- 1 -

IAC-02-Q.4.3.08

SELECTED PRECEPTS IN LUNAR ARCHITECTURE

Marc M. CohenSenior Member, AIAA

53rd International Astronautical CongressThe World Space Congress – 2002

10-19 Oct 2002/Houston, TexasFor Permission to copy or republish, contact the International Astronautical Federation3-5 Rue Mario-Nikis, 75015 Paris, France

- 2 -

IAC-02-Q-.4.3.08.

SELECTED PRECEPTS IN LUNAR ARCHITECTURE

Marc M. Cohen, Arch.D., ArchitectSenior Member, AIAA

P.O. Box 243 Moffett Field, California USAmcohen@mail.arc.nasa.gov

. Copyright © 2002 The International Academy of Astronautics. All rights reserved.

ABSTRACTThe 1997 NASA Habitats and SurfaceConstruction Roadmap defined three classes oflunar and planetary architecture, ranging fromhabitats built entirely on Earth to habitats built onthe extraterrestrial surface. The definitions are:Class 1 – Pre-integrated, landed complete; Class2 – Pre-fabricated, assembled, deployed orinflated on the surface; Class 3 – In-SituResource Construction.

The extreme environmental conditions on theMoon shape and constrain Lunar Architecture infar-reaching ways. These environmental threatsand stressors include vacuum, .18 G partialgravity, radiation, micrometeoroid impacts, the28-day diurnal cycle, extreme thermal cycling,and pervasive dust. Also, the unique instance ofthe landing zone poses a human-made potentialenvironmental hazard. The design anddevelopment of lunar construction technologiesand habitats must respond effectively to thesethreats. For this reason, developing LunarArchitecture will be challenging and complex.

Although it is reasonable to characterize theindividual elements of a lunar base as Class 1, 2,or 3, in actuality, none of them on the Moon (orMars) would be purely of one class. To explicatethis “hybrid” character of surface construction,this paper presents three further units of analysisin architectural design research: taxonomy,typology and morphology.

INTRODUCTIONThis paper presents an overview of selectedapproaches to Lunar Architecture to describethe parameters of this design problem space.

The paper identifies typologies of architecturebased on lunar site features, structuralconcepts and habitable functions.

In 1993, Haym Benaroya, Professor ofMechanical and AeroSpace Engineering atRutgers University edited a special issue ofApplied Mechanics Review dedicated to lunarbase construction (Benaroya, 1993). In thisissue, A. Smith of the US Army Construction,Engineering and Research Laboratory inChampaign, IL proposed a three-phaseevolutionary development process for lunar baseconstruction. In Smith’s prospectus, these threephases involved

• Prefabricated and pre-outfitted modules;• Assembly of components fabricated on Earthwith “some assembly required!”• Building structures comprised substantially ofindigenous materials (Smith, 1993, pp. 268-271).

In 1996-1997, NASA undertook an initiative tocreate “technology development roadmaps” for avariety of technical and scientific areas critical toexploration of the Moon, Mars and beyond theinner planets. The NASA Habitats and SurfaceConstruction Working Group adopted a parallelbut more sharply focused set of definitions.

- 3 -

TABLE 1. Comparison of three Habitat and Surface Construction Classes,adapted from the 1997 NASA Habitats and Surface Construction Roadmap

(Cohen, Kennedy, 1997).

CLASS DESCRIPTION BENEFITS

1. Pre-Integrated

Hard Shell Moduledelivered complete tothe surface.

A composite structure that canbe autonomously predeployedand operated on the Moon andMars surface.

Fully integrated.

The capability for A.I. smarthabitat for failure detection,analysis and self-repair.

High reliability & easy to repair.

Near-current technology

Add larger modules to ISS andLunar Orbit

2. Pre-Fabricated

Inflatable deployed orassembled structures.

An inflatable structure that canbe autonomously predeployedand operated on the Moon andMars surface.

Partially integrated and flexible.

The capability for A.I. smarthabitat for failure detection,analysis and self-repair.

Larger usable habitablevolume.

Lower mass

Higher crew productivity

Higher crew moral and qualityof life. (Lower stress)

High reliability & easy to repair.

Taking the steps towardbuilding new civilizations

3. In-Situ ResourceConstruction

Lunar concrete(“Lunacrete”),

Masonry,

In-situ vitrified caves,drilled tunnels or lavatubes.

An ISRU-derived structure thatis manufactured using indigenousresources and constructedautonomously.

It is autonomously operated andmaintained utilizing A.I. and V.R.

The capability for A.I. for failuredetection, analysis and self-repair.

Least requirement formaterials from Earth perusable habitable volume.

Can build colony infrastructureto support sustained humanpresence and evolution.

Self Sufficiency from Earth

Higher level of society.

Ability to manufacture, serviceand repair

- 4 -

FIGURE 1. Surface Habitats and Construction Roadmap: Diagram of Three Classes ofLunar/Planetary construction and their application to progressive stages of development.

This paper develops an analysis of Lunararchitectures based on the NASA Habitats andSurface Construction Road Map (1997) inwhich there are three major types of surfaceconstruction: Class 1) Pre-integrated, Class 2)Pre-fabricated --Assembled, Deployed, Erectedor Inflated and Class 3) Use of In Situ materialsand site characteristics. This set of definitions

and their correlation to phases of lunar andplanetary construction appear in FIGURE 1.

LUNAR DEVELOPMENTIn an ideal universe, the development of lunarbases, settlements and colonies would follow apath that corresponds in some way to theHabitat and Surface Construction Roadmap.Lynn Harper and Kathleen Connell of the

HabitatUnique

Requirements Mission TypeHabitat

Requirements

CompositeStructures

Hybrid &InflatableStructures

ISRUManufacturedStructures

CLASS 3ISRU-Derived

CLASS 1Preintegrated

CLASS 2Prefabricated

Exploration

Settlement

Colonization

RLSS

Human Factors

EVA / Suits/Airlocks

EVA / Suits

Bio-RLSS

Human Factors

Surface Mobility

Mining Equipment

A.I. Habitats

Construction Equip

- 5 -

Advanced Life Support Division at NASA-AmesResearch Center proposed a developmentscenario that suggests just such a parallelcourse. In their triad, the first step is toconstruct suitable artificial environments thatprovide not only life support, but also theamenities to promote health, well-being,productivity and crew acceptance of living in “aradically different environment for very longperiods of time.” The second step is to upgradethe artificial environment to the degree thatcrew members will be willing to “spend theirlives and eventually bear and raise children”there. Third and finally, the settlement achievesself-sufficiency and growth through the use of insitu resources to regenerate consumables.“The Lunar Outpost component of SEI willprovide the setting and drivers necessary todetermine how these three conditions can beattained” (Harper, Connell, 1990, p. 2).

Class 1 Architectures include the following.The Apollo Program was intended to extend toa 14-day base in enhanced Lunar ExcursionModules. The Air Force was the first to proposepre-integrated cylindrical modules landed onthe lunar surface (Richelson, 2000, pp.22-27).The University of Wisconsin proposed buildinga module and hub system on the surface.Madhu Thangavelu proposed assembling sucha module and hub base in orbit and thenlanding it intact on the moon (Thangavelu,1990).

Class 2 Architectures include: The NASA 90Day Study proposed an inflatable sphere ofabout 20m diameter for a lunar habitat (Alredet. al., 1989). Jenine Abarbanel of ColoradoState University proposed rectangular inflatablehabitats, with lunar regolith as ballast on the flattop (Abarbanel, Criswell, 1997).

Class 3 Architectures include: Lunar masonry,concrete, caves, vitrified-in-situ structures, andother use of natural lunar landforms. AliceEichold proposed a base within a crater ring(Eichold, 1996).

Further analysis shows that the development ofany lunar or planetary base will necessarilyinvolve all three types of construction, although

perhaps in ways that are both not obvious andperhaps too obvious. The paper presents acomparative characterization and analysis ofthese and other examples paradigms ofproposed lunar construction. It evaluates boththe architectures and the NASA Habitats andSurface Construction Road Map for how wellthey correlate to one another.

This paper draws upon two general references– Cohen and Kennedy, (1997) “Habitats andSurface Construction Technology DevelopmentRoadmap,” and Benaroya, (2002) “An Overviewof Lunar Base Structures: Past and Future.”Prof. Benaroya presents his review in the AIAASpace Architecture Symposium on October 11,2002, the same day as this paper in the LunarDevelopment session at the World SpaceCongress in Houston.This analysis shows the necessity ofaddressing the major environmental threats andstressors in the lunar (or planetary)environment that affect habitable architecture.An effective, reliable and safe strategy fordealing with these threats requires multipleresponses. These multiple responses informthe design process and products for lunararchitecture.

LUNAR ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITONSTo accomplish Harper and Connell’s lofty goals,the lunar architecture must overcome thethreats to health, life and safety from theextraordinarily hostile environment. Theseexternal environmental stressors will play acritical role in shaping lunar architecture, just asenvironmental forces shape architecture onEarth (Fitch, Bobenhausen, 1999), but to a farmore radical degree. On the Moon, thesethreats include vacuum, radiation,micrometeoroids, extreme thermal cycling andpartial gravity

While the architect recognizes the primacy ofstructure in building pneumatic habitats in suchan extremely hostile environment as the moon,the architect is also acutely aware that eachcountermeasure against these threats imposesan effect upon the crew quality of life. Fujii,Midorikawa, Shiba and Nitta (1990) presentthese key needs as: food, clothing, housing,

- 6 -

communication, and mental and physicalrequirements. They correlate these functionsacross three dimensions: basal life, passivepursuits, and active pursuits. In the followingdiscussion of environmental threats, it ispossible to see the role that constructiontechniques, materials, and other designconsiderations will play in shaping the quality oflife in a lunar base.

VacuumAll habitable space architecture is pneumatic, inwhich a pressure vessel contains asubstantially higher pressure than existsoutside it. On the moon, this vacuum is nearabsolute (on Mars it ranges from about 6 to 12millibar). This pneumatic shell may be rigid or itmay be inflatable. In either case, it will flex inresponse to changes in temperature andpressure. Interior outfitting must take thiselasticity into account and handle theconstraints that it imposes in connecting interiorsecondary structure to the primary structurewall, whether it is rigid or inflatable, butespecially if it is inflatable. Note that in theTransHab prototype (Kennedy, 1999), all thesecondary structure attaches to the axial core;none of it makes a connection to the inflatableshell that transfers loads such as shear orbending moment. The lunar habitat requires alife support system to provide the artificialatmosphere inside, and regular, ongoing airrevitalization to remove CO2 and to replenishthe O2.

The necessity of providing life support tosustain the crew in a lunar habitat and basemeans that the life support discipline plays amajor, all-pervasive role in determining thequality of life at the lunar base. Theatmospheric regime drives the life supportsystem, perhaps more than any other factor.However, the life support system encompassesmuch more in the total “operating system” for alunar base. Ferrall, Ganapathi, Rohatgi andSeshan at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (1994)used the NASA-JPL Life Support SystemsAnalysis (LiSSA) software tool to perform acomprehensive life support and power economymodeling of a lunar habitat. Their modelconsists of three “baseline system definitions:”

metabolic load basis, hygiene load basis, andbaseline system configuration (Ferrall, et. al.,1994, pp. II-1 – II-4).

These load bases are significant. Themetabolic load derives linearly from the numberof crew members and the intensity of theiractivities, and it drives the sizing of the airrevitalization system in particular, almostindependent of total atmospheric volume.Hygiene load refers to the water necessary forwashing and showering, which typically largerthat the amount needed for drinking water or forpreparing dehydrated foods. When the designof habitability systems includes washingmachines, this hygiene load will increasesubstantially.

In situ resource utilization can play a role inproviding life support consumables to producewater and air. Mike Duke, then at the NASAJohnson Space Center lunar and planetaryexploration program predicts that “oxygen willprobably be the first material produced on theMoon,” primarily as a constituent of rocket fuel(Duke, 1994, p. 1). However, O2 has obviousapplication in a life support system as well.

.18 G Partial GravityPerhaps the most obvious architectural attributeof the moon environment is the reducedacceleration of gravity, which at .18 Gconstitutes about 1/6 of the gravity on Earth.One might expect that this difference in gravitymight translate into a difference in the forces(F=Ma) that lunar structures must resist.Unfortunately, for both Class 1 and Class 2structure, there appears to be relatively littlebenefit in reducing the mass of structures forseveral reasons. First, all habitable architectureis pneumatic, so the atmospheric pressure tocontain rules the design of pressure vessels.Second, all structures made on the Earth andtransported to the moon must be sufficientlyrobust to resist launch loads. Third, whenconsidering the use of layers of regolith toprovide radiation shielding, there is a deadloadmass to support considerably greater than theconventional roof deadloads found on Earth.

- 7 -

The presence of substantial gravity on the moon– even at 1/6 G -- poses one potential advantageover a microgravity environment. The lunargravity field will allow the use of conventionalfluidized beds for life support systems andcontaminant filtration, which are not feasible onthe International Space Station. The use offluidized beds may help to reduce the cost andcomplexity of some life support systems.

The partial gravity regime also has an effectupon crew mobility, namely their ability to moveand to travel over the lunar surface, and withinthe lunar base or habitat. What architecturalconsiderations follow for the design of a habitatinterior remain to be seen. However one earlyobservation by Celantano and Amorelli of NorthAmerican Aviation, builders of the ApolloCommand and Service Modules is notable:“Design requirements specifically must considerthis ease of motion and involve safetyprovisions” (Celentano, Amorelli, 1965, p. 747).Dava Newman of MIT led a team thatinvestigated perambulation under varied gravityregimes in a neutral buoyancy water tank, andfound significant differences in locomotionamong the several regimes (Newman,Alexander, Webbon, 1994). Egons Podnieks ofthe US Bureau of Mines sounds a note ofcaution about the affect of lunar gravity onconstruction equipment and operations:

The lunar gravity, being only one-sixthof Earth gravity, causes differentdynamic conditions for equipmentmovements and operation. Stability ofhuman and robot movements would beimpaired, and tall equipment couldeasily topple when lateral loads areapplied (Podnieks, 1990, p. 7).

By inference, one can expect similar effects oflunar gravity upon other activities besidesmining, including construction, soil or regolithmoving, and other machine activities.

RadiationRadiation exposure is THE SHOWSTOPPER forlunar or planetary exploration missions that donot make a realistic assessment of this hazard tohealth and safety. While research on

radiobiological damage is still ongoing, there arevery grave concerns for effects upon astronauts.The actual exposure in space may reach 7 timesthe Earth allowable.

This radiation data shows that the regolithcovering on a lunar habitat should probably be atleast double the 50 cm used in the aboveanalysis. For a Class 1, pre-integrated habitat, itwill be extremely difficult to bring a mass of thatsize to the lunar surface as shielding.

Simonson, Nealy and Townsend at NASA-Langley Research Center make a prescientobservation in concluding the discussion of thedifference between prefabricated versus in situradiation shielding:

Lunar regolith still appears to be anattractive option for radiation protectionfor the habitat configurations consideredin this analysis. However, if muchsmaller habitats are selected, then themass of the regolith-moving equipmentmay approach the mass requirements ofpre-fabricated shields launched fromEarth. One of the major trade-offs willbe the EVA time requirements, EVArisk, and the reliability of the regolithmoving equipment. If it is deemednecessary to provide a flare shelterwhile the habitat is being covered, aviable option appears to be polyethyleneor water (Simonson, Nealy, Townsend,1992, p. 1355).

This analysis leads to the assessment that theClass 1 pre-integrated structures will almostcertainly need to include their own radiationshielding. While in situ production of regolith asa form of shielding seems attractive in somerespects, other materials present somesignificant advantages. Water, for example, isamorphous, and it would be possible to bringwater shielding to the Moon separately from thehabitat itself, and then pump the water intointernal shielding tanks (Cohen, 1997, pp. 6-7).For Class 2 prefabricated structures, radiationshielding appears to delineate a trade spaceinvolving regolith such as Simonson et aldescribe above, water or externally applied

- 8 -

polyethylene panels. For Class 3 structures,the use of in situ regolith for shielding is clearlyconsistent with the construction technology.

For the crew living in the Mars habitat, the factthat there is comprehensive radiation shieldingpresents implications for crew well-being andquality of life. Constance Adams discusses thisissue within a buried habitat:

Unlike the microgravity facilities, a Lunaror Mars habitat may be expected to beburied under a meter or more of soil forradiation protection. Designing CrewQuarters for a planetary habitattherefore involves taking into accountthe problem of how to mitigateclaustrophobia without the benefit ofwindows. In the BIO-Plex HAB chamber[at NASA-Johnson Space Center inHouston, TX], strategies are beinginvestigated for compensating for helack of outside views which include theintegration into partitions of flat-panelmonitors which function as “VirtualWindows” as well as planning for upper-surface penetrations for optic-fiber light“straws” to draw external sunlight intolight baffles designed to reflect that lightinto many interior spaces (Adams, 1998,p. 11).

MicrometeoroidsThe lunar surface is exposed to a steady flux ofmicrometeoroid particles in a range of sizes anddensities. Vanzani, Mazari and Botto (1997)analyzed the NASA Long Duration ExposureFacility results to extrapolate the micrometeoroidflux hitting the lunar surface. Their findings weredramatic. From their results, they predict a lunarmeteoroid flux two to three times larger thanprevious estimates, indicating a larger risk ofmeteoroid impact – and collision damage -- onthe lunar surface. They state:

As an example, a surface of about150m2 located on the moon is hit, onaverage, by one micrometeoroid largerthan 0.5 mm in diameter per year: a

projectile that size, impacting with anaverage velocity of about 13 km/sec,excavates in aluminum alloy material ofan hypothetical lunar basis structure acrater with diameter larger than about1.8 mm and depth greater than about 1mm. . . ..

The actual risk to critical structuresexposed on the Moon is difficult toestimate, but the flux of meteoroidsrepresents a significant hazard andrequires proper protection to criticalstructures — habitats, base supportfacilities, processing plants or researchinstruments, especially optical systemsand detector packages—that areexpected to last on the lunar surface formany years (Vanzani, Mazari, Botto1997, p.2).

Vazani, et. al.’s findings should influence thedesign of lunar structures. Beyond this level ofanalysis and prediction also, it may well becomenecessary to predict larger impact collisions,much as the US Army Corps of Engineersmakes predictions for 10 and 100-year floods.The risk assessment challenge will be todetermine what is an acceptable level of risk totake in terms of the consequences of a structuralfailure.

28 Day Diurnal CycleThe fact that the extreme thermal cycling on theMoon take place over a 28 day cycle, with 14days of intense sun and 14 days of deep, darkcold, has direct implications for the performanceand quality of life for the human crew. Themost obvious example is the discrepancy fromthe normal 24 hour day night cycle and itsrelation to normal sleep and wakefulnesscycles. Beyond this difference is the fact thatthe cycle will affect the availability of power,feasibility of EVA and other operations in thedarkness. The difference between day andnight operations poses a variety of safety andreliability questions.

- 9 -

FIGURE 2. Clementine (1996) view of theLunar South Pole (courtesy of NASA-GSFC).http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/ice/ice_moon.html

The 28-day cycle also tends to drive siteselection for a lunar base. There have beennumerous proposals to locate a lunar base atone of the lunar poles so that it can receive aconstant and abundant solar energy source. Inaddition, the Air Force’s Clementine missiondetected an apparent abundance of water ice.Subsequently, the NASA-Ames LunarProspector confirmed this discovery and foundeven more indications of ice at the North Pole.These discoveries increased the incentives tosituate a lunar base at the poles.

The NASA Space Science Data Center reports(NSSDC, 2002):

Much of the area around the South Poleis within the South Pole-Aitken Basin, . ... a giant impact crater 2500 km (1550miles) in diameter and 12 km deep at itslowest point. Many smaller craters existon the floor of this basin. Since they aredown in this basin, the floors of many ofthese craters are never exposed tosunlight. Within these craters thetemperatures would never rise aboveabout 100° K.

However, the extreme ruggedness of the terrainand extreme cold are a disincentive forconstruction. Very low temperature effectsinclude the possibility of material embrittlementand brittle fractures in structural members(Benaroya, Bernhold, Chua, 2002, p. 2).Because of the extreme depth of this ice, anylunar base that intended to take advantage ofthe constant sunlight would need to perch alongwith its solar collectors atop one of these craterrims. Building a base on top of such ruggedterrain poses a host of issues such as how toland a propulsive vehicle on it, how to unload it,and all the other practical considerations of aconstruction project in difficult terrain.

Thermal CyclingThe thermal environment on the moon poseschallenges to the design of lunar architecture atseveral levels. At the base-scale “macro level”the 28 day day/night cycle demands even andefficient performance under the extremelydifferent conditions of Lunar day and Lunarnight.

From the structural perspective, these severetemperature swings pose the threat of structuraland material fatigue, especially for exposedstructures (Benaroya, Bernhold, Chua, 2002, p.2). This temperature stress suggests that theexternal materials for lunar habitats and basesmust provide a thermal buffer to protect thestructural members from failure.

Walker, Alexander and Tucker of NASAMarshall Space Flight Center describe “specialproblems” for lunar thermal control:

Some types of lunar facilities will haveunique thermal control requirements,which restrict the techniques available tothe thermal designer. .

Lunar bases with a long-term humanpresence (90 days or more) present avery challenging thermal controlproblem. Typical concepts proposepower levels of 12 to 30 kW, whichmeans that a great deal of waste heatmust be rejected.

- 10 -

A significant part of coping with the thermalcycling involves thermal stability in the form ofheat sinks or storage. Thomas Sullivan of theNASA Johnson Space Center suggests anISRU heat sink/energy storage for the longlunar night. Specifically, he proposes castbasalt blocks. His concept would require nomoving parts except a fan to circulate airaround the blocks, which are spaced apart tomaximize the heat exchange surface area(Sullivan, 1990, pp. 6-7).

During the day part of the cycle, the thermalregulatory system faces the opposite problemfrom the night cycle – rejecting waste heat.Walker, Alexander and Tuck address this issue.

Solar power may be used to supplementother power generation methods, sopeak heat rejections occurs during thelunar day. In addition, dustaccumulation on thermal controlsurfaces is very likely. (Walker,Alexander, Tucker, 1995, pp. 30-31).

Keller and Ewer (2000) confirm the aboveconcern about dust impinging on lunar basethermal control systems. They modeled dust onhorizontal and vertical radiator surfaces, andalso on a “parabolic shade.” They recommendthat any heat rejection system be located atleast 1 km from any landing zone, because“lunar dust accumulations can drastically alterthe thermal performance of those systems thathave either secular, low absorptivity or lowemissivity surfaces” (Keller, Ewert, 2000, p. 7).

Thermal control on the moon will also emergeas an issue on the “micro level” of the individualEVA-suited astronaut. Victor Koscheyev, MD, aformer Soviet cosmonaut who now conductsphysiological/thermal research at the Universityof Minnesota and his team report issues ofuneven heating and cooling in both a spacesuited exposure during EVA and during IVA. Insome cases, mainly EVA, where one side of thesuit is in sunlight and the other in shadow,prolonged exposure can create stresses onboth the portable life support system and thecrew member’s metabolic thermoregulatorysystem. However, in the area of IVA,

microlevel thermal environment, Koscheyev etal report benefits from changeable thermalenvironments (Koscheyev, et al, 1996).

FIGURE 3. Apollo Astronaut Edwin “Buzz”Aldrin with gray lunar dust clinging thickly to his

boots and his knees. Note how desolate thelunar landscape appears in this photo. Credit

NASA SP-350.

Ironically, the most thermally stable areas onthe Moon may be the coldest places – the deepcraters at the poles. The floors of these cratershave been in shadow since they were createdby impacts. Ice in these craters could bebillions of years old, promising a potentialscientific bonanza. Whether it would beeconomic or practical to extract this water forconsumption is an entirely different questionbecause at a 1 to 2% concentration, the icewould constitute a very low grade ore that

- 11 -

would require considerable equipment andprocessing. Even if it proves technicallypossible to extract water from this ice for lifesupport consumables or fuel, due to theextreme cold and difficult access, such a use isprobably very far in the future.

DustThe extreme thermal cycling creates the deepdust on the lunar surface as the constantthermal cycling breaks regolith and rocks intosmaller and smaller particles. Dust is perhapsthe ubiquitous problem on the moon, as it willtend to get in everywhere and to covereverything. The lunar dust is highly abrasive,and can cause problems not only for thermalcontrol emissive surfaces, but also for hatchseals and mechanisms, EVA suits and systems,and many other types of equipment. JudithAllton and Howard V. Lauer, Jr., of LockheedMartin Corporation at the NASA Johnson SpaceCenter Lunar Lab reported on the Apolloexperience:

The Apollo experience indicated that ina low-gravity, vacuum environment dusttraveled easily from the surface andadhered ferociously to equipment. Fourof the 12 Apollo rock boxes did not sealadequately (Allton, Lauer, 1991, p. 313).

FIGURE 3 shows a NASA photo of Buzz Aldrin,Apollo astronaut, taken by Neil Armstrong, withlunar dust clinging thickly to his boots andknees. The design of a lunar habitat or basemust present some effective and pro-activemeasures to mitigate dust intrusion,degradation of equipment and other effects.Other Apollo astronauts returned from EVA onthe lunar surface with the legs of their spacesuits completely coated in the dark gray dust.

Landing Zone (LZ) SafetyKeller and Ewert’s recommendation above thatthe base should be at least one km from the LZbecause of the dust that landing or take-offwould kick up raises the larger question oftransportation safety. In this respect, the LZrepresents a “human-made” potential

environmental hazard. The concern is whatwould happen if a vehicle crashed on landing orexploded on launch? Given the low lunargravity, the shrapnel from such an impact orexplosion could travel considerably farther thanthe same accident on Earth. Benaroya,Bernhold & Chua comment on the ejecta fromsuch a propulsive event:

Keeping in mind that a particle set inmotion by the firing from a rocket from alander could theoretically travel halfwayaround the Moon, the effects of surfaceblasting on the Moon would besomething to be concerned about.(Benaroya, Bernhold, Chua, 2002, p. 3).

Note that this comment applies in the firstinstance to a normal landing or launch withoutan accident. The effects of an accidental crashor explosion could be far more severe. Itsuggests that the design of any Moon base orhabitat must situate it at a considerable removefrom the LZ. It also suggests that substantialshielding at the base site would be prudent.

The further implication of LZ safety is that oncea payload lands in this designated area, it willbe necessary to move it overland to the basesite. It would not be safe to leave thesepayloads in the LZ where normal ejecta coulddamage them. How to move this habitat orpayload mass is a topic that will requireextensive further study, especially over theunprepared lunar surface. The first order issueis probably whether to make the habitat self-mobile such as walking, or to provide a tractorto pull it on wheels. Other concepts include off-loading a module from a lander platform andmoving it on a different vehicle to the base site.

ASSESSMENT OF THECONSTRUCTION CLASSES

The preceding discussion should show at thevery least that lunar construction is achallenging and complex undertaking. Many ofthe environmental threats or constraints interactamong themselves in sometimes surprising anddifficult ways. Also, the initial 1997 NASAHabitats and Surface Construction Roadmapencounters the same complexity. As a result,

- 12 -

few of the construction and structure types willbe purely a product of one “class.” Instead,they suggest a matrix of interactions thatappears in TABLE 2. In this table, each classof construction intersects the other classes, aswell as themselves to reveal the richness anddiversity of potential outcomes.

TABLE 2 reveals two characteristics of lunararchitecture. First, the three classes articulatedin 1997 offer insufficient detail to cover all thepossibilities. Second, there are additionalproperties and qualities of architecture that thetaxonomic classification approach does notaddress. Since the introduction to this paperdwelled upon classification, the discussion willmove on briefly to typology and morphologybefore returning to a deeper examination ofarchitectural taxonomy.

TypologyEach class of structure serves a diversity ofpurposes; as such it takes on a variety ofbuilding types. Architectural typology derivesfrom the functional and social origins of thesepurposes and their significance in the operationof the living and working environment. Thetypology is independent of form (morphology).

The typology of lunar base functions include thehabitat; laboratory; EVA assess facility includingairlock; the pressurized rover as anaugmentation of the habitable environment;connecting tunnels or nodes; and outerprotective shells. In addition, the lunar basewould include building types for a greenhouses; in situ resource generating plants;scientific sample cataloging and storage facility;

MorphologyMorphology is the science or study of form.Architectural morphology pertains to howbuilding types and structures take on theshapes that serve their purposes. It is not thepurpose of this paper to convey a dissertationon all the possible forms of lunar architecture.Rather, it is necessary only to make a fewsalient points about the form of lunar facilities.The two most common forms of Class 1, hardpre-integrated modules are the ISS derived“long module” and the squat “tuna can” module.

The most common forms of Class 2, deployedpre-fabricated modules are inflatables, notablythe dome or sphere and the long “sausageshape.” The most common ideas of Class 3 insitu construction are the lunar concrete ormasonry dome or vault structure. The use ofcaves, bored tunnels or lava tubes to receiveClass 1 or Class 2 habitat liners rather begs thequestion of shape and size. Whether theinflatable fits the cave or the cave fits theinflatable will be a field engineering decision.

- 13 -

TaxonomyThe three classes of habitats and surfaceconstruction constitute what is essentiallytaxonomy of structures. Architecturaltaxonomy pertains to the top-down view of howhabitats are constructed, taking into account theclassification of materials, structures andtechniques.

CLASS 1. PRE-INTEGRATED

1.1. Hard Module, integrated completely onEarth, may be metal or composite.

1.1.1. ISS derived long module1.1.2. Tuna Can1.1.3. Spherical or hexagonal node

1.2. Inflatable Module, integrated completelyin LEO, then landed on the Moon.

1.2.1. TransHab “Fat Tire” module1.2.2. Other module

1.3. Completely pre-integrated lunar base,landed fully assembled, such asMALEO.

CLASS 2. PREFABRICATED, DEPLOYED ORASSEMBLED.

2.1. Mobile module

2.1.1. Move it away from the LZ2.1.2. Pressurized Rover as a contingency

habitat.2.1.3. Mobile Base Concept – the whole

base moves like a caravan.

2.2. Deployed on surface

2.2.1. Inflatables• Transhab• Abarbanel & Criswell• FLO Sphere• Long “sausage” module

2.2.2. Telescoping or other expandingmodules

2.2.3. Assembled Modules—moveelements together on surface toform a base ensemble.

CLASS 3. IN SITU RESOURCECONSTRUCTION

3.1. Use of Natural Features.

3.1.1. Lunar surface provides de factoshielding.

3.1.2. Cliff, steep crater wall or othervertical feature provides anadditional increment of shielding.

3.1.3. Surrounding natural elements.• Natural cave• Lava tube• Other natural feature

3.1.4. Bored or drilled shelter.• Cave in cliff face• Tunnel through crater rim

3.2. Processed In Situ Materials

3.2.1. Minimally processed “raw” regolith,bagged and set upon a habitat.

3.2.2. Maximally processed concrete ormasonry.

3.2.3. Vitrified in place cave, tunnel,concrete or masonry structures.

- 14 -

TABLE 2. Matrix of Classes of Habitats and Lunar/Planetary Structure

PRIMARYCLASS

STRUCTURE

SECONDARY CLASS

STRUCTURE

PRE-INTEGRATED PREFABRICATED IN-SITU

PRE-INTEGRATED

“Tuna Can”/Node

ISS Long Module

ISRU Fuel Plant

EVA Access Module

Power System

“Tuna Can” with node orflex-docking tunnel.

Inflatable expansion ofa hard, pre-integratedmodule.

Regolith packed on ahard module forradiation andmicrometeoroidprotection.

Location on lunar/Marssurface affords ameasure of protection.

Location adjacent tohigh cliff face or craterwall may add protection

PRE-FABRICATED

Inflatable with

Pre-Integrated Safe Haven,

Telescoping Modules withPre-integrated nodes.

Inflatable dome orsphere with flex tunnelsor telescoping modules.

Regolith packed on aninflatable or telescopingmodule for radiation andmicrometeoroidprotection.

Inflatable in a crater,surface depression,cave, or Lava tube.

IN-SITU Concrete from regolith

Masonry Vault or cave witha hard, Pre-integratedmodule inside.

Concrete shell,

Masonry vault or Lavatube with an inflatable,pressurized habitatliner.

In Situ vitrification andpressure sealing ofcave, bored tunnel, orlava tube with concreteor masonry pressurebulkheads.

- 15 -

FIGURE 4. Early NASA Concept for a Post-Apollo temporary Lunar Base, using all Class 1, pre-integrated lander – hard modules. Credit NASA Marshall Space Flight Center.

ILLUSTRATED NARRATIVEThis narrative describes the key features thatemerge from the architectural taxonomy oflunar construction. It is not intended to becomprehensive, but rather to highlight thesalient points in this assessment.

CLASS 1FIGURE 4 shows an early concept for a post-Apollo temporary lunar base, featuring themultiple, near-simultaneous landing of severalvehicles that serve as lunar surface habitats or“living stations.” There is no attempt to linkthem together with pressurized connectors sothat the crew may visit in a shirtsleeveenvironment. The difficulty of always needing

to don a space suit and cycle through anairlock, and then climb down the very longladder to do anything outside the habitat landersoon became readily apparent. Theunpressurized lunar rover seems to provide ataxi service among the habitat modules and the“work station” and “drill station” which areclearly an EVA enterprise. There are manyapparent potential safety problems: landing thehabitats so close together; having to carry asick or injured crewmember up the long ladderto return him or her to safety in the pressurizedcabin; and the lack of any pressurizedemergency egress from the habitats.

- 16 -

FIGURE 5. 1992 joint study by McDonnell Douglas (USA) and Shimizu Corporation (Japan) using theArtemis Lander concept. Courtesy of NASA-Johnson Space Center.

FIGURE 5 shows a design concept that derivesfrom NASA’s First Lunar Outpost (FLO) study.In this drawing, the EVA crewmembers areusing a crane to unload a habitat module fromthe Artemis, multipurpose cargo lander beforeplacing it on a flatbed transporter fortransportation from the LZ to the Moon Basearea.

The flatbed vehicle will move the habitatmodule to the lunar base in the background tothe left, a distance that appears on the order of

a kilometer. This arrangement solves thesafety problems of setting up and living in thehabitat modules right where they land in the LZ.However, in order to make this movement ofcargo and modules possible, the crew needs aninfrastructure of cranes and transportervehicles. Neither the crane nor the flatbedappear to have pressurized crewcompartments, which while it reduces the costalso limits the utility of these pieces ofequipment.

- 17 -

FIGURE 6. Fully pre-integrated Class 1MALEO lunar base arriving at the moon.

Credit: Madhu Thangavelu

FIGURE 6 shows Madhu Thangavelu’s MALEOconcept: Modular Assembly in Low Earth Orbita creative solution to the problem of assemblinga fully integrated lunar base. In this concept, thearchitect recognizes the significant cost oflanding a Class 1, pre-integrated basepiecemeal on the lunar surface. In fact, thenecessity of assembling, deploying andintegrating the modules and other elements onthe Moon undermines the main benefits of theentire Class 1 pre-integration. Thangavelu, whoteaches Space Architecture at the University ofSouthern California, found that it would be farless complex and costly to assemble the lunarbase in Low Earth Orbit, and then inject it on acislunar trajectory. The entire base would landin one piece.

For a pre-integrated lunar architecture, thisdesign offers these advantages:• Avoids the need to move the modules one at

a time from the LZ;• Eliminates the cranes, transporters and other

mobility equipment necessary to movethem;

• Saves the time, delay, expense and labornecessary to assemble all the componentson the lunar surface, and

• Prevents dust intrusion at the critical module-to-module connections.

The MALEO assembly operation in LEO islower energy, lower mass and cleaner than onthe lunar surface. It is also possible to takeadvantage of existing ISS crews to performmuch of the work, thereby saving the need tosend a construction crew to the Moon whowould need to live in a different, temporaryhabitat.

- 18 -

CLASS 2 Prefabricated, Deployed HabitatFIGURE 7a and 7b show a Class 2 LunarReturn Habitat (LRH) designed by KrissKennedy at NASA-Johnson Space Center.FIGURE 7a shows the LRH as landed beforeany of its components are deployed or inflated.FIGURE 7b shows the LRH fully deployed, withthe “accordion” type bellows habitat pressurevessel fully inflated. Note also the deploymentof other elements such as the antenna and stairladder.

The key attributes of the Class 2 habitat arethat all components are manufactured on Earthand launched in a stowed configuration. Uponarrival on the Moon, the remotely operated orautonomous deployment system prepares theClass 2 habitat for use by unstowing, unfolding,assembling, erecting deploying or inflating thehabitat – or by taking some combination of allthese actions, probably as incremental steps.

Figure 7a. Lunar Return Habitat in landingposition with the inflatable habitat andequipment stowed. Credit Kriss Kennedy,NASA-JSC.

FIGURE7b. Lunar Return Habitat in deployedand inflated position for use on the lunarsurface. Credit Kriss Kennedy, NASA-JSC.

- 19 -

FIGURE 8. Class 1, Pre-integrated “Tuna Can” hard module, landed complete on the lunar or Marssurface. Credit: John Frassinito and Associates, circa 1993.

At a larger scale than Kennedy’s LRH, it ispossible to make a comparison between Class1 and Class 2 Habitats. FIGURE 8 shows apair of pre-integrated “Tuna Can” moduleslanded and moved side by side on the lunar orMars surface.

In this analysis, it is logical to considermovement of a module as a form ofdeployment. In this sense, any module thatrequires movement away from the LZ containsan aspect of the Class 2 characteristic ordeployment. Each “Tuna Can” comes equippedwith a set of four wheels on which to roll when arover or tractor tows them from the LZ to thebase site. When looking at such large modulesin the 40 to 50 metric ton range, it becomesnecessary to consider the surface conditions

Another important feature are the low-hangingEVA airlocks, which occur in a natural locationto install inflatable vestibules or attach inflatablemodules. Connectivity between two suchmodules is a key feature for crew productivityand safety. Ideally, there would be at least one

pressurized tunnel connecting the two modulesat the level of the airlock. Better still would be asecond tunnel connecting pressure ports on theupper level of each of the two story Tuna Cans.These tunnels would clearly be Class 2inflatable-deployable elements

FIGIRE 9 shows a concept for a larger scaleinflatable dome, approximately 16m indiameter, proposed for the Lacus Veris site onthe Moon. This dome would have five levels,including the subsurface “level zero,” andaccommodate quite a large lunar population of12 crewmembers. The long inflatable moduleattached to the dome is a different style ofconstruction, but is still quintessential Class 2.However, the concentric rings that appear fromthe lunar surface up to the middle of the domeare radiation protection devices, packed orextruded into fabric containment tubes. In thisimage, these tubes are under construction as amachine to the right of the dome emplaces theregolith into a fabric tube and then places it onthe lower concentric ring.

The oblong habitat to the right has a similarconfiguration of regolith tubes. However, it is

difficult to discern whether the module they areprotecting is another inflatable or a large,

- 20 -

preintegrated Class 1 cylindrical module placedlongitudinally on the surface. This modulesupports a solar photo-voltaic collector array,and additional “solar power farms” appear in theupper left and upper right corners of the image.

Running diagonally from behind the dome tothe vanishing point at the horizon is an unusualfeature for lunar schemes: a prepared road. Onthis road in the distance, a pressurized rover isdriving. Another such pressurized roverappears at the left side of the inflatable dome,near the left center edge of the picture. This

rover is docked to an airlock that clearly is apreintegrated element.

Thus, although the inflatable dome habitat ispredominantly Class 2 structure it would alsoinclude smaller components of all three classes.In incorporates some Class 1 elements such asthis airlock, Class 2 items such as the inflatabletunnel connecting the two large habitats, andClass 3 in-situ produced material in the form ofregolith for radiation protection.

- 21 -

FIGURE 9. Lacus Veris Lunar Outpost, (NASA JSC, 1989).

- 22 -

FIGURE 10. Detailed Cross-Section of the Lacus Veris Inflatable habitat.

FIGURE 10 shows a cutaway view of the LacusVeris inflatable habitat interior. It provides fourlevels of living and working areas. In this designfrom 1989, these four levels are not particularlydifferentiated by function. At lower left is anairlock. The subsurface Level Zero contains theenvironmental control & life-support system.Levels One, Two, and Three accommodaterelatively undifferentiated crew quarters. LevelFour, at the top of the dome would house morespecialized “crew support” functions, notablyhealth and recreation facilities.

Levels One through Three would contain amixture of living environment functions includingprivate and group activity crew quarters, thewardroom, galley, and hygiene facilities. Theworking environment would include facilities forsuch activities as base operations,communications, landing operations, EVAoperations support and monitoring, science fieldsupport, and science laboratories.

CLASS 3Class 3 lunar architecture necessarily involvesthe use of in situ materials or landforms. Theselandforms include all parts of craters such asbottoms, rims, and walls; cliffs, maria, lavatubes and other features. In situ materials onthe Moon generally refer to products made fromregolith such as lunar concrete, lunar masonry,and radiation shielding.

FIGURE 11 shows a candidate type of“natural” landform in Oregon: a lava tube,produced by a volcano, now hopefully extinct.The technology to directly build into a lava tubewith rigid materials is far beyond presentcapability. However, it is quite reasonable toimagine inserting a tube-shaped inflatable andthen pressurizing it. The balloon would shapeitself to the interior rock walls, which wouldprovide excellent shielding against radiation

- 23 -

and meteoroids and also provide a degree ofthermal stability.

FIGURE 11. Oregon Lava tube,By permission of Bryce Walden, Oregon L5Society. http://www.oregonl5.org/lavatube/,

FIGURE 12 shows a lava tube in Hawaii toillustrate the object lesson: make sure your lavatube is really dead, not just dormant. Thispicture illustrates the important feature that lavatubes can run horizontally for hundreds ofmeters, which would be much moremanageable for a crew habitat than a tube thatruns only vertically.

FIGURE 13 shows an innovative constructionconcept proposed by Alice Eichold, a SpaceArchitect. Her idea is to use a crater as thestructure to support a cable-suspendedstructure. This structure would most likelyconnect to an inflatable roof structure. HoweverEichold hopes eventually to find away topressure-seal the compression ring to the lunarsubsurface rock, assuming it is possible to finda location where the shock fractures do notmake that scheme impossible.

FIGURE 14 shows a dome build of nativemasonry, created by the architect Nader Khaliliat his CalEarth Institute in Hesperia California.The interesting aspect of Khalili’s work is thatafter he builds his masonry structures, he coatsthe interior surface with a glaze. He then firesthe glaze with an intensely hot incendiarysource inside the dome, in this way achieving awell-sealed surface inside. Hopefully, it will bepossible to develop this in-situ vitrificationtechnology to the point that it can be used toseal pressurized lunar masonry or concretedomes.

FIGURE 12. View of a Hawaiian lava tube withan active flow of molten lava. Credit USGS,courtesy of R. D. “Gus” Fredricks, Oregon L5Society. http://www.oregonl5.org/lavatube/

- 24 -

DISCUSSIONIn some respects, Class 3 Structures are moreready-to-hand than Class 1 or Class 2structures because they are more familiar to us,and more closely related to structures built of 3native materials on Earth. However, the bestapproaches are still not well understood forextracting regolith and processing it for thevarious types of Class 3 building materials.One fascinating paradox concerns the questionof water on the Moon, and extracting it for useby a human crew. Lunar concrete offers aparticularly ironic example. ISRU advocateswant to extract and mine the approximately 1 to2% concentration of water in the polar regolith.Compare this “low grade ore” of ice mixed withsoil to cured concrete, which typically hasresidual moisture content of about 3%. If lunarconcrete existed naturally on the Moon, theISRU advocates would be clamoring to mine itto extract the residual water content!

Beyond these types of questions of what is thebest approach to process and apply lunarmaterials, the difficulties of constructing withthese materials in the lunar environment aretremendous. On Earth, the constructionindustry has one of the highest injury rates ofany vocation, rivaled only by commercialfishing, logging, and slaughterhouse work.According to the Centers for Disease Control,“Industries with the highest death rates weremining (30 per 100,000 workers),agriculture/forestry/fishing (19), and

construction (15)” (CDC, 2001, p. 317). Thus,Crew Safety emerges as an increasingconcern, the more work the astronauts mustperform on-site to build habitats and lunarbases. The development of safe constructionprocedures, training for astronaut-builders, andsafety monitoring at all times will be essentialfor safe and effective Class 3 lunarconstruction.

CONCLUSIONThe selected precepts reviewed in this paperindicate the significant extent to whicharchitects and engineers have thought throughthe problems and challenges of building lunararchitecture. Most of this progress occurred inthe past decade. In this respect, the disciplineof Space Architecture is far ahead of currentexploration programs in pursuing developmentplans for the moon.

Still, almost all of these designs are quiteconceptual and even speculative. In order toseriously develop any of these concepts, thearchitects, engineers and builders will need toengage in a well-funded and supportedtechnology development program. Eacharchitecture type or concept will requirerigorous testing in a field or simulatedenvironment. None-the-less, the results of thisreview are encouraging. The hands and heartsand minds are here and ready to begin the work

- 25 -

FIGURE 13. Transverse section through Alice Eichold’s Class 3 concept for a lunar crater base.

FIGURE14. CalEarth Institute masonry dome, model for lunar masonry vitrified in situ.

- 26 -

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSI wish to thank the following people for helpingme to prepare this paper:

Doug O’Handley, Lunar Development SessionChair for inviting me to submit this paper.

Hyam Benaroya for making his AIAA SpaceArchitecture Symposium review paper availableto me early in the process of writing.

Kriss Kennedy for all his excellent effort incollaborating with me on the Habitats andSurface Construction Roadmap, which hedescribes in part in his AIAA Space ArchitectureSymposium paper “The Vernacular of SpaceArchitecture.”

Bryce Walden for generously giving mepermission to reproduce the photo of theOregon lava tube.

GENERAL REFERENCESBenaroya, Haym, (2002, October 11) An

Overview of Lunar Base Structures: Pastand Future, AIAA -6113, AIAA SpaceArchitecture Symposium at the WorldSpace Congress, Houston, TX.

Cohen, Marc M., and Kennedy, Kriss J. (1997,November). “Habitats and SurfaceConstruction Technology and DevelopmentRoadmap,” in Noor, Ahmed K.; Malone,John B.; Eds, Government SponsoredPrograms on Structures Technology, NASACP-97-20624.

REFERENCESAbarbanel, Jenine E.; Criswell, Marvin E.;

(1997) Design Development of an InflatableModule for a Lunar/Martian Base, SAE972487, 27th ICES.

Adams, Constance M., (1998) Four Legs in theMorning: Issues in Crew Quarter Design forLong-Duration Space Facilities, SAE981794, 28th ICES.

Allton, Judith H.; Lauer, Howard V., Jr. (1991)“Effects of Dust on Teflon Face Seals:Implications for Martian Soil Containers,”IDEEA ONE, pp. 313-317.

Alred, John, et al (1989, Aug) Lunar Outpost,JSC-23613, Houston, TX: NASA JohnsonSpace Center.

Balin, Mark G.; Likens, William C.; Finn, CoryK.; Bilardo, Vincent J., Jr.; Ng, Yat Sun;(1991) Analysis of an Initial Lunar OutpostLife Support System Preliminary Design,SAE 911395, SAE 1991 Transactions,Journal of Aerospace, pp. 999-1015.

Benaroya, Haym; Bernold, Leonhard; Chua,Koon Meng; (2002, April) “EngineeringDesign and Construction of Lunar Bases,”Journal of Aerospace Engineering, Volume15, No. 2., American Society of CivilEngineers, pp. 1-13.

Benaroya, Haym, Ed., (1993, June) AppliedMechanics of a Lunar Base, AppliedMechanics Reviews, Volume 46, No. 6,American Society of Mechanical Engineers.

Celentano, J. T.; Amorelli, D.; (1965) “DesignRequirements for Manned Orbital Basesand Lunar Bases,” 2nd Space Congress:New Dimensions in Space Technology,Cocoa Beach, FL: Canaveral Council ofTechnical Societies. pp. 743-752.

Centers for Disease Control (Accessed 2001,April 27). “Fatal Occupational Injuries –United States 1980-1997,” MMWR Weekly,50:16, Atlanta, GA: CDC. pp. 317-320.http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5016a4.htm, accessed October,2002.

Cohen, Marc M. (1997, July). Design ResearchIssues for an Interplanetary Habitat, SAE-972485, 27th ICES.

Duke, Michael B., (1994). Consideration for theUtilization of In-Situ Resources in LifeSupport Systems on the Moon, SAE941258, 24th ICES.

- 27 -

Ehrike, Krafft A., (1985) “Lunar Industrializationand Settlement — the Birth of PolyglobalCivilization,” in Mendell, W. W., Ed., pp.827-855.

Eichold, Alice (1996) Conceptual Design of aCrater Lunar Base, SAE 961464, 26th ICES.

Ferrall, J. F.; Ganapathi, G. B.; Rohatgi, N. K.;Seshan, P. K.; (1994). Life SupportSystems Analysis and Technical Trades fora Lunar Outpost, NASA TM 109927,Washington DC: NASA.

Fitch, James Marston; Bobenhausen, William;(1999). American Building: TheEnvironmental Forces that Shape It, NewYork: Oxford University Press.

Fujii, T.; Midorikawa, Y.; Shiba, M.; Nitta, K.;(1990). “Human Requirements for Quality ofLife in Lunar Base,” SAE 901207, SAE1990 Transactions – Journal of Aerospace,pp. 365-375.

Harper, Lynn D.; Connell, Kathleen M.; (1990).The Lunar Outpost: Testbed forColonization and Extraterrestrial Evolution,AIAA-90-3850, AIAA Space Programs andTechnologies Conference, Huntsville AL,Sept 25-28, 1990.

Howe, A. Scott; Howe, Jeffrey W.; (2000).Applying Construction AutomationResearch to Extraterrestrial BuildingProjects, SAE 2000-01-2465. 30th ICES.

Keller, John R.; Ewert, Michael K.; (2000).Lunar Dust Contamination Effects on LunarBase Thermal Control Systems, SAE 2000-01-2405. 30th ICES.

Kennedy, Kriss J. (1999, July). ISS TransHab:Architecture Description, SAE 1999-01-2143, 29th ICES.

Koscheyev, Victor S.; Greaves, Ian A.; Leon,Gloria R.; Hubel, Allison; Nelson, Eric D.;(1996) Comfort and Heat Control During

Extended Space Flights, SAE 961538, 26th

ICES.

Lewis, John S.; Lewis, Ruth A.; (1987). SpaceResources: Breaking the Bonds of Earth,New York: Columbia University Press.

Mendell, Wendell W., Ed., (1985). Lunar Basesand Space Activities of the 21st Century,Houston, TX: Lunar and Planetary Institute.

National Council on Radiation Protection (2000,Dec.) Radiation Protection Guidance forActivities in Low Earth Orbit, NCRP ReportNo. 132..

Newman, D.J., Alexander, H.L., and Webbon,B.W., (1994). "Energetics and Mechanicsfor Partial Gravity Locomotion," Aviat.Space and Environ. Med., 65: 815-823,

NSSDC (2002) National Space Science DataCenter, NASA-Goddard Space FlightCenter.http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/ice/ice_moon.html, accessed July 23, 2002.

Podnieks, Egons R., (1990). Lunar MiningOutlook, AIAA 90-3751, AIAA SpacePrograms and Technologies Conference,Huntsville AL, Sept 25-28, 1990.

NASA-Johnson Space Center (1989,November) Report of the 90-Day Study onHuman Exploration of the Moon and Mars,Houston: NASA.

Richelson, Jeffrey T. (2000, Sept./Oct.).“Shooting the Moon,” Bulletin of the AtomicScientists. Pp. 22-27.

Simonson, Lisa C.; Nealy, John E.; Townsend,Lawrence W.; (1992). Concepts andStrategies for Lunar Base RadiationProtection: Prefabricated Versus In-SituMaterials, SAE 921370, SAE 1992Transactions, Journal of Aerospace, pp.1348-1359.

- 28 -

Smith, A., (1993, June). “Mechanics ofMaterials in Lunar Base Design,” inBenaroya, Ed., 1993, pp. 268-271.

Space Studies Board (2000). Radiation and theInternational Space Station:Recommendations to Reduce Risk,Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Sullivan, T. A.,(1990). Process EngineeringConcerns in the Lunar Environment, AIAA-90-3753, AIAA Space Programs andTechnologies Conference, Huntsville AL,Sept 25-28, 1990.

Thangavelu, Madhu; (1990) MALEO: ModularAssembly in Low Earth Orbit, An AlternativeStrategy for Lunar Base Development, IAF-90-443, 41st Congress of the InternationalAstronautical Federation, Dresden, October6-12, 1990.

Vanzani, V.; Marzari, F.; Dotto, E.; (1997).Micrometeoroid Impacts on the LunarSurface, Lunar and Planetary ScienceConference XXVIII, 1025.pdf, Houston, TX:Lunar and Planetary Institute.http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc97,assessed July 23, 2002.

Walker, Sherry T.; Alexander, Reginald A.;Tucker, Stephen P.; (1995) “ThermalControl on the Lunar Surface,” JBIS, Vol.48, pp. 27-32.

Wilson, J. W., et. al., (1999) AstronautExposures to Ionizing Radiation in a Lightly-Shielded Spacesuit, SAE 1999-01-2173,29th ICES.

Wilson, J. W.; Miller, J.; Konradi, A.; Cucinotta,F. A.; (1997, December) ShieldingStrategies for Human Space Exploration,NASA CP 3360, Hampton VA: NASALangley Research Center.

ADDITIONAL SOURCESAldrin, Buzz; McConnell, Malcolm; (1989) Men

From Earth, New York: Bantam Books.

Benaroya, Haym, (1998, Oct) “Economic andTechnical Issues for Lunar Development,”Journal of Aerospace Engineering, Vol II,No. 4. pp. 111-118.

Brooks, Courtney G.; Grimwood, James M.;Swenson, Lloyd S., Jr., (1979) Chariots forApollo: A History of Manned LunarSpacecraft, NASA SP-4205, Washington,DC: NASA.

Budden, Nancy Ann, Ed. (1994, August)Catalog of Lunar and Mars SciencePayloads, NASA RP 1345, Washington DC:NASA.

Carr, Michael H. ; Greeley, Ronald, (1980).Volcanic Features of Hawaii: A Basis forComparison with Mars, NASA SP-403,Washington, DC: NASA.

Elrod, Molly, (1995). “Considerations of aHabitat Design,” JBIS, Vol 48., pp. 38-42.

Gitelson, J. I.; Shepelev, Ye. Ya.; (1996).Creation of Life Support Systems for theLunar Outpost and Planetary Bases:History, Present State of Research inRussia (Former Soviet Union) andProspects, SAE 961553, 26th ICES.

Iwata, Tsutomu, (1994) “Evolutionary Scenarioof Lunar Manufacturing,” JBIS Vol. 47, pp.539-542.

Kelly, Thomas J., (1990) A Review of the ApolloLunar Program and Its Lessons for FutureSpace Missions, AIAA 90-3617, AIAASpace Programs and TechnologiesConference, Sept. 25-28, Huntsville, AL.

Mankins, John C.; (1995) Strategies to Beginand Sustain a Lunar Exploration Program— Revisited, AIAA 95-4060, AIAA SpacePrograms and Technologies Conference,September 26-28, Huntsville, AL.

Moore, Gary T. ; Huebner-Moths, Janis; (1991).“Genesis II Advanced Lunar OutpostHuman Factors Design Response,” IDEEAONE, pp. 517-531.

- 29 -

Moore, Patrick, (1976) Guide to the Moon,London: Butterworth Press.

Nash, Douglas B.; et al. (1989, June) ScienceExploration Opportunities for MannedMissions to the Moon, Mars, Phobos, andan Asteroid, JPL 89-29, Pasadena, CA:JPL.

Sadeh, Willy Z.; Criswell, Marvin E.; Abarbanel,Jenine E.; (1996). “An Inflatable Module forUse on Mars,” in The Case for Mars VI,McMillan, Kelly R.; American AstronauticalSociety, Science and Technology Series,Volume 98, San Diego: Univelt, Inc. pp.303-308.

Wilson, John W., et. al., (1991) TransportMethods and Interactions for SpaceRadiations, NASA RP-1257, WashingtonDC: NASA.

DEFINITIONSAIAA American Institute of Aeronautics and

Astronautics.

cSv centi-Syvert, SI unit of absorbedradiation dosage equal to one rem.,which it replaces as the unit of choice.

EVA Extravehicular Activity

GCR Galactic Cosmic Ray

Gy-Eq Gray equivalent, SI unit measure ofincident radiation, incorporating relativebiological effectiveness (RBE), replacesthe rad and Q quality factor.

ICES International Conference onEnvironmental Systems.

IDEEA ONE The first International Design ofExtreme Environments Assembly,November 1991, University of Houston.

IVA Intravehicular activity, including crewactivity inside a lunar or planetary base.

JBIS Journal of the British InterplanetarySociety

JPL NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory,Pasadena, CA

JSC NASA Johnson Space Center

LEO Low Earth Orbit

LRH Lunar Return Habitat

LZ Landing Zone

Mophology The science of form (OED).

NASA National Aeronautics and SpaceAdministration.

NCRP National Council on Radiation Protection

NSSDC National Space Science DataCenter, located at NASA-GoddardSpace Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD

OED Oxford English Dictionary

SAE Society of Automotive Engineers

SPE Solar Proton Event

Taxonomy Classification, especially inrelation to its general laws or principles (OED).

Typology The study of symbolicrepresentation, especially of origin andmeaning. . . (OED). Architectural typologyconcerns the functional and social origin ofbuilding types.