COSMOS magazine

Get COSMOS Teacher's Notes
  • Add this story to stumbleupon
  • Add this story to Yahoo Buzz
  • Add this story to Digg
  • Add this story to reddit
  • Add this story to Slashdot
  • Add this story to newsvine
  • Add this story to facebook
  • Add this story to technorati
  • Add this story to del-icio-us
  • Add this story to furl

News

Self-sufficient space habitat designed

Tuesday, 9 October 2007
Cosmos Online
Self-sufficient space habitat designed

Space living: The Luna Gaia design would reduce the need for costly supply missions to ferry food, air and water backwards and forwards from colonies on the Moon and Mars.

Credit: NASA

SYDNEY: Australian-led scientists have designed a new space habitat that might one day allow astronauts on the Moon or Mars to be 90 to 95 per cent self-sufficient.

The development of such as system could save billions of dollars in shuttle trips to re-supply lunar or space colonies and brings closer the vision of a human habitat on Mars.

The technology could also have applications on Earth to develop more sustainable farming techniques and improve recycling processes.

Luna Gaia

Some systems to recycle water and air have already been developed and rudimentary versions are presently used in the International Space Station (ISS). However, the proposed new lunar habitat "combines our existing knowledge" of physical, chemical and biological processes to provide an "overall picture of how a minibiosphere would work," said James Chartres aerospace engineer at the University of Adelaide in South Australia. He gave a talk detailing the design at the Australian Space Science Conference held in Sydney last month.

The project is in some ways similar to the failed Biosphere 2 experiment, built in Arizona, U.S., in the late 1980s. Over an area of 12,000 m2, Biosphere housed a closed ecological system, incorporating a mini 'ocean' with coral reefs, as well as a grassland, desert, mangrove, rainforest and agricultural areas. Eight people survived in the habitat for two years, but a lack of food and low levels of oxygen hampered the experiment. Chartres detailed plans for a smaller, space-bound concept, dubbed Luna Gaia.

Devised by an international team of 30 space scientists, Luna Gaia would be a 'closed-loop' environment, meaning that almost all material within the system is recycled with very little need for input from outside sources. The current design caters for a team of 12 astronauts under isolation for up to three years.

Currently, recycling that occurs on the ISS is driven by chemical reactions. A big challenge to developing a totally integrated system is developing a biological recycling system said Chartres. He argues that for efficient recycling, microorganisms are required.

Crops in space

His team devised a new system that takes into account all details of living in an enclosed system in space, even down to the materials that supplies are packed in.

The Luna Gaia concept integrates technologies such as the Closed Equilibrated Biological Aquatic System (CEBAS), an enclosed aquarium designed by the German Aerospace Centre and the Micro-Ecological Life Support System Alternative (MELIiSSA) developed by the European Space Agency. MELIiSSA uses microbes to purify water, recycle carbon dioxide and derive edible material from waste products.

Algae – which generates oxygen from carbon dioxide via photosynthesis, and doesn't require pollinating – is the key to the proposed design.

The food required for astronauts would come from a mixture of tending small crops and from pre-packed supplies. Such crops would include peanuts, lettuce, tomatoes, carrots and wheat. In addition, certain types of algae, such as Spirulina or Chlorella would provide other vitamins, minerals and trace elements.

The diet would be largely vegetarian, said Chartres, but protein could potentially come from small-scale farming of fast-growing fish such tilapia.

A lunar base is unlikely to ever be 100 per cent self-sufficient, said Chartres, because no atmosphere is completely safe from leaks and it could not provide humans with all the nutrients that they need to survive.

Moreover, astronauts need the occasional break to the routine of standard food, so the odd "luxury item such as fruit salad, spices or chocolate," would ward off any doldrums, he said.

Significant hurdles

Pathogens introduced to the system by plants, as well as difficulties of pollination for crops still pose significant hurdles to the design. In addition, as much as 20 m2 of plants would be required to feed a single astronaut.

The proposed system, is unlikely to be up and running any time soon. Chartres estimates it will be another 20 to 30 years before the funding for the set-up and the practicality of providing the space for plant growth in a spacecraft is realised.

Mark Kliss a bioengineer with the NASA Space Biosciences Division in Moffett Field, California, said he found the project interesting.

"Certain subsystems could be, and in some cases are currently being used on Earth to provide improved water reclamation techniques, better contamination control methods, superior solid waste management technologies, advanced crop productivity techniques, as well as application to carbon credit and green building technologies," said Kliss of the wider applications.

He added that any knowledge gained from attempts to develop and operate "relatively closed, regenerable life support systems" is useful because it helps us understand how to utilise limited resources as efficiently as possible.

"This is an issue that is not only important for future long duration human space missions, but for humans on Earth as well," he said.

Readers' comments

the moon is still interesting

check this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3
something i heard about last week on some science show
Helium3 come from the sun and is very rare on earth but in good quantity on the moon because it was no atmosphere, Helium3 seems to be the best element to use for nuclear fusion

space elevator?

Why not the Space Elevator? Although there are a number of obstacles to overcome, once set up, the SE could cheaply and reliably transport goods to and from the Earth's surface.

It's always been that way

Where was the constant supply stream for people moving out west in the early 1800's? How about for Columbus' crew pre-1500? The nature of exploration is facing hazards, and possibly not having the needed supplies. That's how it's always been, and there's no way to change that-- the preparation needed would be infinite, since we have no idea what to expect to happen.

As for an expensive launch pad-- only getting there is the expensive part, but it's all relative. What we learn by stretching to that point is what will enable us to make it to Ceres or Mars. We can't lift 500 pounds straight up if we've been practicing with 100. The idea of a moon base is to test ideas while the astronauts are still close enough to the earth to be saveable in event of a disaster. Overly cautious? You would be too if the only media attention you got was when you made a mistake.

Its time people start realizing the value of learning and education, and stop believing the ultimate life is one where you get the most money for the least amount of effort.

Tilapia? How about a can of Worms?

Ok, leave your cultural biases at the door if you mainly live in Europe or the USA, are they at the door? Ok then...

The article mentions that the astronauts could grow tilapia as a protein source?!? Oh wait, they could also grow some cows, I hear those are really efficient...Microlivestock (INSECTS) is a much better choice as a protein source for astronauts, as well as vitamins, minerals and fiber (chitin). Because people don't eat insects as food in SOME parts of the world, doesn't mean they are not a healthy, delicious, and in this case efficient part of the human diet. Some insects have much better feed efficiencies than larger animals, and some (not all) can be grown in much closer proximity than larger animals. AND as a bonus, if we humans seize to exist on earth, and then supplies stop coming to the moon, them cockroaches will also outlast us in the moon and mars as well...

This comment is meant to be taken seriously, and before someone replies ignorantly or emotionally to it research about the subject...if your current society doesn't eat insects, it's neither good or bad, but it is your context, if you are grossed out try to view it from outside your current context.

I'd live on the moon to AVOID insects!

I'm sorry, but that is absurd. Even if insects become a small portion of their diet, how many insects would have to be infesting the place to feed just one person much less a dozen or more? I say bring along some REAL livestock and a can of RAID!

Thought So...

I knew I would get at least one response from some close minded/non-rational person. First of all, it is not absurd, my idea is not really original because people in the know on space exploration and colonization have already suggested it, just posted the comment because apparently it is not a widely known/popular idea and i can see why. Second, your view of insects "Infesting" a place is really close minded. You may have for example cockroaches "infesting" your house, but insects can (and currently are, even if YOU don't know about it) be raised for food in clean, sanitary conditions like current livestock (assuming most livestock is actually raised in clean, sanitary conditions which is questionable). In fact you don't have to deal with tons of manure in the same way that one would have to do with cows for example. By the way, I mentioned cockroaches as a joke, meal worms and/or ants would be closer to what astronauts would eat. And third, this notion that you would have to eat A LOT of insects is true, BUT I don't see what the problem with that is. I don't see why there would be a difference between killing a whale to feed a dozen people and killing thousands if not millions of MUCH smaller insects to feed the same number of people. I will respect but differ in opinion if your argument has to do with your religious view about animals and souls for example. Next time write a more thought out and/or researched argument instead of expressing your uninformed opinion.

Grand Pomposity

1) "if we humans seize to exist on earth"
2) Next time write a more thought out and/or researched argument instead of expressing your uninformed opinion.

At ease, InsectMan. Perhaps next time you will have studied enough grammar to properly convey your point minus the arrogance. Or at the least, recognized the difference between "seize" and "cease".

Well, I guess the argument

Well, I guess the argument is over. When all you've got is pointing out grammatical and spelling errors in other people's posts, that's a rather definite admission that you've got nothing...

Worms

I think worms or ants are a great idea, I doubt worms would really want to get out of their 'cage' and scamper into some air ducts, I'd say they'd probably be quite happy to wiggle around in their dirt cage (ants are a different story.) I'd wonder about the rate they grow, and any effects of eating worms over a long period of time, but it could defenatly be a second source of food if anything (like mentioned in the article, they'd get sick of eating the same thing every day, a little worms and ketchup might spice up a dinner)

food is cultural

sorry InsectMan, i'm going with RAIDguy. if you want to feed insects to lunar-based people, first you're gonna have to convince them, ie taste test. while this may not be a proposition-killer (eg apollo astronauts adapted well to all manner of high-protein invented stuff) at the end of the day food is a cultural thing, no doubt about it, and it's probably better to take the path of least resistance and just let people eat what they enjoy, cos wouldn't you rather that they concentrate on the task at hand, than worrying about what their next meal's gonna taste like? (btw bogong moths are in season here in south-east australia, apparently they taste 'like a prawn cocktail' when raw, or can be roasted for that extra nutty flavour:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/chuck-another-bogong-on-the-barbie-133-or-in-your-sarnie/2007/10/04/1191091276226.html