exploringthechallengesofhabitationdesignforextendedhuman ...also biology and medicine whose focus is...

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Acta Astronautica ( ) –www.elsevier.com/locate/actaastro

Exploring the challenges of habitation design for extended humanpresence beyond low-earth orbit: Are new requirements and

processes needed?

Douglas K.R. Robinsona,∗, Glenn Sterenborgb, Sandra Häuplikc, Manuela Aguzzid

aDepartment of Science, Technology, Health and Policy Studies, University of Twente, The NetherlandsbDepartment of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Harvard University, USA

cInstitute for Design and Construction, HB2, UT Vienna, AustriadFaculty of Design, INDACO Department, Polytechnic of Milan, Italy

Received 20 December 2006; received in revised form 14 September 2007; accepted 17 January 2008

Abstract

With the renewed interest in a sustained human presence beyond low-earth orbit, habitation in space, on planets and on moonsis an area that requires re-evaluation in terms of mission and habitat design—there is a need for a paradigmatic move from adesign focus on short-term LEO missions to that of long-term missions in LEO and beyond. We claim that a design lock-inmay have occurred over the last 50 years which will need concerted effort to be unlocked and realigned to suit the emerginglong-term mission paradigm. In this paper we explore some of the issues and possible ways of infusing relevant insights into thespace habitat design approach by seeking to bridge lacunae in both the design process and training of the next generation spacedesign workforce. As early career researchers we explore these issues in a moderate way and with limited resources, through anexploratory design workshop, organized under the aegis of the Aurora Programme, with the aim of exploring multidisciplinarydesign and a view to understanding the potential benefits of interdisciplinary approaches and possible gaps in the current spacedesign paradigm. We touch the tip of a very large iceberg, but close the paper with first round recommendations for furtherexploration within the space design community and to be supported by national agencies.© 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Habitat; Habitation; Design; Interdisciplinary; Moon; Mars

1. The design challenge posed by humanhabitation beyond LEO

With the renewed interest1 in a sustained humanpresence beyond low-earth orbit, habitation in spaceand on planets and moons is an area that requires

∗ Corresponding author.E-mail address: [email protected] (D.K.R. Robinson).

1 Examples include the US Vision Programme, the ESA AuroraProgramme, Chinese human spaceflight agenda, etc.

0094-5765/$ - see front matter © 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2008.01.034

re-evaluation in terms of mission and habitat design in-cluding the design approach itself. For roughly 50 yearsthe space sector has been involved in trying to placeand sustain human beings in space. In the early days ofdesign, a particular systems-element suffered the mostcompromise during the design process—the passenger.This was due to a number of political and economicpressures to speed up access to space. In addition, theseearly stages comprised passengers originating from themilitary, where compromises on accommodation werealready the norm and dealing with such restrictive and

Please cite this article as: D.K.R. Robinson, et al., Exploring the challenges of habitation design for extended human presence beyondlow-earth orbit: Are new requirements..., Acta Astronautica (2008), doi: 10.1016/j.actaastro.2008.01.034

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/actaastro

mailto:[email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2008.01.034

2 D.K.R. Robinson et al. / Acta Astronautica ( ) –

ARTICLE IN PRESS

uncomfortable spaces was inherent to the training ofsuch pilots/passengers. Naturally those charged withspace habitat design are aware of many relevant humanfactors and the requirements that can be derived fromthem; however, a consistent choice has been made to as-sign a lower priority to these requirements, in favour ofother more cost-effective (and time-effective) prioritieswhich has led to, for the most part, the generation ofsuccessful designs that were at the very least adequatefor the duration of the mission.

For long-duration spaceflight and for planetary ex-ploration the human becomes more central to the sys-tem, and other factors play a more important role in theefficiency and well-being of the passenger. There are agreat many uncertainties related to interplanetary mis-sions, and the economic and human costs relating tosuch uncertainties mean that mission success will de-pend greatly on elements previously exogenous to thesystems design process.

Traditional engineering design philosophy based onLEO missions has led to designs that, while being equalto the task, have had other design drivers playing a dom-inant role, at the expense of certain human factors. Thismeant that the design team has always afforded them-selves certain liberties with those passengers who wouldinhabit their design, as typical mission duration has tra-ditionally been short-term rather than long-term.2 Inaddition, the designer could rely on military trainingand professionalism to cover for the design compro-mises made at the inhabitants’ expense, and accord-ingly, fill the lacunae in the design process. However,as missions become more long-term, the habitat mustreflect such a choice by accommodating the fact that apassenger cannot be on duty for extended periods forlong-duration missions. In addition, passenger profilesmay change as the missions become more diverse, re-search and tourism being the obvious possibilities forEarth-orbital platforms. A major bottleneck (and a nec-essary one with current designs and missions) is the turnaround for training. Imagining a future system of pi-lots and passengers where passengers have rudimentaryknowledge of space systems would mean changing thedesign of the habitation modules and for researchers,a deeper look into the human–machine interface in thelaboratories and other facilities where users would needto have minimum training to be able to use them.

For lunar and interplanetary missions, staffed byhighly trained astronauts, one could infer that withincreasing mission duration the habitat must assume

2 Although the Soviet, and later the Russian, space station pro-gramme is an exception.

the role of a traditional domicile capable of func-tioning simultaneously as workplace, home, hospital,gym, recreation area and so on, with social interactionshaving greater similarity to those on earth than previ-ous short-term missions. This is of course contingenton the humans inhabiting the spacecraft or planetaryhabitation complex (scientists, military, citizens withminimal training).

Human factors, especially those with respect to habi-tat design (i.e. habitability) must always be seen withinthe context of the mission. Meaning they [1] ‘must beconsidered and defined relative to the duration of thetour or occupancy and to the purpose of the occupancy’.What is considered tolerable for a short mission to theInternational Space Station may be completely inappro-priate for a mission to Mars. What is clear, however, isthat these habitability issues must be allowed to play agreater role in the habitat design process.

This translates into a General Diagnosis of the currentsituation:

• There are new challenges specific to the goal of pro-longed human presence beyond LEO.

• These new challenges translate into redistribution ofweighting of the design considerations and thus aneed for non-traditional (with respect to space de-sign) knowledge and experiences.

• Current elements exogenous to the systems designprocess may need to be endogenized for design ANDmission success.

• Integration of these new knowledge bases may takethe form of experts advising the present system en-gineers OR an integration of these knowledge basesinto the design process itself.

• In the case of the latter, there is the issue of how bestto accomplish this.

• The final diagnosis is that if a new process of humaninhabited system design is necessary, how is the lock-in to the current space design process, which hasbeen evolving for the last 30 years, to be broken andforged anew?

Presently the prevalent approach in the space indus-try is orchestrated through systems engineering whichcoordinates all the relevant disciplines in the mostcost-effective and efficient manner based around trade-offs with comparative elements grown from over 50years of design experience. This approach has alsobeen augmented by adopting a concurrent characterto allow for shorter lead-times, a better failure copingmechanism and innovative solutions in complex sys-tems and products. This design approach is by far the



ARTICLE IN PRESSD.K.R. Robinson et al. / Acta Astronautica ( ) – 3

dominant design paradigm in the space sector and hasbeen steadily/incrementally improved upon.

When considering space habitation one need not ar-gue for a multidisciplinary approach. This assumptionneed not be qualified due to the very nature of the com-plexities of artificial environments for human habita-tion. Beyond this assumption, as an entrance point tothis paper we start with a number of claims.

Current disciplines are weighted based on historicalbias inherited through lock-in to a short mission dura-tion design paradigm. This means that those disciplinesexogenous to the now stabilized method of systems de-sign for space missions are evaluated with the criteriadeveloped for those currently endogenous to the presentdesign process. In addition, the multi- of multidisci-plinary is ambiguous since this blanket term may covermany or few multiple disciplines; an investigation intorelevant disciplines is called for. In addition the much-touted mantra of interdisciplinary strategies to designshould be qualified. What does interdisciplinarity meanin this case? Multiple disciplines collected in concurrentengineering design approach similar to the concurrentdesign facility (CDF) in the European Space Agency’sESTEC? Or perhaps something more than the collectivedisciplines through the sharing of design approachesand more blending and mixing of perspectives?

The scope of this paper is to explore the claims wemake about multidisciplinary design. We hope to buildup an argument for reifying interdisciplinary space sys-tems design for inhabited pressurized volumes and makea first moderate step at exploring these issues moredeeply through a small pre-phase 0 design exercisebringing in multiple disciplines. We do this by creatinga week-long design workshop, hosted by the EuropeanSpace Agency’s ESTEC facility, for educating peoplefrom various disciplines about current and possible fu-ture habitation system elements and their interplay.

After summarizing the design exercise, we will openup the discussion on space design for inhabited vol-umes in an attempt to kick start the relevant expert com-munities to take a renewed look at both extra designelements for habitation, criteria for assessing the effec-tiveness of these new elements and where in the de-sign process can experts in these new elements becomeinvolved.

2. Exploring the challenges via the habitationdesign workshop

A first step in addressing this diagnosis was taken byorganizing a concurrent design exercise, where partici-

pants were selected from a broad range of disciplines.3

This project was initiated itself by a multidisciplinarygroup of organisers, who came together for the first timein addressing the lacunae mentioned in the diagnosisabove.

The organizing team identified a number of possibleproblems with current habitat designs, the design pro-cess in place and with the next generation designers4

themselves:First, those designers originating from space science

and engineering disciplines are not satisfactorily pre-pared, lacked rudimentary expertise in human factor de-rived requirements.

Second, those in architecture, industrial design, butalso biology and medicine whose focus is on, or relatedto, space habitation and human aspects of spacecraftengineering5 are not adequately prepared with respectto ‘engineering’ requirements and evaluation criteria.This is a barrier to interfacing expertise.

A third problem, which features in the aforemen-tioned but deserves particular consideration is that in-terdisciplinary interaction besides focusing on differentrequirements and formulating requirements differentlyalso suffers problems of jargon, different criteria forevaluating the optimum design and different design pro-cesses.

Fourth, the capacity to build up a multi- (or inter-)disciplinary space design workforce is hampered due tothe path to the space sector being much easier to navi-gate for those in the ‘usual’ space science/engineeringdisciplines than for those from other non-typical buthabitation-relevant disciplines. This is a major issue,since if we assume that expertise in the humancompo-nent is underrepresented in the design process, we need

3 This project was created in a tight time frame of 12 weeks withthe announcement of the workshop 4 weeks prior to the event. Wereceived 150 applications for the 30 places. The workshop was hostedby the European Space Agency Aurora office, and organization andpreparation was executed by 10 post-graduate and PhD researchersoutside of normal working hours.

4 These four possible problems were identified based on theexperiences of the post-graduates and PhDs involved in designing theexercise, who themselves originated from different disciplines (spacescience, aeronautical engineering, space systems design, architecture,industrial engineering). The original intention of the exercise was toprovide a platform for educating post-graduates about human spacesystem design; however in the development of the workshop theseproblems arose, and were deemed worthy of particular attentionbased on the wider ramifications for future long-duration orbital andplanetary missions.

5 This could relate to man–machine interfacing which can befor both habitation and human work tasks in such a spacecraft orplanetary complex.




ARTICLE IN PRESS

a trained workforce that can work together in a con-structive and efficient manner.

The first three problems can be attributed to what isperceived as a knowledge/education gap. As far as theauthors are aware, while many university departments(of the aforementioned space habitat design relevantdisciplines) organize projects that allow students to de-velop familiarity with concepts like systems engineer-ing, concurrent design, etc., there seems to be less focuson the interaction in a multidisciplinary setting and evenless interest in providing exercises similar in nature af-ter students and young professionals have become spe-cialists in their field, at the interface between universityand industry. One could argue that this is exactly thelocation where initiatives would be most needed, as itis here where the student or young professional wouldneed to learn how to integrate him/herself and his/herspecialization into the broader picture of habitat design.Note that at this interface students are of such a levelas to be able to make meaningful contributions as wellas learn in interactive exercises.

To this end, the Habitat Design Workshop wasproposed to the European Space Agency AuroraProgramme,6 in order to explore the challenges de-rived from the general diagnosis of the previous sectionand these educational problems. The interest from Au-rora was enabling excellence and building capacity inthe space design workforce to contribute to its goals(robotic and human exploration of the solar system)and to ESA’s goal of stimulating education in areaswhere ESA could play a key role as facilitator.

Furthermore, it was foreseen that the workshop couldprovide a platform for the participants, from both tradi-tional and non-traditional disciplines, to create inroadsinto the space sector.

2.1. The workshop design concept and implementation

For a complete description of the Habitat DesignWorkshop we refer to Robinson et al. [3]. Here we willgive a short overview of the workshop and highlightsome areas pertinent to our discussion.

The workshop allowed for several design teams,each addressing a different mission scenario, similar toactual mission scenarios as suggested by US andEuropean space agencies. These design teams werecomposed of students and young professionals fromdifferent space habitat design relevant disciplines: engi-neering, space science, architecture, industrial design,

6 For more information on Aurora see www.esa.int/aurora orMessina [2].

Fig. 1. The multidisciplinary dynamic and design process emphasis.

ergonomics, medicine and psychology. Each team com-prised an engineer, an architect, a designer, a scientistand a human factors representative (Fig. 1).

Five broad scenarios were drafted by the organiza-tion, similar to those found in literature and missionconcepts from ESA and NASA. Two Moon scenarios,two for Mars and one for Phobos. To allow for a morecreative process design teams were allowed to modifytheir mission scenario, but in keeping with the idea ofbuilding capacity and preparation of workforce for Au-rora, a restriction of short-term (1st outpost) design ob-jectives was imposed. The choice of which phase ofthe evolution of extended human presence beyond LEOthe team should design for very much affects the bal-ance between constraints and freedoms as they differvastly depending on which point in the future one is de-signing for. This immediately proved to be a challeng-ing phase of the design process as these first attemptsat communication between different people, from dif-ferent disciplines, with different social backgrounds,different cultures and different psychological character-istics required establishing a common ground.

2.1.1. Expert lectures and feedbackA number of experts lectured on relevant topics such

as ISRU, the ‘engineering’ approach in practice, spacescience and the design considerations derived from hu-man factors. The experts’ role was twofold: to enable anoverview of the relevant issues to bring the disciplinaryrepresentatives (the participants) in synch with the largercollective of systems elements (architects learning about




radiation, engineers about psychological issues, etc.),familiarizing each participant with concepts outside thenormal scope of their field, and to provide feedbackwhere necessary during the exercise.

2.1.2. Definition of the mission objectivesFollowing from the mission scenarios each team de-

fined the objectives of the mission and subsequentlytranslated these objectives into requirements of, andconstraints on, the major subsystems such as power, lifesupport, radiation protection, telecommunication, dustremoval, etc. required to achieve the mission. A largelist of design drivers was discussed during the workshopwhich is presented in Box 1 below.

List of key design drivers was discussed during theworkshop

Impact from micro and macro objectsRadiationTemperaturePressureExo BiologyDustGravityThe external/internal interfaceDeployment and packing configurationThe minimum crew needed in terms ofhabitabilityDifferent possibility of in-situ assemblyFuture base expansionMobility on siteHabitat construction optionsAdaptability to changing mission requirementsReaction to changing user-preferencesHuman/machine interfaceSafetyLayout design so as to facilitate ease of hu-man motility.Thoughts about the social and organizationalaspects of life in the baseSocial and psychological issues (effects ofstress, recreation and exercise, interpersonaldynamics in space, personal space, privacy,crowding, territoriality

2.1.3. Daily comparison sessionA daily session of group reviews was scheduled al-

lowing for a step-by-step inspection of the develop-ing designs. Comparing designs not only motivated the

teams and therefore the design process but also servedto minimize delays.

2.1.4. PrototypesEach team was encouraged to work as visually as

possible, especially in the beginning. Use of images andmodels seriously enhances communication and allowsmutual learning about jargon and how each disciplineframes a problem in their own perspective. Prototypeswere often constructed in the form of small models,drawing, and 1:1 experiments up to full 3D renderingsof habitat concept. These forms of visualization werediscovered during the design process to be much morepowerful than hoped, especially in the hands of thosewell-versed in graphics software and from the very firstday visualizations were made, advancing the design pro-cess much faster than anticipated and made for a smoothdesign process and greatly facilitated communicationwithin the teams.

For a full review of the workshop designs we referto Robinson et al. [3] and Aguzzi et al. [4]. Here wewill only mention two of the five designs as they serveas good examples of synergy between the space habitatdesign relevant disciplines.

2.2. Example 1: A first stepping stone for a continuoushuman presence on the Moon

The mission was to take place in 10 years, resultingin a permanent outpost in just three launches using theEnergia launch system. The base would consist of thelunar lander modules with inflatable ovoid domes butfuture concepts would link up several ovoid structurestogether as the base expands (Fig. 2).

The concept design was the first of a series of mis-sions to place a permanent base for humans on theMoon within 10 years. Minimal mission duration was 3months. The project refers to technologies with a highTRL: Melissa derived system for life support, inflat-able material and radial deployment system (Transhabderived), aluminium for core material (like ISS) andNuclear power production (already flown in Russiansatellites). The habitat design is planned to be flexiblenot only as a single unit, but also for future expansionwhen additional modules are added to a web-like ‘Moontown’ where different modules can be specialized intocertain functions like a module allocated solely for liv-ing or science (Fig. 3).

The two-floor design is partially open without sep-aration in order to give the crew the most spaciousliving conditions possible. The proposed layout offersa lot of freedom for reconfiguration using inflatable




ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig. 2. Deployable habitat using Inflatable Technologies.

technology. The definition of public and private areasand its mutual relation is the main strategy adopted togenerate the internal layout (Fig. 4, Table 1).

The team provided a clear presentation of their con-cept with references to social design components, bridg-ing the gap between the technical feasibility and humanfactors. Shielding the light habitat structure seems tobe one of the technical flaws of the design. Proposingan expansion plan in the design concept was a posi-tive effort, yet in the 2nd round design it would needto be better integrated to the structural and spatial con-cept. The team succeeded in implementing a concurrentdesign approach beyond the traditional engineering by

Fig. 3. Possible modular configuration of five modules.

Fig. 4. Relation of the different functions to each other.

including psychological and social aspects. They in-cluded present day technologies as part of the design,which, although not all of them are space tested, arereasonable for a 1st generation lunar base.7

7 This design was undertaken by: Arno Wielders (Netherlands,Physicist/Engineer), Jesper JZrgensen (Denmark, Psychologist), JuliaTizard (United Kingdom, Physicist), Ania Fischer (Germany, Archi-tect), Stefano Zanini (Italy, Designer/Ergonomist), Hanna Västinsalo(Finland, Biologist).




Fig. 5. Schematic of initial habitat subsystems based on qualitative and quantitative data.

Table 1Elements of the Moon habitat

Item Volume Mass Area

Inflatable: ceiling 1040 80Floor 1040 80Sides 91 3640First floor 975 75Core: ceiling 100 5Floor 100 5First floor 100 5Sides 8.5 500

Total (kg) 7400

Total volume of inflatable structure: based on 9 m diameterand a 11 m height cylinder: ∼ 800 m3

Consumables Standard Comfort (%) TotalFood 170 200 340Water potable 1000 150 1500Water non potable 7000 100 7000Oxygen 210 100 210

Total (kg) ∼ 9000

Power included: 3 tons for nuclear system and 1 tons for fuelcells: total: 4 tons

2.3. Example 2: To establish the core unit of anexpandable outpost for Mars exploration

The central modules performed a dual-role as a radi-ation shelter as seed for an expanding base, rather like a

beehive of hexagonal stilted pods with inflatable domes.The initial crew of six on a 600-day mission would bethere to do comprehensive science but the motivationwould be exploration and adventure. The base was notlinear so there would be plenty of escape routes shouldone path become blocked. A very in-depth study, whichappeared to leave no stone unturned and yet keep thefreshness and excitement of what is essentially a pio-neering mission, was undertaken.

For the first manned mission to Mars, the team8

proposed the establishment of an expandable core unitfor the exploration of Mars at an equatorial landingsite. Effectively this would be the ‘seed’ mission for thedevelopment of a constantly manned and maintainedsettlement. The core unit is designed to allow for easyexpansion in a variety of ways. The duration of the firstcrew rotation will be one synodic year, and their outpostwill be a stationary base (Fig. 5).

The design went through a series of phases; inflata-bles were utilized in the final design. During the entiredevelopment of the habitat design, safety was consid-ered as the main systems driver. Both the internal de-sign of the habitat and the honeycomb-like nature of

8 This design was undertaken by: Gabriele Messina (Italy,Aerospace engineer), Nathalie Pattyn (Belgium, Medical Doctor/Psychologist), Emily MacDonald (United Kingdom, Astrophysi-cist) Nina Mair (Austria, Architect), Nils-Peter Fischer (Germany/Sweden, Architect), Julien-Alexandre Lamamy (France, Space Sys-tems engineer).




ARTICLE IN PRESS

the base after expansion allowed for the sealing off ofany area hazardous area in the event of an emergency,leaving all remaining areas accessible. Internal config-uration as well as flexibility of reshaping the internalconfiguration were certain aspects.

Based on conventional prefabricated modules, en-riched with inflatable extensions, the Mars 2 Team pro-poses a concept using current technology with a reliableexpansion system. The concept allows expansion of thehabitat based on the core unit.

Though the structural approach is based on conven-tional Apollo-like design, the smart internal layout, useof inflated extensions for spatial flexibility and the well-defined expansion concept shapes this well-functioningMars habitat. The shielding of the light structure is asusual a technical challenge to be solved. Various layouts,a little more investigation into the types of explorationand mechanisms of doing so would have improved thedesign, adding more functionality.

The team distinguished themselves from the very be-ginning by good communication between its members.They clearly defined the scenario, the requirements andthe main subsystems. This team placed particular em-phasis on the psychological requirements of the inter-nal configuration of the space. The final habitat waswell described by 3D modelling, which comprised afirst study of the internal configuration. Their proposedway of expanding the main module was quite original(Figs. 6 and 7).

3. Reflections on the workshop and lacunae itexposed

3.1. There are new challenges specific to the goal ofprolonged human presence beyond LEO

The workshop illustrated that inclusion of previouslyomitted habitability issues is of paramount impor-tance to prolonged human presence in or beyond LEO.However, acceptance of these issues and the designrequirements that can be derived from it also means ac-cepting, to varying degrees, inclusion of these hithertounconventional disciplines into the design process. Thisis accompanied by problems such as those highlightedin the above: these ‘new’ space habitat design relevantdisciplines bring with them their own requirements,their own formulation of those requirements and theirown design process of addressing these requirements.Moreover, they have their own jargon making it diffi-cult at best to relate and translate their interests to themore conventional disciplines.

Fig. 6. External and interior design.

3.2. A redistribution of weighting of the designconsiderations is called for and hence non-traditionaldisciplines must play a greater role

It has been argued that inclusion of other human fac-tors related disciplines in the design process, from thevery start is pivotal for a well-balanced design that catersto the relevant requirements. Where previously humanfactor derived design considerations were considered ofa secondary nature, i.e. such considerations were onlymade after the engineering design considerations hadbeen implemented into the design, now there must bea shift of weights of design considerations. With in-creased mission duration, human factors are not just af-terthoughts; they have become mission critical designconsiderations. There have been precedents of inclusionof such exogenous elements into the design process. TheESA AURORA human mission to Mars (HMM) study[5,6] included architects into the design process. Alsoin a recent study by Alenia, industrial designers were




Fig. 7. Expansion concept.

included to explore other human factor requirements forthe design [7]. This demonstrates that it is possible toinclude new elements into the design process. Havingsaid this, architecture and industrial design approachesstill remain exogenous to the core design process andcriteria for uptake of such input will still remain basedon the endogenous criteria. This is important becauseevaluation mechanisms [8] will differ widely for thesenew elements (which could be argued are necessary forlong-term human spaceflight and planetary outposts).Therefore there is a need to explore whether these el-ements integrated in such ad hoc projects mentionedabove should be included into the core design processand if yes then how they can be included as an endoge-nous element of the system design process.

These considerations were brought to light by mostof the design teams. As each represented disciplinebrought its design considerations to the table, alongwith suggested ways of interpretation and implemen-tation, the design takes shape. Such interpretation andimplementation relate to the design approach by thediscipline represented. These representatives frame thedesign issues based on their own norms, values andprocesses, and in this workshop we saw the first stepstowards mutual learning and use of other disciplinaryapproaches. If such learning and use of different design

approaches and framing of issues is continued, true in-terdisciplinarity may be possible, rather than multidis-ciplinarity (which brings disciplines together but doesnot necessarily involve sharing and application of eachother’s perspective).

However, what soon became clear in the workshopwas that during but especially after the initial brain-storm sessions, when the design concept had started tak-ing shape, the engineering disciplines were given andshouldered a leading role. In other words, interdisci-plinarity is possibly a key factor in the design processbut perhaps not required at all stages.

3.3. Design process and knowledge mismatch

It was clear at the outset that there were conflicts inthe way to proceed with the design of the habitat. Somedisciplines dominated the initial stages due to the in-stitutionalized nature of systems engineering. For ex-ample, it was a general and recognized fact that thefirst decisions were mainly based on science and en-gineering, leaving the designer, architects and medicalexperts unsure of their role in the initial stages. Oncemass constraints and the purpose of the habitat were de-cided; however, the engineers satisfied themselves withmerely constraining the design to fairing size and mass




ARTICLE IN PRESS

possibilities (although in some cases, the engineers wereforced to put aside their standard linear approach basedon fairing size).

Psychological issues were strongly involved duringrequirement definition while design played the majorrole during the following phase where all requirementswere synthesized in a visualized concept of the habitat.The speed and details of drawings and 3D models thatthe architects and (industrial) designers were capableof amazed both other participants and organizers alike.Working together taught the participants a great deal ofrespect for the other disciplines that will be useful forthe rest of their careers.

The mismatch in design process and knowledgewas evident, even amongst the invited experts. Con-flicts arose in terminology and representation of theissues. Of note was the qualifying criteria framed ina quantitative (engineers) and qualitative manner (in-dustrial designers and architects). Credibility of theassumptions made based on these two approaches werereceived with scepticism by those users of the othertype of approach. Over time we saw these problemsresolved (in some cases a truce was announced).

One team successfully blended the quantitative andqualitative approaches into a number of schematicswhich allowed the combination of details and the de-velopment of criteria for success. Another team waslocked into conflict for 3 days due to the dominance ofsystems engineering approach and the lack of an en-trance point for the industrial designers, psychologistsand medics.

3.4. Integration of these new disciplines may take theform of experts advising the present system engineersOR an integration of these disciplines into the designprocess itself

An answer to this particular question did not presentitself as such during the workshop because it did not be-come clear which was the better way: adopting the ‘new’space habitat design relevant discipline only in terms ofthe derived requirements that are inherent to these dis-ciplines but within the current design paradigm, i.e. theengineering approach, or incorporating more than justthe requirements by trying to take advantage of the dif-ferent design processes employed by the ‘new’ disci-plines. Where engineers tend to progress along a ratherlinear stepwise approach, architects and designers, liketo ‘skip ahead’ in the design process and visualize whatthe design could be like in its final concept. This isa more visual, conceptualizing design process that canbring about new and unorthodox ideas. This iterative

design approach is considered by both participants andthe organizing team to be quite useful for quick evalua-tion of ideas without suffering much delay or setbacks.

Another related problem that may present itself ifthe ‘new’ disciplines are to be incorporated, in what-ever fashion, into the space habitat design process, isthat currently, to the authors’ knowledge, access to thisparticular field for those who are active in architec-ture, industrial design and ergonomics and particularlybiomedical disciplines is relatively limited. Workshopssuch as the one presented here can most assuredly helpin creating links between industry and students, youngprofessionals and establish sustainable channels for thisup and coming space habitat design workforce.

3.5. How, if necessary, is the lock-in to the currentspace design process, which has emerged andstabilized over the last 30 years, broken?

The space habitat designs this workshop yielded,while innovative and encompassing in novel ways, didnot exhibit explicit proof of superiority over what typ-ical ‘engineering’ design teams could have achieved.It became evident that this is very difficult to evaluate.Designs have to be evaluated within the parameters dic-tated by the design considerations. Different evaluationcriteria of what is a good design are different and linkedwith the different design communities and disciplines.Thus if a true comparison of design is to be made,evaluating human factors in the dominant systems en-gineering approach of the space sector may lead toincorrect evaluations of the human factors component.

Hence, more workshops (or other forms of probingeach other’s design worlds) need to be organized focus-ing on design, focusing on the advantages of an inter-disciplinary team, and where in the design process theyare most apparent. Workshops that focus on yielding re-sults leave no doubt that these ‘new’ design approachesneed to be considered for successful space habitats tobecome a reality.

With the ongoing development of commercial spaceventures, i.e. suborbital tourism, transport, etc., medicalprotocols are being developed today, yielding humaninhabited space systems design considerations that aremore geared towards human factors. Thus there is aclear and present need for such considerations.

4. Issues for future space habitation design

One result that comes from this exercise is thatone canbridge the education gap by doing these exer-cises like the Habitat Design Workshop but the system




elements and design lacunaeare more complex thanone first assumes. One observation is that you canintegrate different elements by bringing different dis-ciplines together (and make some progress) but wefound that different design processes(carried by the dif-ferent disciplines) had fundamental differences, whichdictated the shape of the design and the balance ofinclusion of the various elements of the habitat design,i.e. prioritizing various design drivers and subsequentrequirements. The major observation was that disci-plinary design processis entwined with the effectiveinclusion of disciplinary knowledge. For true indisci-plinarity, multidisciplinary design teams must be ableto appreciate and use multiple design perspectives. Ifan aerospace engineer can grasp an industrial designersapproach to framing a problem, there would be betterexchange of ideas, and the opportunity to apply thestrengths of both in solving the problem.

This workshop showed a glimmer of hope, aug-mented through the use of images and models, whichallowed communication and mutual learning about ap-proaches. But for lasting interdisciplinarity, the spacesector will have to make a concerted effort to bridgethe education gap and invest in such locations forprobing each other’s design worlds. Exposure to al-ternative ways of evaluation and design processes willaugment interactions of various designers in futurespace projects, leading to more efficient designs. Thusa concerted effort to include these sorts of skills shouldbe made. There is a role for space agencies here, byproviding workshop-based activities (such as thosesupported through the Aurora Programme).

We have demonstrated that such workshops can besuccessful, and can improve through undergoing manysuch iterations. A number of experts participating inthe workshop underlined; however, that although theHabitat Design Workshop was successful, for full suc-cess continued support/activities for those who attendedwould allow deeper learning and facilitate improvedmultidisciplinary design.

In addition we advocate that specific design chal-lenges relevant for extended human presence beyondLEO be the focal point of such exercises, which willadd a layer of focus and intensity to such workshops.

One must also consider which of these currently ex-ogenous elements could be useful or could sap alreadylimited resources. An initial diagnosis from our inves-tigations shows that stimulation of interdisciplinarity atearlystages of design process is attractive. But for laterstages, we have little or no data on which to make adiagnosis. Therefore this is a challenge the space com-munity must address.

In any case, a conclusion can be made that inclu-sion of such new elements in the design process wouldrequire the further development of evaluation proto-cols. Current cost-based evaluations may not be suitablehere, as the human becomes more central to the systemand quantitative analysis of success may be misleading.Thus there is a need to explore which are relevant andwhich are not and how they should be integrated intothe systems design process.

The above leads us to a number of recommendationsfor the space (habitat) designcommunity9:

• There should be more of the training workshops forpreparing the next generation workforce to enablepresent day explorations of possibilities based onthose with some degree of experience in their owndiscipline.

• Evaluation of the disciplinary design processes isneeded, with the aim of improving the integrationof knowledge of the newly higher weighted systemelements necessary for human missions to the Moonor Mars as the human becomes more central to thedesign concepts.

• There should be an evaluation of the broader sub-system elements and when/how they should be ad-dressed in the design itself.10

• There should be an assessment of multidisciplinary(various system elements included in present ap-proach to design—CE in systems engineering)versus interdisciplinary (where different design ap-proaches are integrated to develop a final habitatdesign in an equal way). This should aim to answerquestions such as: Is a change in design processneeded? Would it benefit design?

We face considerable technical challenges if we areto sustain a human presence beyond LEO for a consid-erable amount of time. However, what we wished to doin this paper was to highlight that the design processitself will face considerable challenges and that it ishigh time that the process be revaluated with respect tothe previously exogenous design elements which may

9 These recommendations are targeted particularly at nationalspace agencies which are in a position to support research into thesebroad and fundamental issues.

10 For example, it is clear that for pre-phase 0 design exercises,as many aspects as possible should be included. However, as weprogress through the design and development process to deploymentof the system, where should previously exogenous expertise beintegrated into the process? Is an evaluation protocol sufficient forassessment during later stages of the mission, or should relevantexperts be included in some shape and form at later stages?




ARTICLE IN PRESS

become system drivers as the human becomes more cen-tral to the system and criteria for a successful missionchange radically.

In our moderate way, we hope to have contributeda little towards this goal. Our 30 participants drawnfrom different disciplines experienced these challengesin design processes and integration of various systemdrivers first hand, supported by experts from the Euro-pean Space Agency and elsewhere. However, we makeno claim that we have solved any of the problems.Rather we have further articulated the problem and hopethat we can move on from there, in order to create robusthuman inhabited space and planetary systems suitablefor long-duration missions.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Piero Messina (ESA AuroraProgramme) for his never waning enthusiasm and trustin the 10 postgraduate organizers. Many thanks to Di-eter Isakeit (ESA Human Spaceflight Directorate) whoagreed to provide financial support. Thanks to the ex-perts who donated their time, expertise and enthusiasmto the workshop, particularly to Barbara Imhof, StephenRansom and Andreas Vogler who spent a considerableamount of time circulating on the design floor duringthe week with the participants providing guidance andinformation on certain elements during the design pro-cess. Finally, the organization team would like to thankthe participants who made a great effort in the work-shop.

References

[1] J. Stuster, Bold Endeavours: Lessons from Polar and SpaceExploration, Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, 1996.

[2] P. Messina, The European Space Exploration Programme“Aurora”: status and outlook, Paper presented at theInternational Astronautical Congress, 2nd–6th October,Valencia, Spain 2006, IAC-06-A5.2.01.

[3] D.K.R. Robinson, G. Sterenborg, M. Aguzzi, S. Häuplik, K.Özdemir. E. Laan, R. Drummond, D. Haslam, J. Hendrikse,S. Lorenz, Concepts for 1st generation hybrid and inflatablehabitats with in-situ resource utilization for the Moon, Marsand Phobos: results of the Habitat Design Workshop 2005.Presented at the 56th International Astronautical Congress,Fukuoka, Japan, 2005, IAC-05-D4.1.03.

[4] M. Aguzzi, S. Häuplik, E. Laan, D.K.R. Robinson, G.Sterenborg, ESA Habitat Design Workshop—Lessons learned,8th ILEWG Conference on Exploration and Utilization of theMoon, 23–27 July 2006, Beijing, China.

[5] CDF Study Executive Summary, Human Mission To Mars,ESA, CDF-20(c), 2004, p. 9, 11, 13.

[6] B. Imhof, [Interior] Configuration options, habitability andarchitectural aspects of the transfer habitat module (THM) andthe surface habitat on Mars (SHM)/ESA’s AURORA humanmissionto Mars (HMM) study, Acta Astronautica 60 (2007)571–587.

[7] M. Aguzzi, Design for planetary exploration, Ph.D.Thesis, Department of Industrial Design and MultimediaCommunication (INDACO), Polytechnic of Milan, Italy, 2007.

[8] S. Häuplik, D.K.R. Robinson, S. Lorenz, A.C. Charania, K.Özdemir, Evaluation of possible developments for a lunar base.Presented at the 55th International Astronautical Congress,Vancouver, Canada, 2004, IAC-04-IAA.3.8.1.04.



exploringthechallengesofhabitationdesignforextendedhuman ...also biology and medicine whose focus is...

Documents