Lunar Simulants, Analogues, and Standards: Taxonomy, Needs and Realities for Mission Technologies

Development

Laurent Sibille, Ph.D.

ESC - Team QNA Surface Systems Group / SwampWorks

NASA Kennedy Space Center, FL

Off-Earth Mining Forum Sydney, Australia February 21, 2013

Team We want to go places in space…

Because our civilization is bound to leave its planet …

Team Dealing with dirt (regolith)

3

Landing somewhere means dealing with the surface in the planet’s environment…

  Regolith is a soil typically void of organic matter

  Rocks

What is the big deal? Just land on it…   We are very familiar with terrestrial dirt and dealing with it

  Our familiarity comes from having the right tools, technologies and techniques so it is not a big deal here on Earth

Team Dealing with regolith

Create technologies adapted to surface and sub-surface materials

  Different geology

  Different environments that create different regolith

  Our success in planetary operations will come from having the same familiarity with regolith and rocks through … simulants and analogues.

Team In-Situ Resource Utilization Changes How We Explore Space

Risk Reduction & Flexibility

Expands Human Presence

Cost Reduction Mass Reduction

Enables Space Commercialization

Space Resource Utilization

•  Allows reuse of transportation assets •  Reduces number and size of Earth

launch vehicles •  Minimizes DDT&E & operation costs

thru use of common technologies

•  Increases Surface Mobility & extends missions

•  Habitat & infrastructure construction

•  Propellants, life support, power, etc.

•  Substitutes propellant & consumable mass for new science or infrastructure cargo

•  Provides infrastructure, technologies, and market to support space commercialization

•  Propellant/consumable depots at Earth-Moon L1 & Surface for Human exploration & commercial activities

•  >7.5:1 mass savings leverage from Moon/Mars surface back to Low Earth Orbit

•  Reduces Lunar mission launch mass by 27 to 88% depending on reusability and propellant depot options

•  Provides ‘safe haven’ capabilities for aborts and delayed cargo resupply

•  Can reduce number of launches and mission operations

•  Radiation and landing/ascent plume shielding

•  Increases flexibility and options for contingency and failure recovery operations

•  Reduces dependence on Earth

Team Space ‘Mining’ Cycle & Integration

with Surface/Transportation Elements

Communication & Autonomy

0

Crushing/Sizing/ Beneficiation

Global Resource Identification

Processing

Local Resource Exploration/Planning

Waste

Mining

Product Storage & Utilization

Site Preparation

Remediation

Propulsion

Power

Life Support & EVA

Depots

Science Involvement

Maintenance & Repair

Team What is In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU)?

 Resource Characterization and Mapping Physical, mineral/chemical, and volatile/water

 Mission Consumable Production Propellants, life support gases, fuel cell reactants, etc.

 Civil Engineering & Surface Construction Radiation shields, landing pads, roads, habitats, etc.

  In-Situ Energy Generation, Storage & Transfer Solar, electrical, thermal, chemical

  In-Situ Manufacturing & Repair Spare parts, wires, trusses, integrated structures, etc.

ISRU involves any hardware or operation that harnesses and utilizes ‘in-situ’ resources to create products and services

for robotic and human exploration

Five Major Areas of ISRU

Team Key Facts of Life for In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU)

 ISRU is a capability involving multiple technical discipline elements (mobility, regolith manipulation, regolith processing, reagent processing, product storage & delivery, power, manufacturing, etc.)

–  Need to coordinate development and integration of end-to-end ISRU capabilities across multiple teams and international partners

 ISRU does not exist on its own. By definition it must connect and tie to multiple users and systems to utilize the ISRU capabilities and products.

–  Need to convince ‘customers’ that products and services will be possible, on-time, and with desired quality

 ISRU has never flown on a mission. Mission managers and architecture planners will not incorporate ISRU in any significant manner until proven

–  Need to show that ISRU can accomplish mission while meeting mass, power, volume, and life expectations and reducing mass and cost compared to bringing everything from Earth

Definition: In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) involves any hardware or operation that utilizes and processes natural lunar resources and/or discarded materials to create products and services

Team International Lunar Surface Operation – ISRU Analog Field Test

January 2010

Electrical Power

Solar Power

Excavation & Back-blading

Tephra Delivery & Removal

H2 H2 O2

H2O

Thruster Firing

CH4 (K-bottle)

Remote Ops & Satellite Communications

Solar Concentrator

X-Y-Z Table

Resistive Sintering on Rover

Command

Sintered Pad

Pneumatic Regolith Transfer Carbothermal

Reduction Reactor

Load-Haul-Dump Rover

Fuel Cell

O2 (Air) H2 Hydride Storage

Water Electrolysis & GO2 Storage

LO2/CH4 Storage & Thruster

Resource Characterization

3 DoF Blade on Rover

Landing Pad Construction

Hydrogen 80-250 psig

320 g/hr

Hydrogen 5-150 psig 17 g/hr

Hydrogen 25-150 psig 3 g/hr

H2

Water 5-25 psig 200 g/day

Oxygen 5-175 psig 164 g/hr

GPR

Geo Tech

MMI/Terra

Mossbauer

RESOLVE

Mole VAPoR

Purpose: 1. Demonstrate All Phases of Space Resource Utilization Operation Cycle 2. Begin integration of ISRU with other Surface System elements 3. Incorporate International Space Agency Hardware & Ops in Critical Roles

Sci

ence

Team

The type of interaction with the regolith places the subsystems in categories:

Remote interaction: sensing, mapping, imagery, telemetry

Descent plume exposure: descent engine, structures, landed equipment nearby

Mobility assets: direct and prolonged contact with surface regolith, rocks – wheels, tracks, Space suits

Regolith excavation, drilling & handing: sample tools, drills, rakes, blades, excavators, crushers, cyclones, sorters, hoppers

Processing reactors for ISRU: phase changes, volatile evolution, chemical agents reacting with regolith

Developing mission technologies in relevant materials and environments

Team

  Needs for remote prospecting/sensing & descent stages optical properties, compositional ranges (mineralogy and chemical), particle distribution and shapes (secondary) and environmental characteristics (vacuum, solar illumination flux density,)

  Needs of the surface mobility vehicles − Physical and geotechnical − particle distribution, shapes, mineralogy

  Needs of the regolith handling hardware − same plus density, stratification, geology, rock formation

  Needs of the regolith processing hardware − Mineralogical and chemical (melting point), environmental − But also…physical as well (example of RESOLVE devpt – fluidization,

interfaces with the crusher)

Simulant needs of the technology projects

Team

Start with our knowledge of the Moon

  Apollo and Luna samples data

  Apollo surface observations and measurements

Identify what features are mineralogical in nature and those that are due to formation processes specific to the Moon

  Mineralogical features can be reproduced with some exceptions

  Formation processes are more challenging or even impossible to reproduce

− Metoritic impacts, solar ions implantations

− Photoelectric-induced charging

− Pyroclastic glasses

Designing requirements for ‘special dirt’… what approach to choose?

Team

13

Excerpt from Sibille et al. “Lunar Regolith Simulant Materials: Recommendations for Standardization, Production, and Usage”, NASA TP-2006-214605

Team

The needs of the various technology development areas overlap   Physical features like grain size, shape and bulk density are important to

all   Modal composition is critical to guarantee that simulants can be used by

many users

Some needs are overriding   Chemical compositions can be controlled by proper choice of terrestrial

minerals but source locations are very important

  Choosing the mineralogy of the simulant becomes a top priority to simulate the right geotechnical properties and control the chemical composition for chemical processing

Approach to requirements

Team

Simulant materials can be classified by the type of regolith they simulate

•  Mare materials

•  Highland materials

•  Special glass materials (e.g., pyroclastic)

Another classification arise by type of technology development

•  Excavation, drilling and transport (BP-1, OB-1, Chenobi, LHT-NU-series)

•  Simulants developed to reproduce physical properties mainly: shape, density, hardness, glass fraction, particle size distributions

•  These simulants are not necessarily high fidelity in mineralogy and chemistry

•  Chemical processing (JSC1-A, LHT-NU-series)

•  Simulants developed to reproduce mineralogical and chemical compositions as well as some physical properties: major and minor components, inclusion of nanophase iron.

•  These simulants tend to reflect higher fidelity in their versions

15

Classification of lunar simulants

Team

A focus on lunar highlands is a good place to start:

•  The highlands represent 75% of the lunar surface

•  The regolith possesses a remarkable physical uniformity throughout the lunar surface

•  What mineralogy to choose?

•  Fewer returned samples represent the Highlands

•  Norite is a dominant component

•  Ranking of needs is important to identify the economics of simulant materials and their level of fidelity (Figures of Merit)

Lunar Highlands Regolith Simulants

Team

The mineralogical variety of the Highlands is not tightly bound

  Choices must be made to avoid trying to duplicate every sample known

  Representation of several critical minerals and lithic components is needed to control both the physical properties and the chemical composition

  Current approach by NASA is to identify simulant materials from different sources and provide an evaluation tool based on figures of merit (FoM)

Lunar Highlands Regolith Simulants

Team

A Figure of Merit is a comparison between: 2 actual materials (one could be a reference like a lunar sample)

Major material attributes (or measurements): dictate functionality   Particle type/composition (Modal composition)

  Particle size distribution

  Particle shape distribution   Bulk density

Environmental & engineering requirements   Variability of feedstocks, repeatability of processes

  Grinding, milling, mixing procedures; Compaction procedures

  Storage protocols

Figures of Merit Approach

C. Schrader, D. Rickman: NASA/TM–2010–216443

Team Current lunar simulant materials (U.S.)

Simulant Info Type Contact�InfoUnited�States:

ALS�Arizona�Lunar�Simulant�Desai�et�al.,�1993 LowͲTi�Mare�(geotechnical)

BPͲ1

KSC�/�Arizona�Black�Point�quarry�waste�(Basalt)�;�using�for�large�excavation�exercises�with�BLADERahmatian�&�Metzger,�in�press LowͲTi�mare�(geotechnical) Rob�Mueller/KSC

CSMͲCL�Colorado�School�of�Mines�–�Colorado�Lava�Unpublished geotechnical

GCAͲ1�Goddard�Space�Center��Taylor�et�al.,�2008 LowͲTi�mare�(geotechnical)

GRCͲ1�&�Ͳ3�

Glenn�Research�Center��(Sand,�clay�mixture�used�in�SLOPE�Facility�for�mobility/excavation)Oravec�et�al.,�in�press

Geotechnical:�standard�vehicle�mobility�lunar�simulant Allen�Wilkinson/GRC

GSCͲ1Goddard�“Simulant”;�material�from�local�site�that�is�being�used�for�drilling�tests��� Peter�Chen/GSFC

JSCͲ1*Johnson�Space�Center�McKay�et�al.,�1994 LowͲTi�mare�(general�use) no�longer�available

LowͲTi�mare�(general�use)

JSCͲ1A�,�Ͳ1AF,�Ͳ1AC Orbitec�created�under�a�NASA�contract�.�

(JSCͲ1A�was�produced�from�the�same�source�material�after�a�gap�of�some�years�when�JSCͲ1�ran�out) http://orbitec.com/store/simulant.html

MKSͲ1� Carpenter,�2005LowͲTi�mare�(intended�use�unknown)

MLSͲ1*Minnesota�Lunar�SimulantWeiblen�et�al.,�1990 HighͲIlmenite�mare�(general�use) no�longer�available�(created�in�the�1980s)

MLSͲ1P*� Weiblen�et�al.,�1990

HighͲTi�mare�(experimental,�not�produced�in�bulk�although�small�quanitites�were�distributed)

MLSͲ2*� Tucker�et�al.,�1992 Highlands�(general�use)

NUͲLHT�Ͳ�1M,�Ͳ2M,�Ͳ1D,�Ͳ2C

NASA/USGS�Highland�Type�Simulant�(Chemical/Mineralogical�&�Physical�Properties)Stoeser�et�al.,�2009 Highlands�(general�use)

Carole�McLemore�256Ͳ544Ͳ2314�Carole.A.McLemore@nasa.gov��http://isru.msfc.nasa.gov����

Others

Team Current lunar simulant materials (International)

CASͲ1

China�(Chinese�Academy�of�Sciences)a�basaltic�simulant�made�to�represent�Apollo�14�Zheng�et�al.,�2008 LowͲTi�mare�(general�use)

CLRSͲ1�Chinese�Lunar�Regolith�Simulant�Chinese�Academy�of�Sciences,�2009 LowͲTi�mare�(general�use?)

CLRSͲ2� Chinese�Academy�of�Sciences,�2009 HighͲTi�mare�(general�use?)

CUGͲ1China

He�et�al.,�2010 LowͲTi�mare�(geotechnical) presentation�at�LPSC�2010�conference

NAOͲ1

NAOͲ1,�National�Astronomical�Observatories,�Chinese�Academy�of�Sciences�Li�et�al.,�2009 Highlands�(general�use)

TJͲ1�,�TJͲ2

China�(Tongji�University)�;�a�basaltic�ash�feedstock�with�olivine�and�glassJiang�et�al.,�in�press

LowͲTi�mare

(geotechnical)�

presentation�at�Earth�&��Space�2010:�Jiang�M.J.,�Liqing�Li,�Chuang�Wang,�He�Zhang,�A�New�Lunar�Soil�Simulant�in�China,�in�press,�Earth&Space,�2010�the�12th�Biennial�International�Conference�on�Engineering,Science,Construction�and�Operations�in�Challenging�Environments.

CHENOBI

Canada�(Physical�&�Chemical�properties�simulant) Highlands�(geotechnical) http://www.evcltd.com/index_005.htm���Canada Jim Richard

International:

OBͲ1

Canada

OlivineͲBytownite�Battler�&�Spray,�2009 Highlands�(general�use�geotechnical)

Jim�Richard�PH:�705Ͳ521Ͳ8324�x205�/��jrichard@norcat.org���http://www.norcat.org/innovationͲregolith.aspx�

FJSͲ1�(type�1)�FJSͲ1�(type�2)FJSͲ1�(type�3)

Fuji�Japanese�Simulant

Kanamori�et�al.,�1998

LowͲTi�mare�LowͲTi�mare

HighͲTi�mare

(general�use) http://www.shimz.co.jp/english/index.html���Oshima�base�simulant� Sueyoshi�et�al.,�2008 HighͲTi�mare�(general�use)

Kohyama�base�simulant� Sueyoshi�et�al.,�2008Intermediate�between�highlands�and�mare�(general�use)

KOHLSͲ1

Korea

Koh�Lunar�Simulant�Jiang�et�al.�2010 LowͲTi�mare�(geotechnical)

presentation�at�Earth�&��Space�2010:�Experimental�Study�of�Waterless�Concrete�for�Lunar�Construction�by�Sung�Won�Koh,�Jaemin�Yoo,�Leonhard�Bernold,�and�Tai�Sik�Lee,�Hanyang�University,�Korea.��

Others�Ͳ�This�may�not�be�a�complete�listing.�

Team

Should everybody use the same simulant materials?

Question is almost irrelevant since current development takes place using what people can procure and afford. If you are interested in comparing your hardware with other benchmarks, then yes.

Should different simulants be used at different stages of development?

Yes. Again it is happening because of costs.

Mission hardware development is based on reducing risks: the simulant selected are part of the risk definition by experimental “decision gates”.

CAUTION: sometimes, an agency or even a political schedule will limit the number of tests or the length of particular development phases. THIS MEANS: the scientist / engineer must design these tests to cover as many risk areas as possible use of Modern Design of Experiment (MDoE) here can be an advantage – not used often enough)

Can the use of the proper simulant and analogues retire all the risks?

No, but it goes a long way.

21

Challenges and decisions

Team Why Perform Analog Field Tests

Concrete Benefits of Field/Analog Testing Mature Technology   Forces design decisions to be made and gets hardware out of the laboratory   Develops technologies and systems at relevant scale and initiates packaging & integration

Evaluate Space Architecture Concepts Under Applicable Conditions   Demonstrate feasibility for ISRU to provide Outpost with oxygen at relevant processing rates/scales   Demonstrates use of modular units for interconnection and growth   Demonstrates feasibility of multiple science instruments on mobile platform for lunar volatile/ISRU precursor

mission

Evaluate Operations & Procedures   Evaluate operations, controls, and interactions required for end-to-end oxygen extraction   Evaluate operations, controls, and interactions required for mobile science and ISRU precursor   Evaluate remote operations and communications impacts on hardware and performance   Evaluate science vs engineering aspect to instrument data and operations

Integrate and Test Hardware from Multiple Organizations & Partners

Team Why Perform Analog Field Tests

Intrinsic Benefits of Field/Analog Testing Develop Partnerships

Develop Teams and Trust Early

Develop Data Exchange & Interactions with International Partners (ITAR)

Outreach and Public Education JSC “ROxygen” System

Lockheed Martin O2 System: PILOT RESOLVE: Resource

Prospector and O2 Demonstration System

•  “Cratos” Excavator •  ROxygen H2

Reduction Reactor –Fluidized/Auger

•  Water Electrolysis – Anode-Feed

•  Bucket-drum Excavator

•  PILOT H2 Reduction Reactor – Rotating

•  Water Electrolysis – Cathode-Feed

•  GO2/LO2 Storage

•  “Scarab” Mobile Platform •  RESOLVE Drill, Crusher, and Volatile/

H2 Reduction •  TriDAR Navigation & Vision Camera •  Satellite Link & Remote Ops

Team

Resource Characterization & Mapping   Lunar polar ice/volatile characterization

−  RESOLVE

In-Situ Energy Generation, Storage & Transfer

–  Solar Concentrators –  Heat Pipes

Civil Engineering & Surface Construction

–  Lunar Regolith Excavation –  Lunar Regolith and Mars Soil Transfer –  Lunar Regolith Size Sorting &

Beneficiation –  Lunar Regolith Simulant Production –  Surface Preparation

NASA Development of Lunar and Mars ISRU Technologies & Systems: 2005-2012

Mission Consumable Production •  Oxygen Extraction from Regolith

Hydrogen Reduction Carbothermal Reduction Molten Oxide Electrolysis Ionic Liquids

•  Oxygen and Fuel from Mars Atmosphere Carbon Dioxide Capture Mars Soil Drying Microchannel Reactors

•  Water and Fuel from Trash Steam Reforming Combustion/Pyrolysis

•  Water Processing Water Electrolysis Water Cleanup

Relevant Test Environment

Craters with varied slopes & rocks

Lunar-Like Terrain & Soil

Mauna Kea - Local Infrastructure (Hale Pohaku)

Sleeping Quarters

Visitor’s Center

Planning/Debriefing Room

Dining/Cafeteria Room Bunk Rooms

Bed Rooms

To Field Test Location

Residence Lobby

Vehicle Shops

Team

LESSONS LEARNED

Team 2008 Field Test Lessons Learned (examples)

Environment Lessons Dust caused problems with unsealed electronics. (We ultimately improvised

with dust filter from local stores   Cratos excavator failed twice due to dust and wear: electronics (recovered) and motor/

gear (not recovered)

  Drill electronics failed several times due to shorts and had to be cleaned out overnight before returning to operation

  Temperature and humidity cycling pointed out weak points in the design (Reinforces the need to “get out of the lab)

  Cold solder joints, Cycling on wire connectors caused physical changes resulting in unexpected electrical failures

Wind impacted simulated ‘lunar’ operation   Wind did not allow for accurate measurement of quantities of soil loaded and spent soil

expelled

  Wind likely reduced the amount of water produced and collected due to cooling

Didn’t anticipate overnight freezing temperatures. Thermal blankets and power needed. Have to think of all weather contingencies in the future

Impact on personnel worse then expected: sun burns, dry/dusty eyes, cracked skin, etc.

  Having Doctor on site was extremely useful.

Team

Team 2008 Field Test Lessons Learned (examples)

Local Material (Tephra) Local material behaved differently simulations in the laboratory   Bucketdrum Excavator did not successfully traverse and delivery regolith to lift

system due to rover unable to operate on local material   Higher torque loads caused several hardware failures during PILOT operations. (All

failures were fixed in the field and testing proceeded) −  Having good set of tools and spare parts is a must

General Lessons Learned Hard date of analog test good for forcing designs off the drawing board and

decisions to be made. Test operations required to be flexible to handle day-to-day changes Having lodging and facilities near test site & in Hilo was extremely helpful;

especially for early starts and nighttime operations   Lunch scheduling was impacted by Astronomer activities, leading to a hungry and

grumpy test team. Large variation in slopes and rock distributions in compact area with relevant

physical/mineral material was excellent for testing

Roads to test site degraded over time with use. Need to limit traffic

Team Analog and Field Test Site Infrastructure Needs

Relevant Test Environment

  Soil

  Terrain

  Rock distributions

Access

  Easy access by all participants and hardware by government, industry, academia, and international space agencies

  Access and operations day and night if required

  Access to site for ~14 days per test program

  Security to control access of non-participants and secure hardware

Personnel Support

  Lodging and food near test site for test personnel to minimize travel time and logistics to/from test site

  Personal hygiene facilities and refreshment/food capability at test sites or within reasonable distance so testing is not impacted

  On-site medical support for first aid & emergencies with rapid access to near-by hospital if required (< 1 hour)

  Meeting areas for planning and post-test debrief

  Parking

Team

Requirements on a few main properties of the regolith can be defined to drive simulant development

Production of the resulting simulants will be economically feasible while

maintaining quality control

Adopt a concept that enables quick response to changing knowledge and

implementation of that knowledge between simulant batches (FoM helps)

Merge the functionality of simulants into the analogue environment

Standard simulant materials should continue to be made but used at

the right time in development of technologies

Conclusions

Team

Everybody does not use the same simulant materials

Comparing your hardware with other benchmarks will determine the choice.

Different simulants are used at different stages of development

The scientist / engineer must design these tests to cover as many risk areas as possible use of Modern Design of Experiment here can be an advantage – not used often enough)

Can simulants and analogues be integrated?

Difficult but should be attempted

Acknowledgements

J. Sanders (JSC), W. Larson (KSC), PISCES, The RESOLVE team, D. Rickman & C. Schrader (MSFC), SwampWorks and GMRO Lab (KSC)

35

Conclusions / Challenges