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.

So Disappointing!
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.
Stargate programme
As we all know the govt. has a secret stargate programme that renders realistic efforts obsolete and boring... I blame distorted expectations.
In the 1957 to 1969 era
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.
Talk about your revisionist
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.
New hope
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
The propulsion break though
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.
Apollo Was Not Disapointing
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
Resupply
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.
well put
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.
The Moon is a very -expensive- launch pad
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.