Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Lunar Habitats”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 199 records · Page 11

Prefabricated foldable lunar base modular systems for habitats, offices, and laboratories

The first habitat and work station on the lunar surface undoubtedly has to be prefabricated, self-erecting, and self-contained. The building structure should be folded and compacted to the minimum size and made of materials of minimum weight. It must also be designed to provide maximum possible habitable and usable space on the Moon. For this purpose the concept of multistory, foldable structures was further developed. The idea is to contain foldable structural units in a cylinder or in a capsule adapted for launching. Upon landing on the lunar surface, the cylinder of the first proposal in this paper will open in two hinge-connected halves while the capsule of the second proposal will expand horizontally and vertically in all directions. In both proposals, the foldable structural units will self-erect providing a multistory building with several room enclosures. The solar radiation protection is maintained through regolith-filled pneumatic structures as in the first proposal, or two regolith-filled expandable capsule shells as in the second one, which provide the shielding while being supported by the erected internal skeletal structure.

Hijazi, Yousef↗

The first lunar outpost: The design reference mission and a new era in lunar science

The content of the First Lunar Outpost (FLO) Design Reference Mission has been formulated and a 'strawman' science program has been established. The mission consists of two independent launches using heavy lift vehicles that land directly on the lunar surface. A habitat module and support systems are flown to the Moon first. After confirmation of a successful deployment of the habitat systems, the crewed lunar lander is launched and piloted to within easy walking distance (2 km) of the habitat. By eliminating the Apollo style lunar orbit rendezvous, landing sites at very high latitudes can be considered. A surface rover and the science experiments will accompany the crew. The planned stay time is 45 days, two lunar days and one night. A payload of 3.3 metric tons will support a series of geophysics, geology, astronomy, space physics, resource utilization, and life science experiments. Sample return is 150 to 200 kg. The rover is unpressurized and can carry four astronauts or two astronauts and 500 kg of payload. The rover can also operate in robotic mode with the addition of a robotics package. The science and engineering experiment strategy is built around a representative set of place holder experiments.

Lofgren, Gary E.↗

Design Analysis for Lunar Safe Haven Concepts

NASA’s plan to return humans to the lunar surface faces many challenges, especially in the sustained phases of the Artemis program. In combination with a habitat, a Lunar Safe Haven (LSH) would provide additional protection to crew, electronics, and equipment from the hazards of the space environment such as radiation, thermal extremes, micrometeoroids, and lunar dust. Influenced by the NASA Artemis program goals, the Lunar Safe Haven Study defined the high-level requirements, outlined the trade space for a LSH concept, and evaluated a set of concepts using a decision analysis structure. This paper will provide additional detail for two concepts that were designed and evaluated during the LSH study, the logic behind the choices, and some of the main driving design parameters.

lunar↗

Bio-inspired Surface Structures to Mitigate Interfacial Particle Adhesion and Erosion - A Review

Lunar dust known as regolith is a huge challenge for lunar exploration missions. Formed over millennia by a complex process involving impacts of meteoroids and micrometeoroids on the lunar surface, lunar dust is porous, highly abrasive with sharp jagged edges, chemically reactive, electrostatically charged and sometimes magnetic. The chemical composition and thickness of the dust layer also varies in different regions of the lunar surface. From samples obtained by previous lunar missions, the average particle size is below 100 microns. This dust has the tendency to strongly adhere to any exposed surfaces, and often degrades the material functionality to eventually cause failure. Any material on the lunar surface is also subject to harsh temperature cycles ranging from -178 ̊C to + 123 ̊C and extreme ultraviolet radiation. While on the lunar surface, different classes of materials would be required for different applications. Advanced materials have been and will be used throughout the lunar lander, habitat, and mission equipment. Examples include: polymeric materials for astronaut protective clothing; metals and ceramics for the lunar lander legs and habitats, and excavating equipment; and semiconductors for solar panels and on-board electronics. In all these applications, the surfaces of the materials are expected or understood to be exposed to the extreme lunar environment condition that includes the regolith dust. During the Apollo missions, the dust clung to and abraded the astronaut’s suits, degraded seals, optics, clogged sensors and reduced performance of thermal radiators. The lunar dust adheres to the surface by various mechanisms, which include electrostatic and Coulombic interactions, Van-der-Waals forces, magnetic forces, mechanical interlocking, chemical bonding and donor-acceptor interactions. There are three primary strategies for developing technologies to minimize the lunar dust adhesion: active, passive and a combination of active and passive. In the active approach, an external energy is needed to prevent or remove particles from collecting on the surface. Mechanically powered brushes and electrodynamic dust screens are two examples. In the passive approach, no external power is needed, and the material surface properties are able to mitigate dust adhesion. A well-known example of this strategy is the low work function coatings for non-stick surfaces. In most cases a combination of active and passive methods might be needed to optimally manage the lunar regolith. The passive method is significantly more attractive as it does not require any external power or an additional control subsystem. These approaches optimize the mission payload and reduce risk. Surface modification to minimize the dust adhesion is thus very important to lunar missions. Here, naturally evolved surface structures might provide guidance for solutions. There are several factors that have to be considered for minimizing particle adhesion to a surface. These include the substrate material properties, surface topography, chemistry, and the characteristics of the adhering particles. When engineering a surface, the substrate material chosen would be dependent on the needs of the application. Tailoring the surface microstructure or chemistry opens up more possibilities for its optimal utilization

Lunar Dust↗

NASA’s Moon to Mars (M2M) Transit Habitat Refinement Point of Departure Design

As NASA prepares for the next human footsteps on the lunar surface, the Agency is already looking ahead to systems that will enable a sustained human presence on the lunar surface and mission to Mars, including a lunar Surface Habitat (SH) and Mars Transit Habitat (TH). This paper describes the latest NASA government reference design for the TH and how it will support NASA's Moon to Mars human exploration architecture. First, it will serve as a test and demonstration platform in lunar orbit, demonstrating capabilities required for long-duration microgravity human spaceflight as part of the lunar-Mars analog missions. Then, the TH will serve as a major Mars exploration element to support crew habitation during their transit from the Earth’s orbit to Mars and returning safely before TH’s return to a lunar orbit. This paper will cover several considerations contributing to the latest habitat design refinement, including the TH's concept of operations, system functional definition, subsystem assumptions, notional interior layouts, a detailed mass and volume breakdown, and identify future trade studies and analyses required to close identified technology/ development/architecture gaps. In addition to a technical description of the TH, this paper describes how the current TH government reference design will achieve many of the current lunar and Mars mission goals. Additionally, there are many assumed technological advances needed to support the prescribed mission phases leading up to the crewed mission to Mars in the late 2030s. The paper will describe many of the TH systems requiring further technology development and identify architectural solutions to achieve these mass, reliability, autonomy, and crew health targets. As a whole, the data shows the government reference TH design meeting the 26.4 metric ton launch /trans-Mars injection burn control mass limit outlined within NASA’s Moon to Mars Campaign. This is achievable near the desired timeframe with moderate strategic investments including maintainable life support systems, innovative structures configuration and materials, and system/ logistics packaging. The resulting design detail and data contained in this paper are intended to help teams across NASA and potential commercial, academic, or international partners understand the current performance targets of the Transit Habitat and vehicle interface considerations imposed by the latest Moon to Mars mission scope.

Habitation Systems↗

Recommended Crew Systems Capabilities for a 30 to 90 Day Four-Crew Lunar Surface Mission

For any given surface mission duration, there exists a set of surface capabilities necessary to sustain a four-person crew for the length of time the crew is on the surface. Identifying these capabilities is important to mission planners and spacecraft design engineers responsible for lunar surface habitation elements, who need to know which systems and capabilities must be prioritized for the vehicles they are designing. However, simply identifying the surface capabilities does not necessarily equal a viable surface configuration. These capabilities may or may not satisfy stakeholder expectations or even permit completion of mission objectives. Lunar lander cargo mass constraints are a powerful forcing function that requires significant efforts to reduce the mass of all surface elements, including those supporting crew habitation. The required capabilities do increase as a function of mission duration, but it is a nonlinear growth. There are key points in mission duration, beyond which certain additional capabilities are needed. This forms bands of capability between each point. Within a given band, the same functional capabilities are needed, and the only scaling is that associated with daily consumables. The next higher band requires additional capabilities. This paper will focus on those capabilities needed for missions of 30-90 days. It should be noted that there are some uncertainties interpreting NASA requirements that require capabilities after a certain number of days, as typically this refers to number of days in space, not number of days on the lunar surface. Depending on transportation architecture, the number of days between Earth launch and lunar surface landing may vary, therefore impacting when certain required capabilities are implemented. However, activities to prepare humans for missions to Mars and commercial interest in lunar development may drive progressive increases in surface duration. Missions up to 30 days are expected to follow the initial 6.5-day surface missions and there may be commercial interest in extending to even greater durations. This paper will examine the potential case of a 30-90-day surface mission duration with respect to the systems necessary to support crew living and working on the lunar surface.

Habitat↗

NASA’s Moon to Mars (M2M) Transit Habitat (TH) Refinement Point of Departure (PoD) Design

As NASA prepares for the next human footsteps on the lunar surface, the Agency is already looking ahead to systems that will enable a sustained human presence on the lunar surface and mission to Mars, including a lunar Surface Habitat and Mars Transit Habitat (TH). This paper describes the latest NASA government reference design for the TH and how it will support NASA's Moon to Mars human exploration architecture. First, it will serve as a test and demonstration platform in lunar orbit, demonstrating capabilities required for long-duration microgravity human spaceflight as part of the lunar-Mars analog missions. Then, the TH will also serve as a major Mars habitation exploration element to support the crew during their transit from the lunar orbit to Mars and returning them safely to lunar orbit. This paper will cover several considerations contributing to the latest habitat design refinement, including data on the TH's concept of operations, system functional definition, subsystem assumptions, notional interior layouts, a detailed mass and volume breakdown, and trade studies and analyses required to close identified technology/ development/architecture gaps. In addition to a technical description of the TH, this paper describes how the current TH government reference design will achieve many of the current lunar and Mars mission goals. Additionally, there are many assumed technological advances needed to support the prescribed mission phases leading up to the crewed mission to Mars in the late 2030s. The paper will describe many of the TH systems requiring further technology development and identify architectural solutions to achieve these mass, reliability, autonomy, and crew health targets. As a whole, the data in the paper shows that a TH meeting the 43 metric tons launch mass/trans-Mars injection burn limits specified by the Evolvable Mars Campaign is achievable near the desired timeframe with moderate strategic investments including maintainable life support systems, re-purposable structures and packaging, and lightweight exercise modalities. It also identifies operational and technological options to reduce this mass to less than 41 metric tons, including staging of launch structure/packaging and alternate structural materials. The resulting design detail and data contained in this paper are intended to help teams across NASA and potential commercial, academic, or international partners understand the current performance targets of the Transit Habitat and vehicle interface considerations imposed by the latest Moon to Mars mission scope.

Habitation Systems↗

The Second Conference on Lunar Bases and Space Activities of the 21st Century, volume 2

These 92 papers comprise a peer-reviewed selection of presentations by authors from NASA, the Lunar and Planetary Institute (LPI), industry, and academia at the Second Conference on Lunar Bases and Space Activities of the 21st Century. These papers go into more technical depth than did those published from the first NASA-sponsored symposium on the topic, held in 1984. Session topics included the following: (1) design and operation of transportation systems to, in orbit around, and on the Moon; (2) lunar base site selection; (3) design, architecture, construction, and operation of lunar bases and human habitats; (4) lunar-based scientific research and experimentation in astronomy, exobiology, and lunar geology; (5) recovery and use of lunar resources; (6) environmental and human factors of and life support technology for human presence on the Moon; and (7) program management of human exploration of the Moon and space.

Mendell, Wendell W.↗

Lunar Contour Crafting: A Novel Technique for ISRU-Based Habitat Development

1. Habitat Structures at MSFC is one element of the In-Situ Fabrication and Repair (ISFR) Program: ISFR develops technologies for fabrication, repair and recycling of tools, parts, and habitats/structures using in-situ resources. ISRU - based habitat structures are considered Class III. 2. Habitat Structure Purpose: Develop Lunar and/or Martian habitat structures for manned missions that maximize the use of in-situ resources to address the following agency topics: bioastronautics critical path roadmap; strategic technical challenges defined in H&RT formulation plan: margins and redundancy; modularity, robotic network, space resource utilization; autonomy, affordable logistics pre-positioning.

Khoshnevis, Behrokh↗

Considerations Regarding the Development of an Environmental Control and Life Support System for Lunar Surface Applications

NASA is engaged in early architectural analyses and trade studies aimed at identifying requirements, predicting performance and resource needs, characterizing mission constraints and sensitivities, and guiding technology development planning needed to conduct a successful human exploration campaign of the lunar surface. Conceptual designs and resource estimates for environmental control and life support systems (ECLSS) within pressurized lunar surface habitats and rovers have been considered and compared in order to support these lunar campaign studies. This paper will summarize those concepts and some of the more noteworthy considerations that will likely remain as key drivers in the evolution of the lunar surface ECLSS architecture.

Bagdigian, Robert M.↗

The Habitat Demonstration Unit System Integration

The Lunar Surface System Habitat Demonstration Unit (HDU) will require the project team to integrate a variety of contributions from NASA centers and potential outside collaborators and poses a challenge in integrating these disparate efforts into a cohesive architecture. To accomplish the development of the HDU from conception in June 2009 to rollout for operations in July 2010, the HDU team is using several strategies to mitigate risks and bring the separate efforts together. First, a set of design standards is being developed to define the interfaces between the various systems of HDU and to the payloads, such as the Geology Lab, that those systems will support. Scheduled activities such as early fit-checks and the utilization of a Habitat avionics test bed prior to equipment installation into HDU. A coordinated effort to establish simplified Computer Aided Design standards and the utilization of a modeling and simulation systems will aid in design and integration concept development. Finally, decision processes on the shell development including the assembly sequence and the transportation have been fleshed out early on HDU to maximize the efficiency of both integration and field operations.

Kennedy, Kriss J.↗

The Habitat Demonstration Unit System Integration

The Lunar Surface System Habitat Demonstration Unit (HDU) will require a project team to integrate a variety of contributions from National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) centers and potential outside collaborators and poses a challenge in integrating these disparate efforts into a cohesive architecture. To accomplish the development of the first version of the HDU, the Pressurized Excursion Module (PEM), from conception in June 2009 to rollout for operations in July 2010, the HDU project team is using several strategies to mitigate risks and bring the separate efforts together. First, a set of design standards is being developed to define the interfaces between the various systems of PEM and to the payloads, such as the Geology Laboratory, that those systems will support. Scheduled activities such as early fit-checks and the utilization of a habitat avionics test bed prior to equipment installation into HDU PEM are planned to facilitate the integration process. A coordinated effort to establish simplified Computer Aided Design (CAD) standards and the utilization of a modeling and simulation systems will aid in design and integration concept development. Finally, decision processes on the shell development including the assembly sequence and the transportation have been fleshed out early on HDU design to maximize the efficiency of both integration and field operations.

Gill, Tracy R.↗

Surface Habitat Systems

The Surface Habitat Systems (SHS) Focused Investment Group (FIG) is part of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Johnson Space Center (JSC) effort to provide a focused direction and funding to the various projects that are working on human surface habitat designs and technologies for the planetary exploration missions. The overall SHS-FIG effort focuses on directing and guiding those projects that: 1) develop and demonstrate new surface habitat system concepts, innovations, and technologies to support human exploration missions, 2) improve environmental systems that interact with human habitats, 3) handle and emplace human surface habitats, and 4) focus on supporting humans living and working in habitats on planetary surfaces. The activity areas of the SHS FIG described herein are focused on the surface habitat project near-term objectives as described in this document. The SHS-FIG effort focuses on mitigating surface habitat risks (as identified by the Lunar Surface Systems Project Office (LSSPO) Surface Habitat Element Team; and concentrates on developing surface habitat technologies as identified in the FY08 gap analysis. The surface habitat gap assessment will be updated annually as the surface architecture and surface habitat definition continues to mature. These technologies are mapped to the SHS-FIG Strategic Development Roadmap. The Roadmap will bring to light the areas where additional innovative efforts are needed to support the development of habitat concepts and designs and the development of new technologies to support of the LSSPO Habitation Element development plan. Three specific areas of development that address Lunar Architecture Team (LAT)-2 and Constellation Architecture Team (CxAT) Lunar habitat design issues or risks will be focused on by the SHS-FIG. The SHS-FIG will establish four areas of development that will help the projects prepare in their planning for surface habitat systems development. Those development areas are the 1) surface habitat concept definition, 2) inflatable surface habitat development, and 3) autonomous habitat operations, and 4) cross-cutting / systems engineering. In subsequent years, the SHS-FIG will solicit a call for innovations and technologies that will support the development of these four development areas. The other development areas will be assessed yearly and identified on the SHS-FIG s Strategic Development Roadmap. Initial investment projects that are funded by the Constellation Program Office (CxPO), LSSPO, or the Exploration Technology Development Projects (ETDP) will also be included on the Roadmap. For example, in one or two years from now, the autonomous habitat operations and testbed would collaborations with the Integrated Systems Health Management (ISHM) and Automation for Operations ETDP projects, which will give the surface habitat projects an integrated habitat autonomy testbed to test software and systems. The SHS-FIG scope is to provide focused direction for multiple innovations, technologies and subsystems that are needed to support humans at a remote planetary surface habitat during the concept development, design definition, and integration phases of that project. Subsystems include: habitability, lightweight structures, power management, communications, autonomy, deployment, outfitting, life support, wireless connectivity, lighting, thermal and more.

Kennedy, Kriss J.↗

Comparative Benchmark Dose Modeling as a Tool to Make the First Estimate of Safe Human Exposure Levels to Lunar Dust

Brief exposures of Apollo Astronauts to lunar dust occasionally elicited upper respiratory irritation; however, no limits were ever set for prolonged exposure ot lunar dust. Habitats for exploration, whether mobile of fixed must be designed to limit human exposure to lunar dust to safe levels. We have used a new technique we call Comparative Benchmark Dose Modeling to estimate safe exposure limits for lunar dust collected during the Apollo 14 mission.

James, John T.↗

Assessment of Crew Time for Maintenance and Repairs Activities for Lunar Surface Missions

NASA is currently evaluating different methods to predict how much time crewmembers will spend conducting repair and maintenance activities on future space missions. As mission scope and spacecraft architectures change, it will be necessary to understand how crew repair and maintenance timelines are impacted by mission operations and technology changes. Past work has been done using historical ISS data to accurately predict crew habitation and operation timelines, resulting in the development of NASA’s Exploration Crew Time Model (ECTM). However, understanding crew maintenance and repair requirements has posed a unique challenge due to the complexity of available datasets, the probabilistic nature of sub-system failures, and the impacts of reliability growth on failure rates. This paper presents a methodology to collect and condition empirical repair and maintenance time data from available data sets, to extrapolate from that data to estimate projected maintenance and repair times for a lunar Surface Habitat, and to assess how uncertainty in repair time could impact utilization time on the lunar surface. NASA International Space Station (ISS) maintenance and crew time data are logged into two central databases, the Maintenance Data Collection (MDC) and the Operations Planning Timeline Integration System (OPTimIS) respectively. Separately, each of these two datasets capture only portions of the complete set of data required to generate an accurate assessment of crew time spent on maintenance activities at a sub-system level. MDC provides a detailed catalog of failure events and an overview of the failure’s required maintenance and OPTimIS provides a description of crew activities and crew time durations dedicated to maintenance. To create a more useful crew time estimate for maintenance timelines, the authors developed a methodology to capture relevant data from each set and combine and utilize that data by linking crew time requirements to specific components. The authors compare the failure logs in the MDC to crew activity logs pulled from OPTimIS and then process the data to estimate required repair times for each failure event. Data is also classified by the outcome of each repair event, whether the failed component was replaced or whether it was repaired in place. The entire maintenance activity dataset is then categorized based on the class of failed component to allow for a statistically significant sample size for each class and to provide accurate crew time estimates for any components lacking relevant data. This resultant component repair time data can be used in the future to generate Mean Time To Repair (MTTR) estimates and confidence intervals for each class of component based on a probabilistic distribution of documented maintenance events. These improved MTTR values can then be applied to candidate element sub-system architectures, along with component Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) data to generate distributions for potential required system crew repair time estimates for a given mission. Repair time distributions can then be used to develop more accurate crew schedules and to assess potential available utilization time.

Crew Time↗

Surface Transportation of the Common Habitat from Lander to Habitation Zone

The Common Habitat Architecture is a feasibility study surrounding the use of an SLS core stage liquid oxygen tank as the pressure vessel for a long-duration habitat intended for use in multiple gravity environments. The Common Habitat is used within this study as the primary habitation element in both Moon and Mars surface base camps. The Common Habitat Architecture offloads the Common Habitat from its lander and transports it to a Habitation Zone instead of leaving the habitat integrated with the lander. In this study, the Landing Zone is assumed to be approximately 3.5 kilometers from the Habitation Zone. Given the physical size and estimated 90-ton mass of the Common Habitat, a four-week trade study encompassing Moon and Mars lander identification, offloading, surface transport, and emplacement was conducted in February 2021 to assess whether there are any credible options for landing the Common Habitat on the Moon or Mars and deliver it to its intended point of use. Constrained to use only public data, the study applied subject matter expert opinion to each component of the study. The surface transportation component of the trade study assumes the habitat has been successfully offloaded from its lander and is at a point of handover to the surface transportation system. It is assumed that there are no crew present, and all human operations are performed remotely by Mission Control personnel. Three core cargo handling elements from prior NASA studies were used as the basis from which to derive surface transportation options – the Chariot, the All-Terrain Hex-Limbed Extra-Terrestrial Explorer, and the Lightweight Surface Manipulator System. Variations and hybrid combinations of these elements were used to develop transportation options for the Moon and Mars, given different habitat masses. Ultimately, several potentially feasible solutions were identified, and a solution was recommended that is common to both the Moon and Mars, with the potential to use a dissimilar system as a backup during lunar Common Habitat delivery. Next steps for sizing and additional development and analysis of the recommended surface transportation system are included as forward work.

Surface Mobility↗

Assessment of Crew Time for Maintenance and Repair Activities for Lunar Surface Missions

NASA is currently evaluating different methods to predict how much time crewmembers will spend conducting repair and maintenance activities on future space missions. As mission scope and spacecraft architectures change, understanding how crew repair and maintenance timelines are impacted by mission operations and technology changes is vital for future mission planning. Past work has been done using historical International Space Station (ISS) data to accurately predict crew habitation and operation timelines, resulting in the development of NASA’s Exploration Crew Time Model (ECTM). However, understanding crew maintenance and repair requirements has posed a unique challenge due to the complexity of available datasets, the probabilistic nature of sub-system failures, and the impacts of reliability growth on failure rates. This paper presents a methodology to collect and condition empirical repair and maintenance time data from available datasets, to extrapolate from that data to estimate projected maintenance and repair times for a lunar Surface Habitat (SH), and to assess how uncertainty in repair time could impact utilization time on the lunar surface. NASA ISS maintenance and crew time data are logged into two central databases: the Maintenance Data Collection (MDC) and the Operations Planning Timeline Integration System (OPTimIS). Separately, each of these two datasets capture only portions of the complete set of data required to generate an accurate assessment of crew time spent on maintenance activities at a sub-system level. To create a more useful crew time estimate for maintenance timelines, the authors developed a methodology to capture relevant data from each set and combine and utilize that data by linking crew time requirements to specific components. The authors compare the failure logs in the MDC to crew activity logs pulled from OPTimIS and then process the data to estimate required repair time for each failure and repair event. The entire maintenance activity dataset is then categorized based on the class of failed component to ensure a significant sample size for each class and accurate crew time estimates for any components lacking relevant data. This resultant component repair time data can be used in the future to generate Mean Time to Repair (MTTR) estimates and confidence intervals for each class of component based on a probabilistic distribution of documented maintenance events. These improved MTTR values can then be applied to candidate element sub-system architectures, along with component Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) data to generate distributions for potential required system crew repair time estimates for a given mission. The authors applied these modeling methods to a case study of a crewed mission to the planned SH and produced expected corrective maintenance crew time distributions. The results produced an expected corrective maintenance crew time at over 24 hours per mission, and a maintenance crew time distribution that reflects the importance of planning for sufficient maintenance requirements each mission. Repair time distributions can then be used to develop more accurate crew schedules and to assess potential available utilization time.

Crew Time↗

Lunar Base Life Support Failures

Dynamic simulation of the lunar outpost habitat life support was undertaken to investigate the impact of life support failures and to investigate responses. Some preparatory static analysis for the Lunar Outpost life support model, an earlier version of the model, and an investigation into the impact of Extravehicular Activity (EVA) were reported previously. (Jones, 2008-01-2184, 2008-01-2017) The earlier model was modified to include possible resupply delays, power failures, recycling system failures, and atmosphere and other material storage failures. Most failures impact the lunar outpost water balance and can be mitigated by reducing water usage. Food solids, nitrogen can be obtained only by resupply from Earth. The most time urgent failure is a lass of carbon dioxide removal capability. Life support failures might be survivable if effective operational solutions are provided in the system design.

Jones, Harry W.↗