System Analysis and Evaluation of Greenhouse Modules within Moon/Mars Habitats

126 Pages·2012·15.02 MB·English

MASTER'S THESIS
System Analysis and Evaluation of
Greenhouse Modules within Moon/Mars
Habitats
Narayan Prasad Nagendra
Master of Science (120 credits)
Space Engineering - Space Master
Luleå University of Technology
Department of Computer Science, Electrical and Space Engineering
Master Thesis
System Analysis & Evaluation of Greenhouse
Modules within Moon/Mars Habitats
Narayan Prasad Nagendra
Supervisors
Daniel Schubert
DLR Institute of Space Systems
Bremen, Germany
Christophe Peymirat
Institut de Recherche en Astrophysique
et Planétologie
Toulouse, France
Dominique Toublanc
Université Paul Sabatier
Toulouse, France
Thomas Kuhn
Lulea University of Technology
Kiruna, Sweden
August 23, 2012

Abstract
Long term settlement on different planets of the solar system is a fascination for mankind. Some
researcherscontemplatethatplanetarysettlementisanecessityforthesurvivalofthehumanrace
over millions of years. The generation of food for self sufficiency in space or on planetary bases
is a vital part of this vision of space habitation. The amount of mass that can be transported in
deepspacemissionsisconstrainedbythelaunchercapabilityanditscosts. Thespacecommunity
has proposed and designed various greenhouse modules to cater to human culinary requirements
and act as part of life support systems. A survey of the different greenhouse space concepts
and terrestrial test facilities is presented, drawing a list of measurable factors (e.g. growth area,
power consumption, human activity index) for the evaluation of greenhouse modules. These
factors include tangible and intangible parameters that have been used in the development of
an evaluation method on greenhouse concepts as a subsystem of planetary habitats at the DLR
Institute of Space Systems, Bremen.

Acknowledgment
In the first place I would to thank my entire family in India for supporting me in every possible
way, all along the wonderful journey of SpaceMaster. Their confidence in my potential has pro-
vided me extraordinary energy and comfort in all my endeavors.
I am extremely grateful to Daniel Schubert, my supervisor at the German Space Agency for
his faith in me, working on this challenging thesis topic. Schubert’s continued guidance has
made this thesis possible and provided me with a unique opportunity to experience Germany’s
outlook towards long term space habitation. I am indebted towards my colleagues Paul Zabel
and Conrad Zeidler at the German Space Agency whose inputs and comments have been critical
in shaping my work. I am glad for the critical inputs provided by Dr. Raymond Wheeler, NASA
KSC.
I wish to record my gratitude to the fatherly advice, support and encouragement by Prof
Christophe Peymirat and Prof Dominique Toublanc at Université Paul Sabatier. They made
our stay in Toulouse enjoyable and made us feel at home. I am pleased to have Dr. Thomas
Kuhn as my supervisor from Lulea University of Technology.
I pay tribute to my fellow SpaceMasters, for making the two year voyage blissful and memorable.
We, SpaceMasters, are more than a bunch of colleagues, friends. We are a family forever!

Contents
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Current Technology for Life Support in Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Regenerative Life Support Systems (RLSS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2.1 Need for RLSS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2.2 Advantages of RLSS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.3 Space Environmental Considerations for Greenhouses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3.1 Earth Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3.2 Lunar Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3.3 Martian Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3.4 Microgravity Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.4 Current Scope for RLSS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.5 Need for Greenhouse Module Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.6 Work Flow Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2 Review of Greenhouse Technology 7
2.1 Greenhouses in Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.1.1 Svet Space Greenhouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.1.2 Svet Greenhouse-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.1.3 Salad Machine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.1.4 Vitacycle Greenhouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.1.5 ASTROCULTURETM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.1.6 Lada Greenhouse on ISS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.1.7 Current Trend in Space Plant Growth Chambers . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.2 Greenhouses within Planetary Research Bases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.2.1 Greenhouse Structures for Planetary Bases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.2.2 Considerations for a Martian Greenhouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.2.3 Deployable Mars Surface Greenhouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.2.4 Considerations for Lunar Greenhouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.2.5 Lunar FARM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.3 Terrestrial Test Facilities for Space Greenhouses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.3.1 Arthur Clarke Mars Greenhouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.3.2 CELSS Experimental Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.3.3 Biomass Production Chamber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
2.3.4 Closed Ecology Experiment Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.3.5 CELSS Antarctic Analog Life Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
2.3.6 Lunar Greenhouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
2.4 Summary of Space Greenhouse Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3 Factors Influencing Space Greenhouses 47
3.1 Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
3.2 Crop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
3.3 Crew & Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
3.4 Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
3.5 Solid Wastes & Gas Volatiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
3.6 Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
3.7 Nutrient Delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
3.8 System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
3.9 Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
i
3.10 Thermal Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
3.11 Plant Automation & Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
3.12 Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
3.13 Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
3.14 Summary of Factors Affecting Greenhouse Performace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
4 System Analysis & Evaluation Methods for Space Greenhouses 64
4.1 Overview of Evaluation Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
4.1.1 Equivalent System Mass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
4.1.2 Analytical Hierarchy Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
4.1.3 Advanced Life Support System Evaluator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
4.1.4 Summary of Existing Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
4.2 Development of Novel Methodology for Evaluation of Greenhouses . . . . . . . . 72
4.2.1 Critical Performance Ratios for Greenhouse Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . 73
4.2.2 Description of Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
4.2.3 Development of Technical Data-Sheet for CPR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
4.2.4 Test Cases for Evaluation using CPR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
4.2.5 Survey to Judge Factor Importance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
4.2.6 Results of CPR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
4.2.7 Performance of CPR alongside AHP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
4.2.8 Limitations of Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
5 Summary & Future Work 89
Bibliography 91
Appendix 98
ii
List of Figures
1.1 Technology analysis for space greenhouses, Source: [2] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2 Higher plants for life support system, Source: [6] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3 Work flow organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1 Classification of Life Support Systems using Greenhouses . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2 Functional diagram of Svet space greenhouse, Source: [14] . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.3 Schematic diagram of the Svet root module components. Source: [15] . . . . . . 11
2.4 Salad machine double rack configuration section view, Source: [25] . . . . . . . . 13
2.5 Conveyor-type plant growth facility Vitacycle, Source: [28] . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.6 Arabidopsis thaliana grown onboard ISS, Source: [33] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.7 Mizuna crop growth in Lada greenhouse, Source: [23] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.8 Structures for Space greenhouses, Source: [41] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.9 Comparison of different lighting strategies for Mars greenhouse, Source: [44] . . 21
2.10 MDG system configuration, Source: [43] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.11 AGPod, Source: [43] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.12 PlantHab configuration, Source: [43] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.13 Plant growth rack design for FARM, Source: [51] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.14 Internal configuration of plant growth racks for FARM, Source: [51] . . . . . . . 26
2.15 FARM configuration with rigid solution and modularity, Source: [51] . . . . . . 26
2.16 The Arthur Clarke Mars Greenhouse, Source: [54], [55] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.17 ACMG operational timeline, Source: [56] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.18 Low Pressure Plant Growth Facility, Source: [57] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.19 CELSS Experimental Facility, Source: [58] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.20 NASA’s Biomass Production Chamber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
2.21 Wheat and potatoes grown in BPC, [62] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.22 Overview of the Closed Ecology Experiment Facilities, Source: [65] . . . . . . . 34
2.23 Configuration of CEEF, Source: [66] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
2.24 Lunar Greenhouse, Source: [74] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
2.25 Cable culture used in LGH, Source: [74] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
2.26 Crop arrangement in LGH, Source: [75] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.1 Subsystems within a Space Greenhouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
3.2 Technology analysis for space greenhouses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
4.1 Strategy for System Analysis and Evaluation of Greenhouse Modules . . . . . . 65
4.2 Comparison of the evaluated concepts with an optimal greenhouse, Source: [98] 67
4.3 Hierarchy of the selected evaluation criteria, Source: [98] . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
4.4 Calculation of CPR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
4.5 Plot of (Total Edible Biomass/day) / Total Crop Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
4.6 Results of CPR (Ratio 1 through 26) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
4.7 Results of CPR (Ratio 26 through 51) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
4.8 Plot of (Total Nutrition Value/day) / Total Crop Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
4.9 Comparison of AHP and CPR Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
iii