for windows. These show us that the built environments in the future have to be sustainable for a Martian society to survive. (Zubrin, 2014)

Proceedings of the ATI 2020: “Smart Buildings, Smart Cities” 27-30.04.2020, Yaşar University – Izmir - Turkey

Space Habitat Challenges The AIAA Life Science and Systems Technical Committee (LSSTC) and the AIAA Space Architecture Technical Committee (SATC) conducted and sponsored the Phobos Base Student Design Competition in 2017. The purpose was to generate solutions about habitability for living and working environments in space in future Mars exploration with the consideration of the Environmental Control and Life Support Systems (ECLSS) engineering and the Space Architecture. Students proposed alternative habitats for logistic and research purposes on Phobos, the larger and closer moon of Mars. Despite the same focused concerns for environmental control, such as radiation shield, airtightness and all life support systems, the approaches of the winners vary morphologically and structurally. (Cohen, 2019) The Wroclaw University of Technology team suggested a design idea of three separated units: The Mining Site, Mars Observatory and the Base. (Fig. 5) One big inflatable structure with pressurized volume creates the advantage of easy deployment and construction. On the other hand, the Base is protected from the other unpressurized units with the distance. Nevertheless, it seems that the sustainability of the construction phase is an essential problem without in-situ structural materials. Figure 5: Base Fearless design proposal of the Wroclaw University of Technology team

Source: Cohen, Marc M., Rodman D., Hodgson E. (2019). 70 th International Astronautical Congress (IAC)

“Phari Base” project was proposed by the University of Houston team with a profound similarity with the ISS. (Fig. 6) The compact habitat proposal is constructed on tetrahedral truss structure with the advantages of expandability and reconfigurability of modules. Spacecrafts that would like to observe Mars and do experiments on Phobos can dock at the station as a part of it. Easy accessibility between modules is due to the interlocked units. Also, there is no construction process after positioning and anchoring the truss structure to Phobos. The “artificial gravity torus” has a control room with geodesic dome area and accommodations for the eight-month travel time. The volume of the habitat is confined with the spacecraft structure. The similarity between ISS and Phari Base resulted in a space habitat with sustainable solutions and well-controlled isolated minimum volume. Figure 6: Phari Base design proposal by the University of Houston team

Source: Cohen, Marc M., Rodman D., Hodgson E. (2019). 70 th International Astronautical Congress (IAC)

Proceedings of the ATI 2020: “Smart Buildings, Smart Cities” 27-30.04.2020, Yaşar University – Izmir - Turkey The Wroclaw team has separate but engaged units that have different main functions with a big habitat under a single inflatable dome. The major advantage of mining sites and habitat separation are to minimize the danger of death in habitat while mining. There will be however a huge energy and resource use in the construction process. The University of Houston team proposes a modular and mobile solution with a fixed tetrahedral truss system. The design allows easier transition between units, but the mobility risks are higher. Architectural requirements of missions and challenges are clarified in NASA Spaceflight Human-System Standards in terms of Volume, Configuration, Translation Paths, Hatches and Doorways, Restraints and Mobility Aids, Windows, and Lighting. These criteria are shaped by the Physical Characteristics of Crew, Habitability Functions, and Natural and Induced Environment, which are also in this NASA Technical Standard. All volumetric and detailed features are determined mainly to minimize any hazard that can come to the crew members in daily routine and particular activities. Although the measurements and restrictions of all main elements in detail were considered, there are no architectural deductions and results for form configuration. (NASA, 2019) The aim of the NASA 3D-Printed Habitat Challenge is to design a habitat and generate a buildable project with 3D-printing technologies on another planetary body. The winners of the challenge were selected according to NASA-STD-3001 standards in three phases; Phase 1 (Design Competition) focuses on architectural concepts that has 3D-printing offers, Phase 2 (Structural Member Competition focuses on the 3D-printing fabrication process and recyclable indigenous material properties) and Phase 3 (On-Site Habitat Competition) focuses on autonomous 3D-printing of a subscale design with using BIM and virtual construction tools and techniques. (NASA, 2018) The Mars Ice Home project won the 3D-Printed Habitat Competition NASA Langley Research Center with collaboration of SEArch+ and CloudsAO with its later version “Mars Ice House”. The concept of preserving from galactic cosmic radiation and being a structural component came up from in situ material: ice. The study proposes an inflatable structure, a deployment systems element, and the access and delivery element of the complete habitat. (Fig. 7) Translucent ice shell, that is 3D-printed with robotic equipment (iBo), covers the overall settlement as a strong shield against excessive radiation. The core interior is covered and insulated with a cellular layer of carbon dioxide, which can easily be found in the Martian atmosphere. Experts said that the extracting ice on Mars is possible to fill the habitat at a rate of one cubic meter per day. This rate allows the Ice Home design to be completed in 400 days. However, the design may be scaled up with higher rates. (Gillard, 2017) The smart construction phase of Mars Ice Home study illustrates the fact that the extreme atmospheric conditions of Mars cause a dramatic change and unthinkable potential of the building technology. The lifestyle will obviously mutate in connection with the completely different construction methods from Earth. Figure 7: The Mars Ice Home project by SEArch+ & CloudsAO

Source: SEArch+. (2019) Mars Ice Home. Retrieved from http://www.spacexarch.com/mars-ice-home

Proceedings of the ATI 2020: “Smart Buildings, Smart Cities” 27-30.04.2020, Yaşar University – Izmir - Turkey SEArch+ & Apis Cor won first place with the Mars X-House V2 project in 100% Virtual Design within Phase 3 3D-Printed Habitat Challenge of NASA. The design proposes a future habitat for a crew of four to live and work on Mars for one Earth year. (Fig. 8) The design aimed to exceed radiation standards in order to secure human health and connect the crew to outside view. (SEArch+, 2019) The structural concept, radiation shielding and materiality were configured for the ISRU aspect and the conditions of the red planet profoundly. 3D printing technology is considered as autonomous robotics. Smart construction proposal and sustainable habitation contrast with singularity of the units versus modularity or reconfigurability chances. Figure 8: The Mars X-House V2 project by SEArch+ & Apis Cor

Source: SEArch+. (2019) Mars X-House V2. Retrieved from http://www.spacexarch.com/mars-xhouse-v2

AISpaceFactory won first place in Phase 3 with Marsha by building the design with autonomous 3D-printing in 1:1 scale, which was generated with BIM and virtual construction tools and techniques. (Fig. 9) In collaboration with Techmer PM, an innovative mixture of “basalt fiber” is extracted from Martian rock and renewable bioplastic (polylactic acid, or PLA). The construction material has also advantages of superb tensile strength and simpler production process than carbon fiber and kevlar. The material and the structure were tested by NASA. (AI SpaceFactory,2019) The power of 3D printing technology is the key point of habitat design. Smart semi-autonomous robotic tools allow flexibility to the astronauts in a construction site. ISRU analysis, to handle atmospheric pressure and thermal stresses and minimizing mechanical stresses show great efficiency with structural sustainability. Dual Shell protects the inhabitants from excessive radiation and also provides free interior design potential. However, entrapment risk after a catastrophic incident was not considered as much as the structural smartness. Figure 9: Marsha project by AISpaceFactory

Source: AI SpaceFactory. (2019) Marsha AI Spacefactory’s Mars Habitat. Retrieved from https://www.aispacefactory.com/marsha

The ALPHA team of Mars City Design participated in the challenge of NASA 3D-Printed Habitat with Alpha 3.0 design. Alpha 3.0 is inspired by the natural formation of the barchan dunes, which has rich minerals from solidified lava beds near the location of Nili Patera on Mars. (Fig. 10) The form is also shaped with the specific feature of one directional prevailing wind. The team claimed that the aerodynamic superstructure allows the habitat to safely move forward when the sand accumulation reaches a maximum weight point of the superstructure. Therefore, the habitat has a natural migration like the dune which is approximately one meter per year or less. Also, the arch shape structure has similar characteristics to a radar dish to enhance the capture of incoming radio signals. The sand on the structure accumulates to aid shielding from radiation. (Mars City Design, 2018)

Proceedings of the ATI 2020: “Smart Buildings, Smart Cities” 27-30.04.2020, Yaşar University – Izmir - Turkey Figure 10: Alpha 3.0 project and structural analysis by the ALPHA team

Source: Mars City Design (2018). ALPHA 3.0. Retrieved from https://www.marscitydesign.com/nasa-3d-printed-habitat

Hassell Studio suggests fully autonomous 3D printing robots for shell construction layer by layer. The shell is aimed to protect the astronauts from danger of sand storm and sun radiation. (Fig. 11) After the construction, the astronauts arrive with inflatable pressurized units. These reconfigurable and multifunctional units are deployed and connected to each other under the shell structure. The smart construction idea is to build a shell protection shield autonomously using in-situ material and to minimise the danger for astronauts while arriving. (Hassell Studio, 2018) Figure 11: Design proposal for Mars habitat by Hassell Studio

Source: Hassell Studio (2018). NASA 3D Printed Habitat Challenge. Retrieved from https://www.hassellstudio.com/project/nasa-3d-printedhabitat-challenge

Extra-terrestrial 3D Printing Technologies To use smart autonomous robotic tools in construction increases for terrestrial architecture day by day. The prime reasons to shift labour forces from human to robots are undoubtedly dramatic time and cost effects. 3D printing technology becomes widespread in construction fields with the advances in robotics in the last ten years, especially for poor societies that cannot afford to build houses. There is also another aspect to benefit the power of 3D printing in extreme environments. However, the autonomous construction technology and material use need to develop more in outer space and on other celestial bodies. Here, some of the breakthroughs in 3D printing for space had been analysed and were shown:

Proceedings of the ATI 2020: “Smart Buildings, Smart Cities” 27-30.04.2020, Yaşar University – Izmir - Turkey D-Shape 3D printing technology uses stereolithography technique that is a special binding process for sand with the help of an inorganic substance in order to get stone-like final product and was developed by Enrico Dini. The aim to rethink the construction process was to build large-scale structures while spending low effort and money in an extra-terrestrial surface environment. (Dini, 2012). One of the big advantages of materiality is that it has not poor tension resistance like ordinary concrete. The mineral-like material exhibits a great level of hardness and tensile strength because of rigid microcrystalline structure. With this method, printing shallow arches is also possible due to the material quality and regolith bed which functions as a support element under the printed structure. (Leach, 2014) However, the disadvantages of ink transportation necessity from Earth comes with the cost issue, although the main aim is to decrease the future financial load of the construction phase on celestial bodies. The main struggle to perform D-Shape is the necessity of injection fluids into a vacuum. It seems that the airless environment of the Moon and thin atmosphere of Mars are the biggest issue of D-Shape 3D printing technique in order to be sustainable. (Leach, 2014) Contour Crafting (CC) is a printing method that has a digitally controlled nozzle to extrude concrete without using formwork. Professor Behrokh Khoshnevis focused on using fast solidification of cement to have a self-supporting structure with full strength after pouring. The material of ink will be produced with in-situ resources sustainably. Contradictory to D-Shape, CC does not allow to build shallow arches and requires extra reinforcement with metal ties or cleats to provide tensile strength (Leach, 2014). In ISS as an orbital habitat and research facility, the major effect on daily life of crew is microgravity or zero-gravity environment. (Prater, 2019) 115 tools, assets and parts had been produced in the 0-G environment in between 2014 and 2016 by this additive manufacturing facility. (Fig. 12) It can clearly be predicted that 3D printing methods in outer space will be used more frequently in the near future in order to help provide broken or missing tools to the crew. (Made in Space, 2019) Figure 12 - 3D Printing research in microgravity by Made in Space

Source: Made in Space (2019). Additive Manufacturing Facility: 3D Printing The Future in Space. Retrieved from https://madeinspace.us/2019/03/20/2019-3-28-additive-manufacturing-facility-3d-printing-the-future-in-space/

Another recent work on space exploration classifies structural concepts for extra-terrestrial environments which have the consideration at the Lunar and Martian explorations. The research field is the projects as hybrid, providing the component from Earth for 1-3 years and self-sufficient large-scale colonies with in-situ material use planning for a longer period. Terrestrial-like bases, inflatable bases, cable bases, expandable bases, spacecraft landers, underground bases, cognitive and autonomous bases and mobile bases are the eight structural concepts focusing on construction and expansion of habitation. The paper concluded with future needs for efficiency and self-sufficiency progress of autonomous methods to make space colonisation possible. The structural concepts however do not reflect an architectural typology study. The researchers suggest a classification for space structures mainly. (Naser & Chehab, 2018)

Aim and Scope The two architectural domains smart architecture and space architecture mentioned earlier as can contribute to each other define the field of this study. Therefore, the researchers tried to analyse space (extra-terrestrial) architecture examples as products of smart and sustainable structures. The extra-terrestrial architectural design falls into two categories as orbital structures and surface structures. This study explores space architecture in terms of criteria set for extra-terrestrial challenges of space in order to generate a framework for evaluation of interplanetary architectural design and propose a typological framework through examining orbital structure of ISS and surface structures on Mars. The terminology of criteria is extracted from NASA STD 3001

Proceedings of the ATI 2020: “Smart Buildings, Smart Cities” 27-30.04.2020, Yaşar University – Izmir - Turkey Standards and requirements of NASA Challenges. NASA and published papers are studied in order to collect the significant and relevant studies and projects.

Methodology This study searches for a pattern of criteria for architecture in extreme environmental conditions through design challenges. The criteria of NASA habitat design competitions for Mars and outer space habitation design, excluding launch vehicles, were considered to examine the common or varied typological features of the space habitats. Space structures demonstrate sustainability starting from construction to maintenance solutions. Smartness in almost every step is crucial in order to construct, observe and maintain with remote and autonomous robotic tools. The architectural solutions of sustainable structures reveal nearly 100% use of renewable sources, new construction techniques of 3D Printing with in situ material and smart systems that provide complete isolation with hazard minimisation. Smart Architecture needs a clear definition that constructs the frame that it serves both on earth and in extra-terrestrial space. It is not limited to only terrestrial activities and Space Architecture by nature can definitely be categorized as smart architecture. However, the two categories of architecture have not been analysed in this manner. Although the two categories have their own criteria that are irrelevant outside of their own field, they definitely have common applications and concerns such as building sustainable structures and environments. Research Field The research team initially focused on ISS as a real space habitat in order to identify the criteria of extra-terrestrial designs in space due to the real troubles and solutions that had been faced since the 2000s. These parameters led to the first concrete criteria of smart architecture and structure in outer space. The questions of what, how and why the sustainable structure should be smart were clearly answered with the help of NASA STD-3001 Standards, Human Integration Handbook of NASA and analysis of modules in sections. Due to the new explorations and researches on Mars, the conceptual future Mars research habitat projects are the other valuable samples to find and classify the variable solutions for a specific extra-terrestrial environment. Both research fields had been shaped by the criteria framework of extra-terrestrial habitat for human species. In addition, Phobos' base student design competition that was conducted by AIAA in 2017 has varied projects with interesting aspects on construction and habitation solutions about environmental control and life support systems engineering. Two of the winners of competition that have distinct perspectives were chosen and analysed with regard to mentioned standards of NASA. Data/Sample Collection NASA STD-3001 Space Flight Human-System Standard Volume 2 includes some significant smart design elements and constraints of space habitability. Section 9 Hardware and Equipment part suggests about structural and spatial standardisations and minimisations of design elements in a space habitat. Additionally, NASA human integration design handbook gives detailed information about the architecture, hardware and equipment of long-term space habitability. The structural constraints and smart and sustainable design solutions were chosen and defined as typology criteria. ISS and the samples that were collected from various Mars competitions were classified with respect to the habitation technology strategy classification of Kriss Kennedy from “The Vernacular of Space Architecture” study and general features like location, settling and structural aim. The classification demonstrates the differences and similarities between projects. With the clear distinction of orbital and planetary habitats, the two classes were examined separately. The authors examined selected projects in terms of general features (Location, Latching and Assembly Type, Typology etc.), construction technology, architectural, structural and hardware components. (Tab. 3) Synchronously, the morphological features were analysed and typology of the projects were generated according to the similarities. Architecture and Hardware criteria were chosen from NASA Standards for design. The other general considerations came from the estimation of the research team after analysis of projects. The evaluation was shown with (+) and (+-) signs as “considered” and “not considered enough”.

Table 3: Evaluation of the Projects in terms of Structural and Architectural Criteria HARDWARE

Avoiding Structural Collapse

Avoiding Sharp Corners & Edges

High & Low Temperature Exposure

Protection against External Forces

Mounting & Installation

Connector Spacing

Maintainability

Entrapment

N/A

Translation Paths

Mechanical Hazard

Landing & Printing Printed Shell & Inflatable Units

Lighting

Hassell

Printed Units

Window

Alpha 3.0 Mars XHouse

Hatched and Doorways

Stationary

Mars Based

Net Habitable Volume

Immersing & Printing

Assembly Type

Mars Ice Home

Delivered

Landing & Printing

Assembly & Disassembly

Delivered & Deployed

Marsha

Durability

Deployed

Cablerestrained inflatable roof

Hazard Minimization

In-situ Constructed

Base Fearless

Phobos Based

Material Use

Pre-established bearing

Earth Manufactured

Phari Base

In-situ Related Utilisation (ISRU)

Docking

Construction Technology

Modularity & Configurability

Preintegrated

ISS

Pre-fabricated

Project

Gravity

In-situ Derived & Constructed with 3D Printing

Latching Type

Orbital

Typology

Location

Structural Aim

ARCHITECTURE

Results The Columbus module of the ISS represents the characteristics of an orbital habitat and is a unique project for analysis of space architecture typology. The Phobos, Phari Base and Base Fearless display different aspects of habitats. Two different types show the research team how architecture of the same extra-terrestrial environment can differ from each other. Mars projects were regarded for the typology study in perspective of intense studies and various projects with new ISRU and construction attempts. The research shows a variety of proposals for outer space which shows that there is not a universal perspective of the proposals for space architecture. Typologies were shaped by the considerations and priorities for the specific extra-terrestrial conditions. Therefore, the variations may decrease dramatically with the help of ISRU studies and other construction possibilities in time. The following table (Tab. 4) shows the categorisation of different space architecture projects in terms of varied smart construction or installation types, functionality of habitat use, environmental and transportation limitations, and criteria by NASA spacecraft design standards. The typology of selected projects and analysis of common features illustrate that there are three types of physical shaping forces. Three typological categories therefore appeared in terms of the sustainability approaches for construction technology, limitation of design and manufacturing types. Table 4: Typology Results of Selected Projects PROJECT

FORM

FEATURES

ISS COLUMBUS

SHAPING FORCES

-Modularity -Rocket Volume Limitation -Earth Manufactured -Fully Isolated from Exterior -Controlled Environment

PHARI BASE

-Inflatable Units -Centralised -Under one Roof/Shell -Spread functions -Considered External Forces -Delivered Units

BASE FEARLESS

HASSELL

MARS X-HOUSE

-3D Printed Habitat -Robotic Installation -All Functions in One Unit -In-situ Material Use -Limited Occupant Quantity -Considered External Forces

MARSHA

MARS ICE HOME

ALPHA 3.0

ISS Columbus module and Phari Base project for Phobos have the similar attributes of prefabricated habitats and easy reconfigurability with modularity considerations. Prefabrication process on Earth causes limitation of rocket volume capacity for 13

Proceedings of the ATI 2020: “Smart Buildings, Smart Cities” 27-30.04.2020, Yaşar University – Izmir - Turkey habitats. Also, a fully isolated environment provides a well-controlled habitat to avoid airlessness and excessive radiation for both. The docking systems allow the same modularity approach with two air lock gates at the both ends. Base Fearless and Hassell projects had been designed with similar approaches in order to shape a multifunctional habitat under a large-scale roof. The aim of the structures is to protect the whole area from the rough external conditions and give the flexibility and low risk inside. The separation of different functions with distance and airlock systems is also a similar concern to minimize the risk of danger for both habitats. Mars X-House V2, Marsha, Mars Ice Home and Alpha 3.0 are 3D printed habitat projects which have the same single unit approach on Mars. The main factor that brings these projects together is the smart construction process and strong sustainability concerns with autonomous robotic tools and in-situ material use on building processes. Although the variation of construction materials (ice water, cement etc.) and the different experiences inside the habitat can be observed for each of them, the language of the outer shells which are formed by the shaping forces directly are very similar to each other.

Conclusion To survive in an extra-terrestrial environment, architects need to consider sustainability and self-sufficiency of habitats in every phase. Hence, smart architectural tools have to be innovated and/or implemented to the whole process. The findings were shaped by these considerations and were analysed and classified with regard to characteristics of structural and architectural elements that are essential in the design criteria of NASA’s and other relevant studies. The research suggests three typological categories that had been grouped with similar considerations and external shaping forces. When smart architectural tools are considered in extra-terrestrial architecture, architects should determine the human-machine interface and time-cost efficiency initially. 3D printing techniques illustrate the difficulty of construction in space. However, there is a huge progress in this field with the help of ISRU studies. The authors sought projects for space in connection with these two main considerations. The projects were therefore selected from Mars and Phobos challenges of NASA for long-term space habitats. Smart environmental control systems were also essential to choose as a sample for this typological study. On the other hand, Mars is picked for its high potential of valuable resources in order to construct a secure habitat and survive. The typology findings had been generated from these projects which have the high concerns of sustainability with smart and selfsufficient solutions. The authors classified works according to structural characteristics and varied sustainable proposals in the construction phase of projects. Although each example of space architecture seems to be unique, the researchers sought for finding a pattern to frame several architectural solutions suggested for inhabiting outer space. The findings are not limited to only formal typologies but are classification of other characteristics of human habitats and physical forces acting on these structures. The researchers aimed to frame a discussion for what smart architecture’s limits are and to introduce space architecture as being within those limits. Humans are still far from reaching the frontiers of colonizing outer space i.e. the Moon, Mars, Venus and/or Phobos. However, this journey also has a history of successful steps taken by the human kind. Therefore, architects on earth need to reconsider that space architecture is not a fictional concept but an imminent spin-off of terrestrial architecture when merged with smart architecture. Sustainable structures and habitation proposals lead the smart architecture in space vitally. The whole habitation process from construction to utilisation phase has to be sustainable in order to survive in an extra-terrestrial environment. Thus, architects have the ability to shape the dangerous habits into beneficial considerations for outer space. The first circumstance of change to inhabit far from earth is observed in unmanned construction with fully or semi-autonomous 3D printing technology. It comes with an essential advantage of not only dramatic decrease of risk but also creating time and cost efficiency with in-situ material use. ISRU attempts for producing O2 and necessary materials from rich elements on celestial bodies make also habitation possible to live in for a long duration after construction.

Future Work The research team can develop parametric models as a next study to improve the typology results. Therefore, the effects of criteria and design considerations can define the form of projects more precisely. Also, Lunar projects which are seen more often in recent architectural competitions may be added to compare with Mars projects. The research can focus on the structural differences between the habitats for colonisation and first research travel purposes. Additionally, 4D printing technology is an epochal new method as a significant stepstone for the future of architecture. It is inevitable that 4D printing will lead 3D printing in the construction process. A recent study shows the big potential of controlbased 4D printing techniques with dynamic structures, stimuli-responsive constructs and even changing the features via sensory feedback. (Zolfagharian, 2020) Also, it is highly possible 4D-printed structures will be in communication with artificial intelligent

Proceedings of the ATI 2020: “Smart Buildings, Smart Cities” 27-30.04.2020, Yaşar University – Izmir - Turkey systems to evaluate and progress itself. Future works can issue this new generation printing technique as a smart sustainability solution for future space structures and how a structure in extra-terrestrial habitats may vary.

References 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26.

27. 28.

Aldrich F.K. (2003). Smart Homes: Past, Present and Future. In: Harper R. (eds) Inside the Smart Home. Springer, London Adams, C. & Jones, R. (2014). From the International Style to the International Space Station. Architectural Design. Edited by Neil Leach Johnson, R.D. Ed. (1977). Space Settlements: A Design Study. NASA Ames Research Center Charles Holbrow. Colgate University Scientific and Technical Information Office Kennedy, K. (2002). The Vernacular of Space Architecture. AIAA Space Architecture Symposium National Aeronautics and Space Administration. (2010). Human Integration Design Handbook. Retrieved from https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/human_integration_design_handbook_revision_1.pdf Miller, M. (2016). Why NASA Needs Architects and Designers. Fast Company. Retrieved from https://www.fastcompany.com/3061839/why-nasa-needs-architects-and-designers National Aeronautics and Space Administration. (2015). 3D-Printed Habitat Challenge. Retrieved from https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/spacetech/centennial_challenges/3DPHab_p1.html Leach, N. (2014). Space Architecture: The New Frontier for Design Research. Architectural Design. Edited by Neil Leach Häuplik-Meusburger, Sandra (2014). Astronauts Orbiting on Their Stomachs: The Need to Design for the Consumption and Production of Food in Space. Architectural Design. Edited by Neil Leach Whitmire, A., Leveton, L., Broughton, H., Basner, M., Kearney, A. (2014). Minimum Acceptable Net Habitable Volume for Long-Duration Exploration Missions Subject Matter Expert Consensus Session Report. Human Research Program. Retrieved from https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20140016951 National Aeronautics and Space Administration. (2010). Reference Guide to the International Space Station. Retrieved from https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/508318main_ISS_ref_guide_nov2010.pdf National Aeronautics and Space Administration. (2019). Space Station Assembly. Retrieved from https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/structure/elements/space-station-assembly Leach, N. (2014). Terrestrial Feedback: Reflections on the Space Industry. Architectural Design. Edited by Neil Leach Zubrin, R. (2014) Colonising the Red Planet. Architectural Design. Edited by Neil Leach Cohen, Marc M., Rodman D., Hodgson E. (2019). 70 th International Astronautical Congress (IAC) National Aeronautics and Space Administration. (2019). NASA Spaceflight Human-System Standards Volume 2: Human Factors, Habitability, and Environmental Health National Aeronautics and Space Administration & Bradley University (2018). On-Site Habitat Competition Rules. Retrieved from https://www.bradley.edu/sites/challenge/assets/documents/3DPH_Phase_3_Rules-v3.pdf Gillard, E. (2017). A New Home on Mars: NASA Langley’s Icy Concept for Living on the Red Planet. Retrieved from https://www.nasa.gov/feature/langley/a-new-home-on-mars-nasa-langley-s-icy-concept-for-living-on-the-red-planet SEArch+. (2019) Mars Ice Home. Retrieved from http://www.spacexarch.com/mars-ice-home SEArch+. (2019) Mars X-House V2. Retrieved from http://www.spacexarch.com/mars-xhouse-v2 AI SpaceFactory. (2019) Marsha AI Spacefactory’s Mars Habitat. Retrieved from https://www.aispacefactory.com/marsha Mars City Design (2018). ALPHA 3.0. Retrieved from https://www.marscitydesign.com/nasa-3d-printed-habitat Hassell Studio (2018). NASA 3D Printed Habitat Challenge. Retrieved from https://www.hassellstudio.com/project/nasa-3dprinted-habitat-challenge Enrico Dini (2012). Printing Architecture. Fabricating the Future. Tongji University Press Leach, N. (2014). 3D Printing in Space. Architectural Design. Edited by Neil Leach Prater, T., Werkheiser, N., Ledbetter, F., Timucin, D., Wheeler, K. and Snyder, M. (2019). 3D Printing in Zero G Technology Demonstration Mission: complete experimental results and summary of related material modeling efforts. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 391–417 Made in Space (2019). Additive Manufacturing Facility: 3D Printing The Future in Space. Retrieved from https://madeinspace.us/2019/03/20/2019-3-28-additive-manufacturing-facility-3d-printing-the-future-in-space/ Zolfagharian, A., Kaynak, A., Bodaghi, M., Kouzani, A., Gharaie, S. and Nahavandi, S. (2020). Control-Based 4D Printing: Adaptive 4D-Printed Systems