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.
Australian Space Science Conference
Please leave a comment
Please comply with our Community rules.
Sputnik was launched in 1957. People landed on the moon in 1969. Let’s do the math… 12 years!
We went from looking at the stars to actually landing on the moon in 12 years.
This habitat will be built in ONLY 20 to 30 years! Ok so what happened? Oh I know lack of will power and drive!
So sad! I am sure if we actually exerted some willpower we could be living on the moon in the next decade.
As we all know the govt. has a secret stargate programme that renders realistic efforts obsolete and boring… I blame distorted expectations.
No matter how good your systems you are going to need regular supply deliveries during construction and your going to need regular supply, albeit lesser, deliveries after completion. Where is the reusable, low overhead automated ‘wagon train/railroad’ needed to ferry supplies? Or means to get emergency supplies or get you home in an emergency? I grow so weary of this catch-22/problem. We have grand dreams of what we can build out there but have no way to reliably get out there. We have no reliable means to regularly get out there for we have built no where out there to go. And I’ve nothing about automated/telepresence construction techniques that would save billions by doing the bulk of this type of building in an automated or remote way and allowing the astronauts to arrive at a facility that is up, tested and ready to go before they even launch from Earth.
In the 1957 to 1969 era there was the issue of a nuclear super power trying to use space as a weapon against the united states. So mastering it was somewhat of a top priority for the US government. Since then supplies, technology, and engineering have become substantially more expensive, so much so that citizens are complaining about how much money is spent on space exploration. Russia, China, and the US all have put space exploration in the rear as sort of a plaything. They see no real value to it right now. So why spend money just to learn? This is the paradigm of the world.
I agree, partially.. we trully need a better, cheaper way to get out of our atmosphere. The main draw of a moon base is that it is an inexpensive launch pad to the rest of the galaxy and beyond.
That being said, I believe the days of government run space programs are dwindling (at least in democratic nations) and we should look for our private companies to lead the way and put men living on our moon far before the government claims they can.
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’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!
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.
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”.
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
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…
I am really pleased that this article has recieved so many comments again showing a definite interest in Human spaceflight.
The actual study was done within a team of 32 professionals from 12 different countries and was not Australian led as we worked as a cohesive a team. The life support system design team consisted of 9 people from 6 different countries including Australia, Canada, China, Japan, Spain and the United Kingdom.
One of the aims of the research was to develop a life support system that would reduce the amount of required resupply. As mentioned in the artivle things like leakage, luxury items and spare parts prohibit the system from being completely self sufficient or closed loop. The research was intended to provide recommendations for future avenues of research and identify where current gaps are.
The reason for the large lead-time is that such a biological system on such a massive scale would take a long time to research and understand. Additionally the construction and development of such a large system would take a long period of time due to the heavy lift capabilities required to get that much mass to the moon. Understanding such a complex system including the mass balance and where storage buffers would be required would need significant research and there are many issues to overcome. Studies have shown that the use of bio-regenerative methods only become feasible if mission durations exceed 2.5 to 3 years depending on the size of the crew. The 20 to 30 years is an estimate and like most research could change dramatically given the required resources and personnel.
We also actually looked at the possibility of including insects as a food source. There have been some published studies in Japan about the use of insect and as a source of protein they are another possible option that was considered and further research was recommended.
I recently spent 3 months in China interacting with students and also CASC the Chinese Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation. I would argue from my experience in China that the Chinese do not view space as a plaything and there is a tremendous amount of national pride for their space program. This is demonstrated in such things as astronaut images on bottle of water and the large amount of news coverage it receives on the CCTV stations.
Talk about your revisionist history. Check out operations Paperclip and Overcast and then revisit the statement that the US entered the space race to fend off the USSR’s nuclear ambitions. The US started the race. And at the press conference to announce new rockets directly descended from the V1 and V2 a wily journo asked if von Braun could guarantee that they wouldn’t land on Britain. The former Nazi SS captain who ran a slave camp at Peenemunde that made those rockets stormed out to everyone’s shock.
While it may be possible to run lunar facilities without a stable self-sufficient ecosystem, it would be impossible to mount a 5 year mission to mars.
Anybody that’s ever owned an aquarium knows how hard it is to maintain a miniature ecosystem.
Biosphere 2, which was probably more of a performance art work than a scientific project, also showed that it is a non-trivial problem. Indeed this is probably the foremost challenge facing long term human occupancy in space.
The long and short of it is that we have never successfully managed an isolated ecosystem which included large organisms such as human beings for any significant length of time. The effort to learn how to do this will probably be a larger engineering challenge than any other in such an endeavor.
This sort of research and development is something that we will be continually develop for centuries or more. Sure we may be able to get something working in 20 – 30 years. And to use bugs as food and a step in recycling does seem a rather efficient way to go. They are far more resistant to harsh conditions than mammals. Not only that but they reproduce quickly and take less space. Besides, how are you going to strap in a pair of breeding cows into a shuttle? Sure bugs are gross but, there are plenty of people willing to go even if they are the primary source of protein.
The entire system will require many separate components all of which will be vitally important as the people to resources ratio here on earth continues to get heavier on the people side. Space is a long term goal of which are great grand kids will likely not see. Yet it does not change it’s importance.
I do find that disgusting, but you may be on to something. However, perhaps insects are not being considered because they are hard to manage. It would really suck if everyone in your biosphere died because some of the bugs got loose, multiplied “in the wild” and then clogged up systems that your life depended on. Everything in such an environment must be controlled. Bugs are hard to control. Perhaps they could be confined to a giant, air-tight, transparent tank. When you wanted some protein, you flip a switch that powers a vacuum and sucks some of the buggers out of the tank, then grinds them into a nice tasty protein pudding. That’s about the best way I can think of to minimize the risk of a “leak”. I say “leak” because I think a few bugs getting loose in such an environment could wind up being as deadly as a leak of some bio-hazardous or nuclear material. Larger livestock are easier to manage. However, they require more resources. Something the size of a dog would be best I think.
We need a breakthrough in propulsion technology. Seems that something like this is coming, see this:
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GSP/SEM0L6OVGJE_0.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heim_theory
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=4385&st=0
With effective propulsion it would be possible to make profit out of space travel: by minning asteroids for example.
Best regards,
Joss
Hi James
It’s an interesting idea, but a rather large base construction project to support with the planned “Ares” style HLLVs. There has been research on microbial-based closed-loop mini-ecosystems – eating Chlorella paste might not be overly appealing but explorers have toughed it eating far worse. And desk-top manufacturing technologies are reaching the point where parts can be made on demand (almost) so there’s no reason why a self-sufficient lunar base shouldn’t be feasible in 10-20 years, at least as detailed plans. The recycling technologies of a closed-loop mini-ecosystem would also have direct spin-off applications here on Earth, which you’re well aware I am sure.
Could a mobile base with a mini-ecosystem be feasible?
Tilapia and cattle won’t get into the circuitry and short things out.
Why go down a second gravity well only to go back up again? Absurd!
Apart from a strategic platform, and the farside for astronomy, the Moon isn’t very useful as a destination. Mars and Ceres are much more valuable, with volatiles including water.
It would probably be better to shoot for close loop rather than closed-loop, if I can use LCMS terminology here.
Reduce the need for mass fraction devoted to consumables where they can be recycled, but realize that it is actually very, very hard to get a fully closed-loop to work, and problems might appear along the way in zero and low-g that weren’t anticipated, just as the biospherians discovered that concrete soaked up oxygen which they needed to breath.
Then use that saved mass fraction for redundancy, rather than for using cheaper, smaller launchers.
Tilapia have a big advantage in this area. They are well suited for these types of situations.
They have the following advantages:
- quick growth
- very high tolerance for stress
- eat almost anything but prefer plants
- don’t collect toxins
- make very useful fertilizer
- work well, balanced, and actually promote growth of other more preferred types of fish (cod)
- limit the growth of algae and other organisms
- easy to keep a clean environment (they constantly dig, fight, and are very active thus the water never stays calm and nothing settles in any specific location so a simpler automated water filtation system is required)
- managable, they are stuck in one spot, they can’t leave the pool.
With these characteristics, you end up with very a tolerant protein source that is very efficient, sustainable, and closed loop (plants feed fish, fish feed plants).
Most insects also have many of the same advantages, but I think their biggest negatives is that they have sensitive points in their lifecycles and their waste clean up (however minor) is not as easy to automate. Plus there is the issue that they can escape and get into locations (computer equipment, filtation systems, & scientific instrunments) that they aren’t supposed to.
Western cultural biases taken into consideration… Bugs! Eewh ^_^
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)
Very exciting. *sigh* I’m yearning for the day when all the money spent on wars will spent on exploring space, medicine and technology instead. And commercial news will have a science update rather than a sports update.
I’m disappointed I haven’t seen anything about this on Australian news.
Projects like these will be an important first step toward colonising Mars. We’ll be able to work out all the kinks in the system, do research and improve our designs at far lower costs and with a much faster return trip.
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.
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.
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
The propulsion break though already happened it’s called vasimr a nuclear electric drive that can get you to mars in less then 90 days and this is with a big 400T spacecraft.
Why not bring some goats they can eat plant waste BTW 40 to 90% of a food plant’s mass is not digestible to humans but a goat can make use of it and produce meat and milk.
Consider all the inventions that have come about from space exploration. Everyone wants to complain about the costs but consider the jobs that it’s created. I love reading some of these posts because most people don’t know what their talking about and it’s good for a laugh or two. The very idea that humankind will ever stop killing each other is a pipe dream. But who knows maybe you wish will come true when the aliens come back and find out what we did to their buddy’s in Roswell. I am sure they already seen it on the History channel. Maybe they will start harvesting humankind for food! Maybe they will start in Australian first!.
You have to remember that Apollo was not a space program it was a foreign policy statement by USA to the USSR saying “our technology is better then your technology there for our society is better then your society” Thats why it got the funding of a couple of aircraft carriers and once the statement had been made then interest evaporated but the greatest benefit was not scientific but social making several million kids and young adults of 1969 decide to have a career in science and engineering. The more scientists in a society the better.
Devine guidance from a man in a space suit:
Kieran Griffith
Hi,I think that Australian-led scientists have to try to use five things.
1. Turbulent chemical reactions, when they organize process oxidize creation of the oxygen with microorganisms and alga or wrack. I.e. you have to use artificial waterfalls and vortexes in the water and air at day.But not use it at night.
Speeds of the turbulent chemical reactions are more quickly.Oxigen will be create more quickly.
You have to use strong periodically artificial hashing, air-conditioning of air.
2. It is possible to use butterfly or small not dangerous honey-bees; apises for pollination of flowers and plants.
3. Artificial Illumination, gravity or gravitation and heating in the afternoon.
4. The reduced concentration of oxygen in air. I.e. not copy Earth exactly.
5.Is it possible create new small sort or kind of cows,Goats and use it?
I can work as a volunteer for this project for modelling and calculations.
gorskin@hotmail.com
These habitats just may save humanity and life on earth. When the Earth’s weather system or Planetary balance is thrown into Global Warming that will result in the deaths of 6 Billion people by the end of this century, this Habitat may just save enough people, animals, and seeds, (Like the ARK project in Great Britian) to save seeds and DNA for every lifeform on planet Earth. The reccommendations of Dr. Lovelock will come into use. We can build small Atomic powerplants such as the successful ones powering Submarines, Aircraft Carriers, etc. These small power units will solve an immediate problem since we cannot rely on Solar or Wind Power because of the uncertainty of the future weather climate. Then we can take his reccommendation to use sea water for fresh water to drink. The real problem is going to be food and survivors that may be Paramilitary Units with advanced weapons systems. I have been thinking of a resolution and it is undoubtably an underground system. Deep enough underground to escape detection and severe weather and climate problems including Disease, Paramilitary Societies, Severe Climate change in the Global System. I believe that there is sections of the U.S. Government already working on this solution. The habitats are NOT for the moon, they are for the earth, but they are fearful of creating a social revolution from the reality of the situation as people everywhere will riot and anarchy may result. I believe that only the wealthy will survive. The current government is working in secret with corporate entities and have already begun preparations. If I am wrong, then GOD HELP US ! ! ! !
Tasha9503 has a design for a rocket that, after reaching orbit, can be attached to five other used rockets to produce a piece of infrastructure in space. This infrastructure can then be used as spaceships to take a crew of 12 past the moon, or the infrastructure can stay orbiting Earth and be used as HotelsInSpace that can sleep 216 guests, to produce profit shares for the people who put up the start up costs. With the 6 robotic arms, each piece of infrastructure can begin collecting SpaceJunk. Read more at Tasha9503.ca LivingInSpace.org LivingInSpace.ca
More than will power is needed, money is needed and the money must be spent at the right place. Have you seen the spaceships Tasha9503 plans to mess produce?
Leave a Reply