REACH - Reviews in Human Space Exploration 21–22 (2021) 100038

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

REACH
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/reach

A review of existing analog habitats and lessons for future lunar and
Martian habitats
C. Heinicke a, *, M. Arnhof b
a
ZARM – Center of Applied Space Technology and Microgravity, University of Bremen, Am Fallturm 2, Bremen 28359, Germany
b
Advanced Concepts Team, ESA/ESTEC, Keplerlaan 1, Noordwijk 2201 AZ, The Netherlands

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Many space agencies have recently agreed on the Moon as the next step in human space exploration, and
Human space exploration impressive progress is being made with regard to transportation, particularly launch and lander technologies.
Simulation habitats Meanwhile, a number of simulation habitats have been built and occupied by volunteer crews in order to study
Review
the human factors involved with life on the Moon or on Mars. The number of such habitats is ever increasing, and
Mars
Moon
we believe it to be both necessary and helpful to provide an overview of what is already existing and what lessons
in habitat design have already been learned from tests with human inhabitants. In this paper, we therefore re­
view (1) the active analog habitats published in the English-speaking literature, (2) a selection of inactive, but
pioneering analog habitats, and (3) a selection of research bases in extreme environments such as Antarctica that
have not primarily been built for spaceflight simulations but provide interesting insights nonetheless. Specif­
ically, we explore the architectural concepts incorporated and tested in existing habitats, technologies already
implemented, and the scientific questions addressed. Our goals are twofold: (1) provide a guideline to re­
searchers who seek a simulation facility for their research questions, and (2) advise the construction of future
habitats for simulations and, ultimately, for missions to the surface of the Moon or Mars.

1. Introduction utilized as Mars base analogs (typically Antarctic research stations).

With the International Space Station (ISS) coming of age, the
consensus [1] among space agencies is that the next steps for human
space exploration should be towards the Moon and later to Mars. This
will improve both our scientific understanding of the Solar System and
our capability to live outside Earth [2]. Several landers and rovers have
successfully reached Mars in 2021, some of them carrying demonstra­
tion hardware for future human missions, and recent progress in launch
system technologies further increases the feasibility of transportation of
humans and their support infrastructure.
Another critical ingredient to a human exploration mission is the
surface habitat, a permanent or temporary (e.g. transportable) instal­
lation where humans can live and work for extended missions to the
Moon or Mars. Over the last decades, around two dozen simulation
habitats have been erected in various parts of the world. Many of these
habitats have been specifically created with the sole purpose of simu­
lating certain aspects of life on Mars (such as HI-SEAS) or the Moon (e.g.
Lunar Palace 1). Other facilities are active research stations that happen
to be akin to planetary surface habitats and are therefore secondarily
Overall, the existing habitats present a variety of characteristics that
can be confusing to newcomers and even insiders. For example, some are
easily accessible and require little more than a filled application form to
become a regular crew member (e.g. MDRS [3]), while others select
their crews based on rigorous criteria, such as nationality or certain
personality traits (e.g. most analog bases run directly by national space
agencies). Some habitats are built for studying the environment they are
situated in (such as HMP), others focus on technology development and
testing (e.g. Bios-3, Lunar Palace 1). Human factors research can be done
in practically all of them, but some are built primarily for this type of
research (e.g. HI-SEAS, NEK).
We review the 22 existing habitats in this paper. Our aim is to pro­
vide guidance to anyone wishing to conduct an analog mission in a
realistic setting, utilizing one of the existing stations. Moreover, we
believe that past and current simulation habitats can provide valuable
lessons for future spaceflight habitats. Even though all simulation hab­
itats have been designed for terrestrial use, they generally attempt to
provide a credible environment; with this review we aim to identify
design concepts that have been found functional, and those that should

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: christiane.heinicke@zarm.uni-bremen.de (C. Heinicke).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.reach.2021.100038
Received 31 July 2020; Received in revised form 9 April 2021; Accepted 12 April 2021
Available online 1 May 2021
2352-3093/© 2021 Elsevier GmbH. All rights reserved.
C. Heinicke and M. Arnhof REACH 21–22 (2021) 100038

be avoided in a real mission to the Moon or to Mars. extended scuba diving at great depth), and space stations (the very first
Besides the 15 habitats that are in active use today (see Table 1, space station, Salyut 1, the ISS as the currently only active space station,
column Act.), we include in our review 7 facilities that are currently and Tiangong-2 as the most recently launched station). An overview of
inactive, and 8 stations that have a different primary use, but have all bases that are considered in this review can be found in Table 1.
served or are currently serving as analog of a planetary habitat. We Our review is divided into 4 main sections: We introduce all 30
include the inactive habitats because they are radically different from habitats in some depth in the following section (Section 2). In Section 3
the active bases in structure (like the Inflatable Lunar Habitat Analog) or we discuss the architectural concepts of a selected number of bases, such
in their approach to biological life support (Biosphere 2; Bios-3 as one of as the distribution of floor space or the incorporation of light and sound
the first to reach noteworthy closure). into a holistic base design. Section 4 is dedicated to noteworthy tech­
The secondary habitats (i.e. habitats with different primary use) we nologies that are present in some of the habitats, such as life support
include with the intent to provide a comparison with actual operational systems, energy systems, or thermal control systems. At the end of each
habitats: two Antarctic bases as representatives for the dozens of Ant­ of these sections we compare and discuss some of the special charac­
arctic stations existing on the continent today (Concordia that has teristics of the bases. Finally, in the last section, we present our rec­
explicitly been studied as a spaceflight analog and Princess Elisabeth ommendations for future habitats (Section 5).
Station as the only zero-emission base in Antarctica), underwater bases Since we are restricting ourselves to lessons from habitats that have
(the very first such base, Conshelf-I, the only active underwater station, been inhabited, we explicitly exclude all of the numerous habitat designs
Aquarius, and the conceptually different Gombessa V that enables and concepts that have never been built. Moreover, although we have
attempted to provide a fair representation of all countries’ efforts, we do
caution the reader that the lists in Section 2 may not be complete: there
Table 1
may be a lack of some experiments for which there is no publication in
List of all habitats considered in this review. Act. = Actively used habitats, Det. =
Details available in Sections 3 and 4, Fig. = Figure included in this paper the English-speaking literature.
(Section 2, Figs. 1–8), FP = Floor plan included in this paper (Section 3,
Figs. 10–13). 2. Overview of existing habitats
Project Short Full name Act. Det. Fig. FP
Name There are currently 22 analog bases reported in the English speaking
literature. Six of these (Section 2.1) are located in realistic geological
Aquarius Aquarius Undersea Laboratory • • 6 10
settings that allow simulating scientific operations on future Mars mis­
Bios-3 Bios-3 • 13
sions such as geologic and biological field work. Another seven are (or
Biosphere 2 Biosphere 2
CEEF Closed Ecology Experiment Facilities have been) mobile and can thus be placed at a field site as well, although
CITP Closed Ecological Recycling System • the majority are currently located in or close to laboratories (Section
Test Platform, CELSS integrated test 2.2). Since access to true field analogs is generally difficult, a small
platform number of habitats take the opposite approach and house an indoor field
Conshelf I Continental Shelf Station I
area in a separate module (Section 2.3).
Concordia Concordia Research Station • • 7
The above mentioned habitats are typically focused on operational,
D-Mars Desert Mars Analog Ramon Station •
psychological, and biological/geological studies. However, there are a
Exohab Exohab •
number of habitats that are built primarily for testing closed material
Flexhab Flexhab
FMARS Flashline Mars Arctic Research loops (particularly life support systems); these are presented in Section
Station 2.4. Furthermore, we include 8 operational bases in this overview
Gombessa V Gombessa V (Section 2.5) as described in the introduction. We discuss a total of 30
HERA Human Exploration Research Analog • • 3 11 bases within this section.
HESTIA Human Exploration Spacecraft • • 5 10 Ten of these bases are not actively used anymore, and some have
Testbed Integration and
Advancement
even been dismantled. However, these inactive bases remain of great
HI-SEAS Hawaii Space Exploration Analog and • • 1 11 interest due to various reasons, some as being the first of a kind: notably
Simulation Conshelf I (the very first underwater station), Salyut 1 (the first space
HMP Haughton Mars Project • • station), and Bios-3 (one of the first facilities to attempt material closure
- Inflatable Lunar Habitat Analog with humans in the loop). Others were included because of their extreme
Study
size (e.g. the tiny MEERS vs. the huge, multi-module Kepler Station).
ILMH/ Inflatable Lunar/Mars Habitat, also: • •
LMAH Lunar Martian Analog Habitat All 30 bases are presented briefly in text, and listed with some
ISS International Space Station • • technical details (location, size, crew size, etc.) in Tables 2–6. Some
Kepler Kepler Station bases are accompanied by photos; these and a few others will be dis­
Station cussed in more detail in Sections 3 and 4.
Lunar Palace Lunar Permanent Astrobase Life- • • 13 In the final section in this overview (Section 2.6), we compare all
1 Support Artificial Closed Ecosystem
(PALACE) 1, also: Yuegong-1
bases with respect to their size, location, and primary function.
Lunares Lunares • •
Mars Base 1 Mars Base 1 • 2.1. Permanent habitats in field environments
MDRS Mars Desert Research Station • • 2 12
MEERS Mobile Extreme Environment The five permanent bases in analog environments are (in alphabet­
Research Station ical order): FMARS, HI-SEAS, HMP, Mars Base 1, and MDRS, the sister
NEK Nazemnyy Eksperimental’nyy • • 4 11 station to FMARS. A sixth station, Kepler Station, had been set up in an
Kompleks, NEK/ Ground test facility
analog environment, but has already been dismantled.
(formerly known as Mars500
isolation facility) The project HI-SEAS was launched by the University of Hawaii in
PES Princess Elisabeth Station • • 8 2012; the HI-SEAS habitat (see Fig. 1) is privately owned. The white,
Salyut-1 Salyut-1 dome-shaped structure is located on the slopes of the Mauna Loa volcano
SHEE Self-deployable Habitat for Extreme • 11 (Fig. 1), and has seen five simulations of 4, 8 (3 times), and 12 months
Environments duration. Today, simulations typically last 2 weeks.
Tiangong 2 Tiangong 2
Initially, primary research topics at HI-SEAS were the psychological

2
C. Heinicke and M. Arnhof REACH 21–22 (2021) 100038

and sociological effects of living and working in isolated, confined, and

Summary of bases that are located in a field environment. *HMP and FMARS are approx. 1km apart from each other, but several hundred kilometers from the nearest town. **FMARS has seen several 2–4 year long periods
of inactivity, with the most recent activity in 2017. ***HMP does not run simulations but researchers visit during the field season as their research requires. The number in parentheses underneath the year of establishment

[25–27,8]
extreme (ICE) environments (e.g. [28–31,10]). In addition, crews carry

[14–18]

[19–21]

[22–24]
[9–13]
out geological and biological studies [32]. The focus of the current,

[4–8]
Ref.
short-term missions has shifted somewhat towards technology testing
and education.

mission scenario based

HMP. The base of the Haughton Mars project is situated on the rim of

long mission duration,

most active geological

open to everyone, run

open to everyone, run

the Haughton impact crater on Devon Island in the Canadian High

field work, impact

students, tourists
Special Feature

Arctic. It has been used extensively as a base camp for scientific field

shield volcano
by volunteers

by volunteers
around EVAs
work, particularly focused on the geology of the 23 km-diameter impact
crater and its surrounding terrain, planetary protection issues, extrem­

crater
ophiles, as well as human and robotic exploration technologies and
strategies [16,33,34].
The architecture of the site is simplistic and focused on functionality,

2018 (1)

2019 (-)
2012 (5
2001**

rather than using a realistic architectural design of an extraterrestrial

Est. in

(231)
1997
(***)

2001
+ 6)
(14)

base. Nevertheless, the site is organized modularly into tents, and each
tent is dedicated to one function. For example, there is a separate tent for
common activities (“mess tent”), a tent for geological lab work, and
length [d]

240 (366)

unknown
separate tents for the researchers who stay at the base for up to one
Mission

14 (80)
∼ 60

month (“tent city”).

120

20

FMARS is close to HMP, the two bases being within ∼ 1 km of each

other, but several hundred kilometers from the nearest settlement.
Crew

∼ 50

FMARS is run by the Mars Society, whose focus is on outreach rather

6(7)

6(7)
size

15

60
6

than research. Within a few years, the Mars Society’s priorities have
shifted to its second base in the desert of Utah, MDRS (Fig. 2), whose
5.3 ×104

central module is pretty much a slightly larger copy of FMARS: both

Floor

[m2]
area

152

110

800

100

stations possess an upright, two-storied cylinder with similar internal

layout.
1.6 ×105

FMARS has not seen any major development since its foundation in
2000 and only been occupied occasionally. MDRS, on the other hand,
2850

(est.)
[m3]
Vol.

467

368

has been expanded drastically since its first season in 2002. Today,
MDRS consists of a total of six modules (see Fig. 2. Each module serves
Upright cylinder, 2.5 stories, 8.1m diameter,

Star-shape: octagonal core, plus 8 tents incl.

its own purpose: the central cylinder is used as crew habitat, two
Large central dome with 5 smaller domes
single dome (11 m diameter, 1.5 stories),

additional smaller modules attached via

connected in almost complete hexagon

modules are used for astronomical observations, and there is a green­

Upright cylinder, 9,9m in diameter; 5

house module and a workshop. Typical research studies at MDRS are

short-duration isolation and confinements studies, investigating i.a.
10-module building complex

cultural and gender factors in crew composition [35–37]. Most research

shape, plus 17 containers

is established by the mission crews themselves and is focused on biology

a 14.4 m long mess tent
plus storage container

(e.g. extremophiles, methanogens, algae) and geology (i.a. desert soils

and rocks) [38].
indicates the number of simulations that have been run since then until the end of 2019.

Mars Base 1. The most recent addition in this section is an educa­

Description

7,5m high

tional facility for highschool students (and for tourists in the future) in
tunnels

the Gobi Desert in China. The base was designed with support from the
Astronauts Centre of China and consists of a silver dome and nine white
modules, including living quarters, a control room, a greenhouse and an
airlock. During its opening, the base hosted more than 100 high school
Dist.

105*

105*

104*
[m]

104

104

4
10

students.
Another recent addition has already been dismantled: the Kepler
station was a temporary base set up during the Amadee-18 [19–21]
Gobi Desert, China (C-
Hawaii, USA (Univ. of

Austrian Space Forum

Arabian desert, Oman
Devon Island, Canada

Devon Island, Canada

Utah, USA (The Mars

Location (Operator)

mission of the Austrian Space Forum (OeWF) in the desert of Oman in

(The Mars Society)

February 2018. It consisted of a large central dome surrounded by 5

smaller domes in an (almost) hexagonal pattern. Including an additional
17 containers, the Kepler station is estimated to have had 800 m2,
Society)
Hawaii)

(OeWF)

Space)

housing 15 crew members (of which only 5 participated in EVAs) for 20

days.
Exploration Analog and

Haughton Mars Project

2.2. Mobile habitats

Mars Desert Research
Flashline Mars Arctic
Research Station
Full or alt. name

While the previous section dealt with habitats that were permanently
Hawaii Space

Mars Base 1
Amadee-18

set up in analog environments, this section presents mobile habitats.

Simulation

These habitats can be or have been brought to analog environments for

Station

conducting simulation missions in a realistic geologic setting.

HERA is the most extensively used mobile habitat, home to 1 to 6-
week long simulated deep space missions with 4 crew members. It was
Short Name

Mars Base 1
Station

developed largely by NASA (the Habitat Demonstration Unit, HDU, core

HI-SEAS
FMARS
Project
Table 2

Kepler

MDRS
HMP

element) and the University of Maryland Space Systems Laboratory (the

inflatable loft X-Hab and other elements). Research at HERA centers

3
C. Heinicke and M. Arnhof REACH 21–22 (2021) 100038

Table 3
Summary of bases that are relocatable by design. *No reported overnight stays at Exohab. **HERA itself is stationary, but its predecessor, the Habitat Demonstration
Unit (HDU), was tested in various locations about ten years ago. ***Despite being designed for an overnight stay of 2 people for 14 days, SHEE has only been used as
field support. No full simulations have been run with it, but SHEE is still used as educational facility for ISU students.
Project Full or alt. name Location Dist. Description Vol. Floor Crew Mission Est. in Special Feature Ref.
Short (Operator) [m] [m3] area size length
Name [m2] [d]

D-MARS Desert Mars Negev Desert, 104 Asymmetric single- 132 55 6 4 2018 [39,40]
Analog Ramon Israel story hexagon (1)
Station
Exohab ESA ESTEC, the N/A Refurbished caravan, 58 27 4 hours 2009 Low-cost solution [41–44]
Netherlands plus standard (*) for outreach
shipping container
(ExoLab) plus small
mock-up lander
(ExoGeoLab)
HERA** Human NASA Johnson 100 Upright cylinder, 5m 149 59 4 7-45 2014 testing operational [45–53]
Exploration Space Center diameter, 2 stories at (20) concepts
Research Analog (JSC) 3.3m height + loft
(HDU, X-HAB,
Chelonia…)
Inflatable Lunar McMurdo 106 A tubular inflatable 66 36,7 3 (10) 2008- only inflatable [54,55,18]
Habitat Analog Station, (3km structure consisting 2009 habitat, but testing
Study Antarctica from of two areas: the (1) was focused on
NASA, NSF, and next main habitation area deployment (<
ILC Dover base) and a simulated 50min) rather than
airlock habitation
ILMH Inflatable Lunar/ University of 101 central corridor 5 320 100 4 30 2013 only inflatable [56–61]
Mars Habitat North Dakota attached modules, 1 (7) habitat intended
13 m × 3 m × 3 m for (terrestrial)
inflatable structure habitation
and 4 horizontal
cylinders modules
attached
MEERS Mobile Extreme Embry-Riddle N/A Refurbished 40 20 4-6 14 TBD for testing [62,63]
Environment Aeronautical Airstream trailer temporary
Research Station Univ. habitable volume
during off-nominal
situations
SHEE*** Self-deployable Strasbourg, N/A Single-story upright 50 30 2 14 2016 can be stowed and [64–71]
Habitat for France Int’l cylinder (approx.), 1 (1) transported
Extreme Space Univ. story, 5.9 m by 6.5 m
Environments by 2.8 m

Table 4
Summary of bases that possess an adjacent EVA facility. *Values include the 39 m2-lander module that the crew could access only part of the time, but not the 1200 m3-
Martian surface simulator. **Construction of Flexhab is slated for 2020, the base would then be operational by early 2021. ***Lunares was initially erected in 2016, but
relocated to its current location in 2017.
Project Full or alt. name Location Dist. Description Vol. Floor Crew Mission Est. in Special Ref.
Short (Operator) [m] [m3] area size length Feature
Name [m2] [d]

NEK “Ground test Moscow, Russia 100 3 horizontal 550* 243* 6 520 2007 (5) 1200 m3 [78–84]
facility” (in (Institute of cylinders (+2 for EVA
Russian), Biomedical Martian surface and module
Mars500, SIRIUS Problems) lander)
Flexhab** Future Lunar Cologne, 101 Variable number of 2021? 900 m2 [85,42,86]
Exploration Germany ESA shipping containers? EVA area
habitat EAC (LUNA
dome)
Lunares Lunares Simulated Piła, Poland 102 Central dome with 6 350 138 6 14 2016*** 350 m2 [87,42]
Space Base (prev. (Space Garden) shipping containers (est.) (9) EVA area
M.A.R.S.) + 1 hygiene module in hangar
attached

around behavior and team performance in ICE environments, commu­
nication and autonomy, as well as crew medical studies and evaluation
of enabling technologies [72,73]. Today, the habitat is permanently
located at NASA’s Johnson Space Center, however in 2011, it was used
during the Desert-RATS field campaigns in Utah (Fig. 3).
SHEE has been developed as an analog habitat for the European
research community, with focus on manageable logistics: SHEE can be
folded to fit into a standard shipping container. So far, only one field test
has been conducted using the habitat at the Rio Tinto field site in Spain.
Today, SHEE is stored at the International Space University in
Strasbourg.
The most mobile station is the European Exohab, located at ESA’s
ESTEC. It is also the most rudimentary, and low-cost habitat, being
essentially a modified caravan. Most recently, it has been joined by a
furnished shipping container which allows more extensive simulations,
albeit at the cost of reduced mobility.

4
C. Heinicke and M. Arnhof REACH 21–22 (2021) 100038

Table 5
Summary of bases that have closed material loops. *HESTIA was used during the 1960s to support the Gemini and later missions, but was used for LSS testing only in
1995.
Project Full or alt. Location Dist. Description Vol. Floor Crew Mission Est. in Special Feature Ref.
Short name (Operator) [m] [m3] area size length
Name [m2] [d]

Bios-3 Institute of 101 four sealed 315 32 3 180 1972–1984 closed loop [91–93]
Biophysics, compartments (126) (1) bioregenerative
Krasnoyarsk, of roughly 7 × life support
Russia 4.5× 2.5 m system
each
CITP Closed Shenzhen, 101 six cabins of 274 370 4 180 2015 (1) CELSS [94–98]
Ecological China varying sizes, 4 (1340)
Recycling for plant
System Test growth
Platform,
CELSS
integrated test
platform
CEEF Closed Institute for 101 gymnasium- 123 350 2 28 2005–2007 five functions: [99–103]
Ecology Environmental style building (1365) (10) plant culti-
Experiment Sciences, with three vation, animal
Facilities Aomori stainless steel and crew
Prefecture, corridor habitation,
Japan connected hydrosphere and
resource
regeneration
Lunar Yuegong-1 Beijing, China 101 3 horizontal (500) 42 4 370* 2014 (2) closed loop [103–110]
Palace 1 Permanent cylinders, of (150) bioregenerative
Astrobase Life- which 2 for life support
support plant growth system
Artificial
Closed
Ecosystem
HESTIA Human NASA Johnson 101 Upright 73 87 4 (90) 1995* (4) Chamber can [111–116]
Exploration Space Center cylinder, 6m (est.) operate at
Spacecraft (JSC) diameter, 3 reduced pressure
Testbed stories, 8.4m and elevated
Integration high oxygen
and environments
Advancement
Biosphere Arizona, USA 104 greenhouse 1.8 × 12800 8 730 1991–1994 multi-biome [117–123,103]
2 (Univ. of domes 105 (1 + 1/4) system with near-
Arizona) containing 7 closed material
biomes and loops
crew space

In contrast, the Inflatable Lunar-Martian Analog Habitat (ILMAH,
sometimes ILMH or LMAH) of the University of North Dakota (UND) is
part of an exceptionally complete mission setup, which comprises not
only the habitat itself, but also a Pressurized Electric Rover (PER), and
the North Dakota Experimental (NDX)-2 space suit. The habitat itself is a
unique hybrid inflatable design with internal rigid frame and external
inflatable bladder. Research at the ILMH is centred around technology
testing, medical aspects and psychosocial effects of ICE environments
[74–76], and on microbial contamination [77].
At about the same time as the UND team started to develop their
hybrid structure, NASA was testing an Inflatable Lunar Habitat at
McMurdo Station in Antarctica in collaboration with the NSF and ILC
Dover. It was never truly inhabited and it has been unoccupied since the
first crew left. Nevertheless, it provided valuable insight into the
deployment of inflatables (under 50 min for this one) and their
resilience.
D-MARS is the most recently built habitat in this section. It is
collapsible and transportable; in 2018 it was set up in the Negev desert
of southern Israel. It was first inhabited by a scientific crew of six for a
few days, followed by a 2-day stay of educators.
Finally, we would like to mention a station that has never been built,
despite the existence of concrete plans: MEERS [62,63] was supposed to
be a refurbished Airstream trailer by Embry-Riddle Aeronautical Uni­
versity and would have provided a facility for simulating off-nominal
situations specifically.
2.3. Permanent habitats with indoor EVA areas
Operational environments are beneficial for the crew’s psychological
immersion into the simulated space environment, but also notoriously
difficult to reach for both crews and involved researchers. Therefore,
some bases have been built with a separate module containing an indoor
EVA area (i.e., they are filled with sand or similar).
The NEK is the oldest and perhaps best known of these bases, located
in Moscow, Russia (Fig. 4). It was formerly known simply as “the
Mars500-facililty”, but is now addressed as the “Ground test facility”
(NEK, corresponding to the Russian original). During the 520-day
simulation “Mars500”, which remains the longest spaceflight simula­
tion to date, the EVA-module and a small lander module were in use for
(only) a 10-day simulated surface stay, the rest of the mission the crew
lived in the three habitation modules.
The NEK has been somewhat inactive after the missions around
Mars500, but is now home to the SIRIUS missions, a cooperation be­
tween the Russian Institute for Biomedical Problems and NASA.
Research at the NEK focuses mainly on crew health and performance
under simulated long duration spaceflight conditions [88].
The Lunares habitat was initially erected in Eastern Poland under the
name M.A.R.S., but later renamed and moved to Western Poland. Its
current installation is rather permanent: one of the habitat’s 9 modules
is an old, disused flight hangar filled with sand and gravel. Apart from
that, the habitat consists of 6 shipping containers serving as kitchen,

5
 C. Heinicke and M. Arnhof
Table 6
Summary of bases whose primary purpose is not simulation of or research for spaceflight but are yet relevant to human spaceflight. *Aquarius was first established in Salt River Canyon in 1988, and later refurbished and
relocated to the Florida Keys, where it has been with only short interruptions since 1993. **Owned by the Belgian government, operated by the International Polar Foundation. **Nearest station to Concordia is Vostok
station, 560 km. Numbers in italic are estimates.
Project Short Full or alt. name Location (Operator) Dist. [m] Description Vol. Floor Crew Mission Est. in Special Feature Ref.
Name [m3] area size length [d]
[m2]

Aquarius Aquarius Undersea 5.6 km off Key Largo, Florida, 104, plus horizontal cylinder, 13.1 m 53 37 6 10 (31) 1988 underwater, still [127–132,18]
Laboratory (location of USA; 18 m below surface 18 m of long, 2.7 m in diameter *** (149)* operational
NEEMO missions) (Florida Int’l Univ.) water
Conshelf I Continental Shelf Frioul Island, Marseille, 101, plus horizontal cylinder, 5,2 meters 25 10 2 7 1962 first inhabited [133,134,132,135]
Station I; Precontinent I France; 10 m below surface 10 m of long, 2.45 meters in diameter (1) underwater laboratory
(Jacques Cousteau) water
Gombessa V Expedition Gombessa V Mediterranean; between 101, plus horizontal 5 m2 cylinder, plus 2 22 8 4 28 2019 saturation diving [136–138]
- Planète Méditerranée 0 and 120 m depth (INPP & up to 120 m2 hygiene cylinder & 1 m2 (1) chamber with access to
6

Andromède Océanologie) m of water dive bell 120 m water depth

(13bar)
Princess Dronning Maud Land, 105 Asymmetric, single-story 1100 445 12 120 2009 only zero- emission base [139–142]
Elisabeth Antarctica (Belgium)** octagon above ground, box- (20) (11) in Antarctica, incl.
Antarctica shaped garage and storage renewable energy sources
underground
Concordia Antarctic Plateau (IPEV & 105*** 2 upright 3-story cylinders of 5800 1500 13 480 2005 remoteness, altitude [143–146]
PNRA) 18.5 m diameter (50) (15)
ISS International Space LEO (NASA, Roscosmos, 400 km 16 cylindrical modules 932 N/A 6 (10) 150 2000 LEO [147–151]
Station JAXA, ESA, CSA) connected via nodes, arranged (61)
as 2 stacked “T”s
Tiangong 2 LEO (CNSA) 390 km Space Laboratory module 14 N/A 2 30 2016 LEO [152–158]
consisting of single cylinder (1)
Salyut 1 Soviet Union 200 km cylinders of various diameters 100 N/A 3 23 1971 first space station [159,160]
in one monolith, 20 m long, (1)
max. 4 m in diameter

REACH 21–22 (2021) 100038

C. Heinicke and M. Arnhof
Fig. 1. The HI-SEAS habitat—a dome structure covered in vinyl fabric to
protect against wind and rain—is located at 2500 m above sea level on the
slopes of the Mauna Loa volcano. Image credit: HI-SEAS.
Fig. 2. The main habitat of the MDRS is a two-story cylindrical module. The
GreenHab right next to the main module is used to grow vegetables during
missions, the two domes house scientific equipment. Image credit: The Mars
Society/MDRS.
Fig. 3. The HDU configuration for the 2011 Desert RATS field mission shows
the main module with the X-hab loft at the top, the deployable airlock on the
left, and the hygiene module on the right. Image credit: NASA.
7
REACH 21–22 (2021) 100038
Fig. 4. All modules of the Mars-500 simulation habitat at the Institute of
Biomedical Problems (IBMP) in Moscow are connected via transfer tunnels with
hatches. Image credit: ESA.
crew quarters, storage, biolab, analytical lab, and operations room.
There is also a hygiene container, and all containers are arranged around
a central atrium.
The original purpose of Lunares were studies on chronobiology and
subjective time perception; additional research was conducted on ele­
ments of biological life support and contingency procedures. One
mission at Lunares investigated how scientists with physical disability
(like injuries) can cope with the constraints imposed by a planetary
exploration mission [89,90].
FlexHab is another base in this review that is not erected yet. How­
ever, unlike MEERS, Flexhab seems to have secured funding and plans
for construction are underway. The habitat will be connected to
“LUNA”, a large indoor EVA area to be built in Cologne, Germany,
within the Spaceship EAC initiative. The primary purpose of FlexHab
and LUNA is training and testing operational procedures, and the fa­
cilities will be open to everyone for research.
2.4. Habitats verging on closed-loop life support
While most of the active bases provide a test ground for human
factors in the broadest sense, a small number of noteworthy habitats has
been built to serve primarily biological studies, and as such are intended
to investigate one of the most important technologies needed for human
spaceflight: the life support system (LSS). More details on biological life
support can be found in the recent review by Guo et al. [98], here we
focus on the inhabited facilities.
The oldest of these facilities is the Bios-3 facility in Krasnoyarsk,
Russia, which was built in the 1970s based on lessons learned from its
two predecessors Bios-1 and Bios-2. Two to three crew members lived
inside Bios-3 for up to 6 months, during which the material loops for air
and water were closed to almost 100 %, and for food to 80 % [98]. The
objective of Bios-3 was to develop and test biological LSS technologies
for human spaceflight (see Section 4.4 for details, and [93]). The pro­
gram included both biological and physicochemical approaches to life
support and studied the role of humans and microorganisms in the loop
as well [124,125].
In the 1990s, NASA refurbished and re-purposed HESTIA, a 20-foot
cylinder from the Gemini-era, for testing environmental control and
LSS, and evaluating concepts for human spaceflight habitation and
structural designs (Fig. 5), [111]. Simulations were run under the Lunar/
Mars Life Support Test Project (LMLSTP) with 4 crew members and up to
3 months duration. Only the water was recycled completely; atmosphere
and food had to be resupplied. Plans are under way to re-use HESTIA for
preparing future planetary missions.
During the same decade, Biosphere 2 completed the perhaps most
C. Heinicke and M. Arnhof REACH 21–22 (2021) 100038

2.5. Selected operational bases

In this section, we present 8 research bases that have not primarily

been built as analogs for planetary or Moon surface bases. Yet, due to
their unique location in extreme environments they provide valuable
references nonetheless: underwater, Antarctic continent, low Earth
orbit.
The second half of the last century has seen more than 30 underwater
habitats. The first, Conshelf I, was built in 1962 by Jacques Cousteau for
exploring the subsea world. Conshelf I was inhabited by 2 crew members
for only one week, but its 2 larger successors at greater depths were
inhabited for up to 30 days.
Cousteau’s underwater habitats were followed by a myriad of larger
underwater research stations, of which none are still active—but for one
exception (besides some tourist attractions that are not of interest here).
The 25-year old Aquarius Underwater Laboratory or Aquarius Reef Base
(Fig. 6) is dedicated to scientific research mostly in marine sciences
(observation and monitoring of coral reefs and coastal oceans) and ed­
ucation. It has hosted 23 NEEMO missions (NASA Extreme Environment
Mission Operations) so far, where it was used as a training facility, space
analog and telemedicine testing ground.
In both underwater habitats, the “aquanauts” remain at depth for the
entire mission, only going through decompression once at the end (so-
called saturation diving).
A conceptually different approach was used during the Gombessa V
mission in 2019: the divers were brought back to surface after each dive,
but had to stay inside their pressure vessel at 13 bar (corresponding to a
depth of 120 m). After 24 days of deep dives, the 4-person-crew un­
derwent a 4-day-decompression cycle.
The remotest stations on Earth are located on the Antarctic conti­
nent. Today, 30 nations operate 76 summer and winter stations [161].
One of these stations is Concordia (Fig. 7), which is located on the
Fig. 5. The hull of the HESTIA pressure chamber is made of welded metal
Antarctic Plateau more than 1000 km from the nearest coast. Its two
plates to support testing at ambient and reduced pressure environments. Image
18.5 m-diameter cylinders are inhabited continuously, and winter crews
credit: NASA.
typically have 13 members, comparable in size to anticipated planetary
missions. ESA has been using the base as a Mars analog to study medical,
spectacular (and controversial) test run of an ecological LSS. It remains
neurological and psycho-social issues of humans living in ICE environ­
not only the largest attempt of creating a functional ecosystem that can
ments [162,37]. Besides, Concordia serves as a testing ground for life-
sustain human life, but has also reached the highest degree of closure
support technologies.
(≈100% for air, water, and food, albeit with some flaws), and the longest
Princess Elisabeth Station (Fig. 8) is located in Queen Maud Land and
mission duration to date (730 days).
typically houses a crew of 25 during the (austral) summer months. The
Roughly a decade later, the Japanese Institute for Environmental
main octagonal building has about 450 m2 of habitable area, there are
Sciences built CEEF, in which they reached 100 % loop closure for air,
another 1500 m2 of technical facilities. It is the only zero-emissions base
water, and food for 2 persons - albeit for only 7 days. Unfortunately,
simulations at CEEF involving humans only lasted from 2005 to 2007.
The most recent endeavors in terms of biological LSS with active
human habitation have been undertaken in China. In 2015, the China
Astronaut Research and Training Center built the Closed Ecological
Recycling System Test Platform, which then housed a 4-person crew for
180 days. Their material loop closure was 100 % for air, but significant
resupplies were necessary for food and water [98].
Better closure has been reached by the Beijing University of Aero­
nautics and Astronautics. In 2018, they finished a 370-day-duration test
of their Lunar Palace 1 (crews were exchanged twice during the simu­
lation). It should be noted that the BLSS occupied roughly two thirds of
the habitat floor area. Besides the development and testing of a BLSS,
research is conducted on vertical farming techniques, and on the effects
of living in an isolated environment on human physiological and psy­
chological health [126].
Despite the impressive developments in LSS, there remains one
important gap in loop closure: None of the habitats reached a significant
degree of recycling of solid human waste [98]. Perhaps only a costly
nuisance for a lunar outpost as nutrients lost with the solid waste must
be replaced with supplies from Earth, on Mars the disposal of human
Fig. 6. The submarine base Aquarius is secured to the ocean floor by a base­
waste would cause planetary protection issues.
plate and can be accessed only by diving. During missions, fresh water is
delivered daily by surface support divers. Image credit: NASA.

8
C. Heinicke and M. Arnhof
Fig. 7. Concordia station consists of two polygonal main modules and several
shipping containers. The almost cylindrical shape of the main modules mini­
mizes the outer surface of the towers. Image credit: Lucie Maignan/IPEV.
Fig. 8. Princess Elisabeth Station is a zero emission station designed to mini­
mize energy requirements through the careful design of the skin, aerodynamic
shape and consideration of the orientation and window position of the habitat.
Three separate ventilation systems manage the temperature control within the
station. Image credit: International Polar Foundation.
in Antarctica, a feat we deem highly relevant to future Mars bases (see
Section 4 for more details).
Both Antarctic stations are very large compared to simulation habi­
tats. Nevertheless, the Antarctic stations have been inhabited for longer
periods than most analog bases (up to 16 months vs. a few weeks for a
typical crew member). Thus it may be assumed that their interior is
better tested and more complete than that at most analog bases, which
often have only rudimentary (if any) medical facilities, exercise equip­
ment, laboratories, and emergency shelters and provisions (see Section
3).
Similarly, space stations are the only operational stations to have left
Earth and as such provide a valuable reference for the limitations of
actual spaceflight in terms of launch mass, geometry, necessary re­
dundancies, and habitability. The very first space station was the Soviet
Salyut-1 which was sent to orbit in 1971. The ISS is the only active multi-
national space station, and the Chinese Tiangong-2 was the last space
station to have been launched (de-orbited in 2019).
The three stations are very different in their design and purpose:
While the ISS is an ongoing construction project whose first part was
launched in 1998 and which received its latest addition (the Bigelow
module) in 2016, both the Soviet and the Chinese station consisted of
only a single cylinder and were thus launched as a single piece. The
Chinese station in particular was not planned for permanent occupancy,
9
REACH 21–22 (2021) 100038
but rather as a technology testbed.
2.6. Summary and comparison
The previous sections have shown that analog habitats are built in
various settings (field site vs. in or at a larger facility), with different
goals (testing LSS, studying human factors, or merely providing shelter
in a hostile environment), and a wide range of sizes. The largest bases
hold a volume of more than 500 m3 (Lunar Palace 1, NEK, MDRS), which
is roughly one quarter larger than the habitable volume of the ISS (388
m3). The smallest hold a volume of around 50 m3 or less (the underwater
bases, SHEE, MEERS, and the 14 m3-small Tiangong-2). The distribution
of habitat sizes is depicted in Fig. 9.
The size of a base of course depends to a great extent on the size of
the crew to be accommodated and, to a lesser degree, the duration of the
mission. Most analog bases are designed for 4 or 6 crew members,
although 2 or 3 are commonly found, too. Mission durations range from
a few days to many months.
The majority of simulation habitats provides between 20 and 100
m3, and between 10 and 40 m2 per crew member. Generally, habitats
without BLSS but that are inhabited for more than a few days provide
floor space around 10 to 20 m2 per person, while habitats with BLSS
require at least 40 m2 per person, up to even 200 m2 (CITP). The average
and median sizes of 18 simulation habitats and the 8 operational bases
are shown in Table 7.
Of those habitats with a geometry suitable to withstand large pres­
sure differences, the majority is of cylindrical shape, with the rest having
dome-shaped modules. Of the cylindrical habitats, about half are upright
cylinders, and half consist of (one or more) horizontal cylinders. All but
one of the upright cylindrical habitats have 2 or 3 stories.
Most simulation habitats are in or near a city or even inside a labo­
ratory, but a handful are located far from any human settlement. The
vast majority of all stations is designed to be inhabited for a couple of
weeks, even though some of them have in fact been used for longer
mission durations (2–3 months). Only few stations have been designed
with longer mission durations (6 + months) in mind.
3. Architectural aspects
Crews on long duration missions can be affected by a large variety of
stressors. These may be physiological/physical and psychological/psy­
chosocial in nature, or generally relate to human factors and habit­
ability. For example, Morphew [163] identifies the following stressors
related to habitability: limited hygiene, chronic exposure to vibration
and noise, limited sleep facilities, lighting & illumination, lack of pri­
vacy, and isolation from support systems. Cohen and Haeuplik-
Meusburger [164] go farther and suggest that Critical Habitability is
“most fundamental for the question of crew survival on extremely long
duration missions”, that is, the mere living in confinement with closed
atmosphere, noise and limited resources affects crews and crew safety
more than any other stressor. The goal should be to mitigate the stress
imposed by the habitat as much as possible, and this section explores
how existing habitats manage to achieve this goal—or failed it and can
serve as a warning example.
We start this section with a description of the basic geometry of the
selection of habitats presented below (Section 3.1), i.e. their general
shape and dimensions. We then analyze the habitats with regard to the
categories of potential stressors that were identified by NASA during the
Habitable Volume Workshop [165]: allocation of space (Section 3.2),
lighting, acoustics, interior materials selection (3.3), general and indi­
vidual control over the environment (3.4), communication and avoid­
ance of social monotony (Section 3.5), physiology and medicine (3.6),
and contingency readiness (3.7). Note that the workshop report also lists
crew composition (e.g. size and cultural differences) as a potential
stressor; but habitat occupancy was already presented in Section 2.
Within this and the following Section (4), we will focus our
C. Heinicke and M. Arnhof REACH 21–22 (2021) 100038

Fig. 9. Habitat size per crew member (CM)

versus nominal mission duration: (a) habitat
volume, (b) habitat floor area. Mission du­
rations are grouped into 5 categories: (1) 1-
7d, (2) 8-14d, (3) 15-31d, (4) 32-180d, (5)
>180d. Generally, habitats with a plant-
based LSS and Antarctic bases have the
largest areas, while underwater habitats
(whose hulls are actual—not simu­
lated—pressure vessels) are the smallest.
Among simulation habitats, the Kepler sta­
tion is exceptionally spacious. Even without
these extremes, there is a tendency for
longer-duration habitats to be larger,
although category 4 and 5 habitats are not
necessarily larger than category 3 habitats
(note that in most simulation habitats crews
receive resupplies during ongoing missions).

Table 7
Mean and median sizes of 18 simulation habitats and all presented operational
bases. 4 simulation habitats are excluded because of disproportionate size
(Biosphere 2, Mars Base 1) or lack of information (HMP and the not yet built
Flexhab).
Sim hab. Polar hab. UW hab. Space stations
3
mean volume [m ] 80.8 194.1 8.9 64.6
median volume [m3] 61.4 194.1 9 33.3
mean area [m2] 36.3 84.4 4.1 NA
median area [m2] 23.2 84.4 4 NA

discussion on a selection of 12 habitats that (1) we deem representative

of extraterrestrial habitats, (2) have been inhabited repeatedly and for at
least several days at a time, and (3) are still in active use. This includes:
Aquarius, Concordia, HERA, HESTIA, HI-SEAS, HMP, ISS, Lunar Palace
1, Lunares, MDRS, NEK, and Princess Elisabeth Station. We also include
some aspects from Bios-3 and SHEE despite being not in use anymore;
but we deem the former especially relevant from an LSS perspective and
the latter from an architectural perspective.

3.1. Geometry

The majority of simulation habitats have a geometry that is inspired

by the shape of standard pressure vessels. In fact, most habitats have a
cylindrical shape, with the exception of HI-SEAS (dome-shaped), Prin­
cess Elisabeth Station (octagonal layout), and Bios-3 (box-shaped).
However, not all of these pressure vessel-shaped habitats can indeed
withstand substantial pressure differences. We therefore group the
habitats in this subsection according to their shell function into true
pressure vessels, imitated pressure vessels, and habitats that have an
entirely different shape. Furthermore, where possible, we indicate the
Fig. 10. Floor plans of two habitats that are made of true pressure vessels,
habitable living and working space within the habitat (otherwise we
HESTIA and Aquarius. Both are cylindrical in shape, but HESTIA is oriented
state the total volume).
vertically and Aquarius horizontally. Red ellipsoids mark exit(s) from the
habitat, green the doors between different compartments, and blue marks the
3.1.1. True pressure vessels (approximate) location of windows or portholes. Yellow marks the location of
Aquarius. Aquarius (see floorplan in Fig. 10) is a pre-integrated comm boxes (HESTIA only). Grey areas mark the locations of the various
submarine base similar in size and geometry to the Destiny module on functions: A - airlock (note that Aquarius has two emergency exits in the ceiling
the ISS. It is a horizontal cylinder ca. 13 m long, with a volume of about of the vessel, not shown), D - dining area, H - hygiene (typically WC), H* -
74 m3 of habitable living and working space, divided into a 20 m3 wet hygiene (shower or similar), K - kitchen or galley, L - laboratory, LSS - life
porch, a 14 m3 entry lock and a 40 m3 main lock. The internal diameter support system, P - EVA preparation, Q - crew quarters, S - storage, X - exercise,
of about 3 m allows for only one level [128,127]. Aquarius provides very W - work area. Striped areas denote stairs. All floor plans are to scale (1:200).
little habitable volume: about 9 m3 per person for a crew of six.
HESTIA. The module (Fig. 10) is an upright cylinder 7 m in diameter, 3.1.2. Imitated pressure vessels, single module
with a total height of 8 m. The chamber is divided into three floor­ SHEE. Folded, SHEE fits into a standard shipping container [68].
s—work stations and galley, LSS, and crew quarters—and has a habit­ Unfolded, it is roughly the shape of an upright cylinder (see Fig. 11) with
able volume of about 40 m3 per person [166]. an approximate diameter of 6 m, (more precisely 5.9 m by 6.5 m with a
ceiling height of 2.8 m) and total volume of 50 m3. SHEE is outfitted to

10
C. Heinicke and M. Arnhof REACH 21–22 (2021) 100038

Fig. 11. Floor plans of habitats with mimicked pressure vessels, i.e. vessels that resemble pressure vessels but are not actually pressure-tight: HERA, SHEE, HI-SEAS,
NEK/Mars500. HERA is a two-and-a-half story upright cylinder connected to a smaller upright cylinder (airlock) and a horizontal cylinder (hygiene module). SHEE is
an approximate cylinder that can be folded to the size of a standard shipping container. HI-SEAS is a two-story dome with a 20-foot container as a side module. The
NEK/Mars500-facility consists of four horizontal cylinders of which one is not part of the actual living space (landing module) and which leads to the simulated
Martian surface in yet another module (not shown). Symbols are as in Fig. 10. The additional letters denote: AC - air conditioning, GH - greenhouse/plant growth
area, E - location of ladders, CTRL - control room; (Q) - sleeping quarters that are only used in exceptional cases (medical treatment; sim.ulated landing).

provide two entrance ports, two private chambers, a mini-kitchen with
some communal space, a hygiene facility and a (relatively) large work
area. Conceptually, the ports could lead to a suitport or connected
module. [68].
3.1.3. Imitated pressure vessels, multi-module
HERA consists of a two-story cylindrical module (see Fig. 11 ac­
commodating the loft and core which connects to a simulated airlock/
dust-mitigation-module and a hygiene module. The main module has
an inner diameter of about 5 m, and a volume of about 126 m3. The
airlock/dust mitigation (upright cylinder) and hygiene (horizontal cyl­
inder) modules add another 22 m3. HERA provides a total volume of
about 37 m3 per crew member.
MDRS. The buildings of the Mars Desert Research Station are shown
in Fig. 12 at the same scale as in the other floorplans; additionally, the
campus is depicted at a scale of 1:1000 in the inset. The main habitat of
the MDRS is a two-story cylindrical module with a diameter of ca. 8 m. It
provides about 30 m3 per crew member of habitable space [25].
Concordia Station consists of two polygonal, almost cylindrical, main
modules, each of which is about 18.5 m in diameter and 11 m in height,
comprising three levels [144,167]. The two habitation modules provide
a habitable volume between 60 m3 and 80 m3 per person. There are
several stacked and interlocked shipping containers accommodating the
boiler room, power supply and workshop of the station.
NEK. The three connected, horizontal cylindrical main modules
(Fig. 11—habitat, medical module and utility module—have a size of

11
C. Heinicke and M. Arnhof REACH 21–22 (2021) 100038

Fig. 12. MDRS campus. The main graphic shows the floorplans (1:200) of all buildings on the MDRS campus. The inset shows the relative location and connection
between modules; the image is at the scale of 1:1000, except for the distance between modules that are separated by the line of dots and dashes. The main module is
the habitat module, a two-and-a-half-story upright cylinder. The lab module is a geodesic dome and the observatories (“Obs”) have dome-shaped tops; the greenhouse
is box shaped with a slanted roof, and the workshop (“WS”) is a refitted Chinook helicopter.

about 200 m3, 95 m3, 270 m3 respectively. In addition to the main
modules a simulated Mars lander and Mars surface module were used.
The three main modules provide about 40–50 m3 of habitable space per
person [78].
HI-SEAS. The main habitat, a two-story geodesic dome measuring
approximately 11 m in diameter (Fig. 11), encloses a volume of about
385 m3 of habitable living and working space. The common areas (i.e.
kitchen with pantry, dining area, bathroom, common workspace, exer­
cise area, laboratory) on the ground floor cover about 92 m2 (of which
82 m2 are habitable). The upper gallery with crew quarters and bath­
room spans an area of about 39 m2. Attached to this habitat is a shipping
container—with an area of ca. 15 m2—serving mainly as a workshop,

Fig. 13. Floor plans of two habitats dedicated to LSS testing, Lunar Palace 1 and Bios-3. Lunar Palace 1 consists of three horizontal cylinders, although the interior
walls are straight. The Bios-3 chambers are all box-shaped.

12
C. Heinicke and M. Arnhof
food and supplies storage and hosting the water and electrical in­
stallations [9]. The habitable volume of more than 60 m3 per person
paired with an open plan layout is comparatively generous for a simu­
lation habitat.
Princess Elisabeth Station. The octagonal shape of the station was
developed to suit the aerodynamic requirements (e.g. strong winds,
snowstorms) of the environment. The main building has about 350 m2 of
habitable area, and provides an estimated 50 m3 of habitable volume per
person [168].
3.1.4. Other geometries
Yuegong-1/ Lunar PALACE 1 (Fig. 13) consists of three box-shaped
modules: two chambers for vegetation, each 60 m2 large with a height
of 3.5 m and one habitat module for three persons measuring 42 m2 with
2.5 m height. The habitat provides about 35 m3 of habitable space per
person [169].
Bios-3 (Fig. 13) is located underground and is constructed of welded
steel plates. The structure is divided into four equal compartments of 7
m by 4.5 m by 2.5 m, of which three were used to grow plants and one
housed the crew (also see Section 4). The crew compartment is sub­
divided into three crew chambers, a kitchen, a lavatory, a control room,
and a work area, and provides about 25 m3 of habitable volume per
person [93].
3.2. Allocation of Space
In this subsection, we present how the common and private areas are
distributed throughout each habitat, and resulting consequences for the
crew (where reported). We highlight how much privacy is available for
the individual crew members, and if social interaction and crew bonding
activities are considered in the layout of the habitat.
Since smaller habitats may not have all of the functions that larger
habitats can provide, we group the habitats according to their size
within this section.
3.2.1. Small habitats (< 200 m3)
Aquarius. The crew sleeps in two sets of three vertical bunks which
are separated from the common areas by a curtain. The level of privacy
for the hygiene area is adequate for the short duration of missions.
Shower, sink and toilet are located in the wet porch, separated from the
common area. Personal stowage spaces are located in the bunk bed area.
There is only one narrow passage though the habitat. The location of
workstations as well as food storage and preparation areas is imprac­
tical, or even hazardous, causing interference with the movement of
crew through the main module [170]. The wardroom table—used for
eating, working, group meetings and teleconferences—is insufficiently
sized, even for smaller crews of four, causing discomfort [170,171].
MDRS has six private crew quarters on the upper floor, separated
from each other and the common area through thin walls that give little
auditory privacy. Private quarters are about 3.5 m2 each, which is about
4% of the habitable area in the main module. The crew quarters open
directly into the common kitchen and dining area, which provides
enough space for the whole crew to gather and where all recreational
activities take place.
Personal stowage space is available in or above the crew quarters.
General supplies and equipment are stowed in racks on the ground floor.
Space for additional stowage racks is available.
The ground floor is primarily used as scientific work area, workshop,
and for hygiene. The relatively large open space (compared to the upper
floor) is often used by the crews for exercising, too. Hygiene facilities are
on the ground floor; shower and toilet are in separate rooms.
Three workstations at MDRS are located in the laboratory, one is in
the upstairs common area. Crew members can work in their private
quarters as well, where each room has a small desk [172].
HERA. The private crew quarters are situated in the loft and sepa­
rated from the rest of the habitat by a thick curtain. Each private quarter
13
REACH 21–22 (2021) 100038
is about 3 m2 in size, or 6% of the habitable area. The individual crew
quarters are not high enough for crew members to stand upright in them,
however, they are exclusively used for a scheduled 8 h of sleep per day.
The hygiene facilities are located in a separate module, increasing pri­
vacy [46]. The middle level of the main habitat is used for recreational
activities and features a small kitchen and dining area sufficient for the
crew of four to eat together. The exercise area is—unfortunately—lo­
cated right next to it. The ground floor is used for focused work.
HESTIA. Depending on testing phases and mission goals, the habitat
layout might vary considerably. During the test runs in the mid-90s, the
levels were laid out such that the ground floor provided the general
living quarters for the crew (dining and food preparation areas, personal
hygiene compartments), and the third floor contained the crew quarters.
The second level mostly contained a LSS; the airlock at the ground level
served as exercise area.[173].
There are various versions of a new interior layout for HESTIA,
including two displayed on the project webpage [174,166].
3.2.2. Medium-sized habitats (200 m3–600 m3)
HI-SEAS. The private crew quarters are located on a gallery above the
common area, visually separated by walls and a door. Each crew quarter
is approximately 4 m2 large, about 3% of the habitable area.
There are two bathrooms at HI-SEAS, one on each level. The location
of the ground-floor bathroom is situated close by, but facing away from
the common area, which increases privacy. Unfavorably, the bathroom
on the gallery is located adjacent to a private quarter, with only a thin
wall in-between. This causes sleep disruption when the toilet is used
during the night.
The ground floor houses a kitchen and dining area, a laboratory, and,
unique to all the bases presented here, a large common area that oc­
cupies slightly less than half of the approx. 100 m2 ground floor of the
habitat. This common area has double room height and is directly
connected with the dining area, creating a vast open space. Crews
typically use this common area for working, exercising, EVA prepara­
tions, and leisure activities. It has direct visual access to many parts of
the habitat, including the entrances to the crew quarters.
Due to unstable desks and insufficient space—two people have to
share one desk—the common workstations are not well suited for
concentrated work, and some crew members withdraw to work in their
quarters for up to eight hours per day. The laboratory has two additional
small workstations. [11]
NEK has a habitable module with 6 individual compartments of
about 4 m2 each, a kitchen, and community room. Gym and greenhouse
are located in a separate module, as is the relatively large medical area.
All modules contain a hygiene facility, located to allow for sufficient
privacy. More than half of the area of the utility module can be used for
stowage [78,11].
Yuegong-1/ Lunar PALACE 1. The comprehensive cabin includes 4
private bed rooms equipped with a bed, a desk and a chair, and separate
rooms for washing, communication, and work [107,169].
3.2.3. Large habitats (> 600 m3)
Concordia Station. Bedrooms are equipped with bunk beds. During
austral summer, rooms have to be shared by two crew members each.
Each bedroom has about 8 m2, amounting to less than 1% of Concordia’s
habitable area.
Bathrooms in the quiet tower consist of a sink, a toilet and a shower
with curtain. The separate, small bathrooms are very private, even
though during the summer, one such bathroom has to be shared by 7–10
people [175].
The common areas for recreational use comprise the dining area, a
living room, a library, a gym, a video/music/yoga room, and a room for
table tennis, pool and table football [176].
Princess Elisabeth Station. The five crew quarters can accommodate up
to four crew members in bunk beds [168]. They are situated on the outer
wall of the station and adjacent to the office area on one side and the
C. Heinicke and M. Arnhof
fitness and common areas on the other side. The common area comprises
an open kitchen, dining and living area.
The hygiene facilities are located in the core of the habitat, easily
accessible from all areas and close to the water treatment room.
The workstations are situated in the southern part of the habitat,
separated from the noisier common area by the core. In addition, the
desks in the common area are used for working [168].
3.3. Lighting, Acoustics, Interior Materials Selection
Unless there was (or is) particular scientific interest in the impact of
sensory stimulation, habitats feature only few measures that positively
influence the sensory stimulation of crews. Many of the smaller habitats
suffer from too little or no acoustic insulation, and most feature interior
surfaces that are easy to clean (i.e. metal, plastic)—particularly when
there is little separation of laboratory function and habitable area—but
provide little tactile variation. Except for a study on sensory stimulation
conducted at MDRS [177], reports only mentioned olfactory stimulation
in a negative context.
Aquarius is equipped with LED lighting in the interior. The exterior
around Aquarius is artificially illuminated to facilitate observation of the
underwater fauna outside the habitat through the viewports [171].
Due to the high humidity in the habitat (up to 75–80%) [171], the
majority of interior surfaces and furniture is made of steel or aluminium
and plastic [178].
In past NEEMO missions data on ambient sound and light quality on
Aquarius were collected, to promote knowledge of crew comfort in ICE
environments. According to Todd and Reagan [171], “the lighting is
good and ambient noise levels are low” [171].
HI-SEAS. Except for the airlock area, the habitat does not provide
access to natural light nor is it equipped with a lighting system that
simulates natural lighting conditions. The habitat is equipped with
standard and coloured LED bulbs and strips that can partially be
exchanged. A study on the effect of bright blue-white light on the
circadian rhythm of the crew has been performed during HI-SEAS
mission I [9].
Most surfaces, including the vinyl walls, were chosen to be easily
cleanable. The carpet floor as well as the coarse surfaces on the desks
turned out to be impractical, as they gather dust and are difficult to keep
hygienic.
There is no acoustic insulation in the habitat. The resulting lack of
auditory privacy often leads to conflict [11]. Crew reports indicate that
strong odours make the use of the waterless, electrically powered
composting toilet uncomfortable [11].
HERA uses adjustable LED lighting. In addition, the third floor fea­
tures a virtual window (projection screens, digital projectors) with
modifiable views [47,46].
The HERA interior very much resembles a space station environ­
ment, featuring typical laboratory surfaces like metal and plastic but
also textiles for the inflatable structure.
After crew recommended improving sound and thermal insulation,
between 2010 and 2012 foam sound insulation was installed.
During one mission airflow, lighting and acoustic levels in the crew
quarters were measured with hand-held devices [46]. Unfortunately, the
results are not published.
MDRS has several windows to the outside, for artificial lighting
standard LED light bulbs and panels are used [172].
Most of the interior walls and the floor of the upper level (living
room, kitchen and crew quarters) are coated wooden surfaces, the floor
on the ground level is made from textured sheet metal [172].
Noise from the water pump and lack of sound insulation cause un­
comfortable sound levels inside the habitat [179].
HESTIA is equipped with an LED lighting system. In general, neither
illumination intensity nor colour can be adjusted, which in the past has
led to the crew’s circadian rhythm being affected. However, during
some testing phases at least, the quarters have been equipped with an
14
REACH 21–22 (2021) 100038
adjustable lamp [115].
Interior surfaces and furniture are predominantly made out of steel
to meet non-flammability and minimal outgassing requirements. Design
criteria also demanded surfaces to be easy to maintain and clean and not
be porous, but support installation of acoustic damping.
While noise-damping panels are mounted to some habitat walls,
HESTIA is generally a noisy environment. Most interior surfaces and
furniture are made out of metal and the first floor is not equipped with
soundproofing elements [115].
NEK. No natural light is available. Lighting is provided by LED lamps.
The habitat was utilized to investigate the effect of blue-enhanced light
on circadian rhythm and alertness [180].
The intention of predominantly choosing interior surfaces from
wood veneer or fibreboards was to promote a “cosy” atmosphere.
However, the interior looks very uniform and there is little variation in
surface texture [78].
Yuegong-1/ Lunar PALACE 1. No natural light is available. The
habitat features a lighting system to test effects of different lighting
conditions on the circadian rhythm. The only visual connection to the
outside is a porthole in the entrance to the habitat [181].
For hygienic reasons, most interior surfaces are metal, which might
have a negative effect on noise levels within the habitat. There are,
however, no reports on acoustic measurements or crew feedback.
Concordia Station. The windows adapt to outside lighting conditions,
to alleviate the extremes of constant bright sunshine and constant
darkness. During austral summer (from September to March), the
window-glass becomes translucent to dim the brightness of the light
falling into the station. In austral winter, when the sky is predominantly
dark, the windows become transparent.
The walls of the crew quarters are painted in a bright turquoise to
make the rooms look bigger. In general, the interior of the building
features predominantly light colours [182].
The architect avoided using metal and plastic flooring in favor of fire
resistant timber to promote comfort for the crew.
The two cylindrical modules of Concordia station are functionally
divided into ’noisy’ (kitchen and canteen, noisy technical equipment,
etc.) and ’quiet’ (e.g. crew quarters, laboratories, sick bay). This limits
stress factors and health and safety risks by promoting appropriate rest
and recovery for the crew [182].
Former crew members reported that, if not all crew members adhere
to the hygiene rules that are in place to protect the water treatment
system, noticeable urine odor is coming from the shower drain.
Princess Elisabeth Station features sound insulation and plenty of
windows equipped with variable sunshades. LEDs provide artificial
light.
Most interior surfaces are made of timber, fibreboards or oriented
strand boards (OSB). Textures vary between smooth and very rough
[139].
3.4. General and Individual Control over the Environment
During the Habitable Volume Workshop [165], it was acknowledged
that the lack of control of a crew over their environment was one of the
most direct causes of performance deterioration: “Particularly in crew
quarters, anecdotes indicated that insufficient levels of control over
personal environment, particularly during sleep, can lead to poor sleep
and the associated psychological stressors.” Beside temperature, venti­
lation, and lighting, personal control includes the crew’s ability to
customize and reconfigure their personal space.
3.4.1. Habitats allowing to re-arrange or control the environment
HERA provides the ability to control temperature for subject comfort.
The outfitting is adjustable and modular [47].
In HI-SEAS, the colour of LED stripes in the crew quarters and dining
area can be changed by the crew. In past missions, some crew members
substituted their standard LED bulbs in the crew quarters by coloured
C. Heinicke and M. Arnhof
light bulbs and complemented them with coloured LED strips. The desk,
chair and small bed in the crew quarters can be re-arranged if necessary
[11].
The crew quarters in HESTIA are equipped with a controllable lamp
[115].
3.4.2. Habitats with partly re-arrangeable furniture
MDRS. There is no individual control of temperature or lighting
available, and the habitat does not feature adaptable outfittings. How­
ever, some of the furniture (e.g. racks, sofa, tables) could be re-arranged
to a minimal degree, if necessary [172].
Both Antarctic stations—Concordia and Princess Elisabeth Station—do
not feature adaptable furniture to facilitate re-configurability. However,
some furniture (e.g. sofas and chairs) can be moved if needed. No in­
formation could be found about individual control by crew members
over temperature and lighting in the crew quarters [139]. At PES, even
when there is no one in the station, the temperature, humidity and all
internal systems can be monitored and adjusted at all times from the
control room in Belgium [183,176].
3.4.3. Habitats without individual control or reconfigurability
Aquarius does not give individual control of temperature or lighting
to crew members. The outfitting cannot be reconfigured at all. Likewise,
NEK and Yuegong-1 do not seem to provide any sort of individual control
over temperature or lighting, or configuration of the habitat and
outfitting.
3.5. Communication
There are four different levels at which communication is taking
place during a mission, whether simulated or not: private and group
communication among the crew inside the habitat, communication be­
tween the crew of an ongoing surface EVA and the remaining crew in­
side the habitat, communication between the crew and mission
personnel back in control centers, and communication between the crew
and the rest of the world, including friends and family.
The following descriptions are sorted by typical length of stay of a
crew inside the presented habitats, as the longer a crew is staying at a
habitat, the more effort they have to spend to maintain positive re­
lationships through communication at all four levels.
3.5.1. Bases for short simulations (< 1 month)
Aquarius is at the lower end in terms of privacy and communication
comfort. The main lock features the main living and dining area, where
the crew often gathers for “meals, conversation, fish watching and
study”[171]. The bunk room has curtains for the crew members to
change their clothes, but there is practically no room for a private
conversation between crew members.
Due to the small size of the habitat, the crew has to move carefully
and deliberately in order not to be in each other’s way. They have to
actively plan their movements, although previous crew members report
having developed a routine within a couple of days.[171].
Crews communicate with the outside world primarily via email and
real-time voice communication. The habitat has multiple windows on all
sides of the hull, allowing for plenty of observation of sea life—and vi­
sual contact with crew members during an “EVA”.[171].
HERA. The crew has no access to internet content, social media,
television/radio, and telephone. They are, however, provided with news
via periodic uplinks and with the opportunity to contact family, or
medical or psychological personnel once per week. In addition, HERA
has a “flight-like timeline and procedure viewer to provide a space
mission experience” [47].
HERA missions are under video surveillance, including audio
recording. The crew can interact with mission control through voice
recordings during the mission with comm delays of up to 10 min.
Depending on the mission scenario, the crew may experience complete
15
REACH 21–22 (2021) 100038
loss of signal [47].
Although there are portholes in the doors to the habitat, the crew is
not communicating through them. Instead, they can use the virtual
windows in the loft [53].
MDRS. MDRS [25] has 6 separate state rooms on the second floor,
one for each crew member (a 7th bunk is available on the loft, but not
always in use). Since noise insulation is poor, crew members have to
whisper if they wanted to have private conversations in their rooms.
Outside, they can physically avoid each other to some extent due to the
separate modules on the MDRS campus, which also allow for private
conversations.
The MDRS crews are supported by a Mission Control team consisting
of volunteers. They exchange information primarily via e-mails, with the
crew often gathering around the dining table. Their internet access for
communication is limited to 300 MB per day; a 20-min-latency is self-
imposed by the crew, if at all.
During EVAs, each crew member plus a “habcom” (a crew member
inside the habitat who is in contact with the crew outside) carries a
hand-held radio with a typical range of a few hundred meters. The base
has several windows on both levels, plus a porthole on the airlock door.
3.5.2. Bases for intermediate-duration simulations (< 6 months)
HESTIA. Crew quarters during the test runs were equipped with
computers and private communication capabilities; nevertheless, the
crews criticized the poor noise insulation.[184] Similar to MDRS, the
crew used their dining table for multiple purposes: as work station, a
location to gather as a group for recreation, formal presentations, or
interviews. Intercoms were installed on each level, giving the crews the
ability to communicate with each other and the personnel in the control
room.[184] Cameras both inside the habitat and the control room
allowed the crews and the support personnel to see each other. At each
level, multiple windows [185] would allow for a view to the outside, if
there were an EVA.
HMP. The “tent city” of HMP comprises one large, 15 m-long mess
tent for the whole team of up to approx. 50 people to gather. Many team
members sleep in their private tents at some distance from the “city
center”, therefore there is no lack of private rooms.[17] The core
building has some round windows; some of the larger tents of the HMP
campus have at least partially clear walls to look outside.
The 2005 field season saw a transport of almost 200kg of commu­
nications equipment [17], most of which was placed in the Systems tent.
Personnel at HMP always carries safety radios during traverses.
Lunar Palace. The only portholes are on the entrance doors to the
habitat. The crew has access to the internet via their personal laptop or
smart phones (there is no cell phone coverage inside the habitat); there
is one landline phone inside the habitat for communication with the
support personnel without delay.[107].
3.5.3. Bases for long-duration simulations (> 6 months)
Concordia. The two separate towers of the base allow for a clean
separation between private and group communications: The “quiet”
tower houses the sleeping quarters and an extra room for private phone
calls, among others. The “noisy” tower, on the other hand, houses the
kitchen, dining room, and games and movies room [144]. Especially for
the winter crews, this set-up provides abundant space for crew members
who are searching for privacy, and for crew members who would like to
engage in group activities without disturbing others. Each crew quarter
has its own window.
HI-SEAS. The crew quarters at the HI-SEAS base are located on the
second floor. Sound insulation is poor, so that private conversations
have to be conducted whispering or in the storage container.
Communication with the outside world is restricted to e-mails with
an imposed 20-min delay, although crews can transfer voice and video
messages. There is no designated communication area, thus crews use
both the common area and their private quarters for communication
with support personnel and others.
C. Heinicke and M. Arnhof
There are a total of 2 windows at the HI-SEAS habitat, which allows
visual contact between in-habitat crew and crew on EVA.
ISS. The ISS holds 6 rack-sized crew quarters that are “built as small
state-rooms” [150]. Each crew quarter contains its own laptop connec­
tivity. The ISS radio and satellite communications network provides
audio and video communication among crew members, including crew
members participating in an EVA, and audio, video, and file transfer
communication between the ISS and ground support personnel around
the world.
The ISS has one large window (the “cupola”, technically comprised
of 7 single windows), and several single windows on various modules,
through which visual contact with crew members on EVA is possible.
Today, the ISS has two galleys, one in the Russian segment and one in
the US segment. These multiple galleys lead to separate mealtimes,
which are criticized by several astronauts [186,187] for “segregating”
the crews, especially since the ISS is so large that crew members do not
see each other very often unless they work in the same modules.
NEK. The Mars500 crew had access to a multi-player videogame,
which allowed them to “browse an open space, stimulate quick thinking
and reflexes, and to favor communication in between the crew mem­
bers” [188].
Besides e-mail, the crew could communicate with the outside via a
voice channel intercom during the first and last month of the mission, a
file transfer server and a video channel with a progressive delay of up to
20 min. The latter was the “prime means of communication for the
interaction of the crew with the [support personnel] and visitors”. [188]
The crew had a separate compartment for the main console located
between the crew quarters and the kitchen/community area.
In addition to the two-way communication channels, the habitat was
equipped with cameras except in bathrooms and crew quarters so the
ground personnel could monitor the crew for their safety.
Different from most simulations, the Mars500 stint comprised a
simulated communication black-out of one week duration.[189].
3.6. Physiological and Medical Support
We cover the three areas hygiene, exercise and medical, where the
latter includes both medical research and treatment of medical issues.
3.6.1. Hygiene facilities
There is little variation among the bases in terms of the size of the
hygiene compartment, and basic facilities: all of them feature toilet,
sink, and shower, plus usually a mirror and some space for storage.
However, the location of these bathroom facilities varies greatly, along
with the recommended or actual practices for personal hygiene.
The differences in technologies provided for treatment of human
waste will be covered in subSection 4.4.
Aquarius. As before, the Aquarius base has by far the most cramped
facilities. The toilet is located in the entry lock, immediately adjacent to
the work station. Crew members enter the station through a seawater
interface, the Wet Porch, where they leave their diving equipment. This
entry area also contains a hot water shower, which the crew uses right
after EVA. [171].
HERA. By contrast, the HERA habitat contains a separate hygiene
module (all the way across the main module from the airlock) with an
overall length of 4 m and a total volume of 14.1 m3. This module con­
tains all bathroom facilities: toilet, shower, and a sink. [47].
HESTIA is one of only two simulation habitats with two hygiene
areas. The first floor facilities of the HESTIA habitat include a full
bathroom with shower, sink, urinal collection device and (separate)
fecal collection stool, plus some amenities such as shelves and a mirror.
[173] This bathroom is located across the module from the airlock. The
third floor contains a urinal and handwash area between the sleeping
compartments. The lower floor toilet, “while out of the direct line of
sight, was still quite close to the most public of utilized spaces”.[184]
HI-SEAS. HI-SEAS is the other simulation habitat with two
16
REACH 21–22 (2021) 100038
bathrooms. One bathroom contains toilet and sink, and is located next to
the sleeping quarters, the other contains toilet, sink, and shower and is
located on the corridor between common area and laboratory, only a
few steps from the airlock. Both bathrooms have mirrors and some space
for storage.
ISS. With the installation of the new Exploration Toilet, the ISS has
now 3 toilets, two in the US segment and one in the Russian segment
[190] (although the Exploration Toilet is not yet in use, as of the time of
writing). The Russian toilet is located close to the crew compartment in
the Service Module (Zvezda); the US bathroom is located in Node 3
(Tranquility), close to the exercise equipment. Node 3 can be reached
from the US sleeping quarters in Node 2 (Harmony) through the two
modules Node 1 and Destiny [150].
Lunares. The bathroom is located in a separate module that can be
reached from the central area. It is a fully equipped, commercially
available bathroom container.
NEK. The NEK features four toilets, distributed over the modules.
Even though the bathroom is similar to the other habitats with an open
loop water system, water usage was highly restricted during simulation,
comparable to the restrictions on hygiene on the ISS. The crew was
allowed to take showers every ten days, but was prohibited from using
any products with potentially toxic components and alcohol, as this
could have caused problems with the LSS.[188].
MDRS. The ground floor houses two bathrooms, one of which con­
tains the toilet, while the other contains a shower and a sink. The rooms
are immediately adjacent to the workshop, easy to reach when coming
from the other modules on the MDRS campus, but a long distance and
(very) steep stairs away from the sleeping quarters.
PES. The sanitary facilities are designed for up to 20 people and thus
include several toilets and a bathroom with 3 showers. These rooms are
located within a concentric layer around the technical core of the station
and close to the sleeping quarters. [191].
3.6.2. Exercise facilities
Exercise is without doubt a big necessity for the crew’s physical and
mental well-being. Nevertheless, there are two bases that offer no
dedicated devices or even rooms for exercise: Aquarius and MDRS
(although there is room at the latter for yoga or lifting make-shift
weights). It should be noted that EVAs are considered an integral part
of a mission at either base and may serve as a replacement for directed
exercise to some extent.
Most other bases have a combination of the following three exercise
devices: treadmill, stationary bike, and a resistive exercise device or
weight-lifting machine.
HERA. The crew can exercise on the second floor using a stationary
bike. Resistive exercising is usually part of a dedicated study on exercise
during spaceflight.
HESTIA. The exercise area was located in the airlock during the
1990s test runs, effectively blocking it, and was equipped with a
“treadmill, stationary bicycle, hand weights, steps for aerobics, portable
stereo, and 2 cassette players with headsets”. [173].
HI-SEAS. In addition to a stationary bike and a treadmill, the crew
has access to pull-up bars, various work-out videos, jump ropes and
expanders, yoga mats, and a plyometric jump box. Some crews impro­
vised work-out weights by using backpacks filled with water canisters or
fellow crew members. Moreover, crews frequently engage in EVAs.
Lunares is equipped with a stationary bike, resistive bands and yoga
mats; a physiologist on the support team provides some guidance and
joint yoga sessions are somewhat common.
NEK. There was a strict exercise regimen during Mars500. However,
the crew complained about its repetitiveness and sometimes exercised
outside the regimen, typically doing exercises that require no extra
equipment (push-ups etc.).
ISS. Even aboard the space station one can find the above mentioned
three exercise devices, just in a modified form and with different names:
Combined Operational Load Bearing External Resistive Exercise
C. Heinicke and M. Arnhof
Treadmill (COLBERT), Advanced Resistive Exercise Device (ARED), and
Cycle Ergometer with Vibration Isolation System (CEVIS) in the US
module. The European Muscle Atrophy Research Exercise System
(MARES) is used for research on human physiology and the effects of
microgravity on the muscles.
3.6.3. Medical facilities
The capabilities of the medical facilities vary greatly among the
bases. The determining factor for the extensiveness is not mission
duration, but size of the base and, even more importantly, the status of
the crews. Generally, bases that are occupied by volunteers without
payment and with minimal training tend to have very rudimentary
medical supplies (various types of first aid kits, few basic medications), if
any. This is certainly at least in part a consequence of the respective
organizers not being able to ensure a medically trained person on each
crew. However, as will be shown in the next section, many of the bases
which lack substantial medical equipment (e.g. HESTIA, HI-SEAS,
Lunares, MDRS), also lack a stringent plan for (extraterrestrial) emer­
gencies. Indeed, the majority of habitats in this subsection are fully
operational bases that are not primarily built for simulations.
NEK. Of those habitats that do have substantial medical capabilities,
the NEK stands out in that it comprises a separate, 3.2 m by 11.9 m
Medical Module, which is accessible from the living module.[80] The
Medical Module houses “two medical berths, a toilet and equipment for
routine medical examinations and telemedical, laboratory and diag­
nostic investigations”. Effectively, the facility is equipped to isolate and
treat an ill crew member, if necessary. During nominal operations, the
crew undergoes regular medical checks of varying extent in that module.
HERA includes a Medical Operations Workshop with the following
capabilities: remote medical procedures and examinations, biological
sample collection, blood/saliva/urine/fecal collection, Heart Rate
Monitor, Ultrasound, and Actigraphy.[47] There is a deployable surgical
bed. [192]
HMP. Approximately 9% of the entire inventory at the research
station is health related equipment and consumables, a total mass of
70.8kg. The vast majority of this mass is stored inside the Office tent
which is located between the core building and the Systems tent.1 The
organizers aim to maintain “a high level of medical capability, both
through personnel (certified flight surgeons) as well as a variety of
expeditionary medical supplies and sophisticated equipment (e.g. CSA
telemedicine kit)”. [17] Moreover, there is a medical evacuation plan for
emergencies.
At Concordia, the medical facilities are located within the “quiet”
building. They are described as “exhaustive” by medical crew, including
a surgical room, “a dentist section, telemedicine devices, and everything
needed to perform X-rays and simple blood or urine analysis”.[193].
The ISS provides hardware both for maintaining health and safety,
and for medical care. There is the above-mentioned exercise equipment
(Section 3.6), extensive monitoring of the spacecraft environment (for
gaseous and microbial contaminants, water quality, acoustics, and ra­
diation levels), as well as equipment for health monitoring up to in-flight
resuscitation and medical care.
3.7. Contingency readiness
In this final subsection, we deal with the question of what happens in
the case of an emergency at any of the habitats. Responses are vastly
different, depending on the nature of the base: Habitats that exist purely
for simulation purposes usually plan to abort and evacuate to the
outside. The selected operational bases, on the other hand, cannot: they
are located in such harsh environments that simply leaving the habitat
1
This is the status as of 2005. There were plans for building a separate Life
Sciences and Medical Ops tent only accessible from the core building, but the
authors could not find any update on the actual construction of this.
17
REACH 21–22 (2021) 100038
would likely end in loss of crew.
3.7.1. Simulation bases
Bios-3. Each compartment has three doors, one of which leads to the
outside. If needed, crews could leave the habitat within 20 s, but
reportedly that was never necessary.
Crew selection was based on the involvement of the candidates with
the project, medical examinations, and on “desirable personal merits”.
[93] Following their selection, crew members underwent training on the
system and various subcomponents, including safety features and the
“optimal everyday condition”. They went into quarantine for 5 days
before closure, and were under “around-the-clock medical supervision,
special examinations, instructions to report any aches and pains”. [93].
HESTIA. Prior to selection, all crew members had to pass a Class III
Air Force Physical and psychological evaluations. Crews were trained
and familiarized with the chamber, including routine system mainte­
nance expected during the test phase. There were “two distinct parts to
the warning or emergency systems” [184], one for the whole facility that
would sound when one of the sensors failed, the other for failures in
specific subsystems. The protocol was for the crew to proceed “to the
airlock door in case evacuation was necessary”. [184].
The different levels of the habitat are connected with steep, almost
vertical staircases that proved to be a great challenge for the crew
especially when carrying equipment or supplies. The staircase provided
“just enough tread to place only one foot, step by step”. [184] Hence, the
habitat had an additional lift on the upper level that would allow the safe
evacuation of an injured crew member.
HI-SEAS became the unlucky “master of disaster” when the sixth
simulation had to be halted 4 days into what was planned to be an 8-
month mission. The corresponding press release states: “Feb 26, 2018.
HI-SEAS Mission VI has been cancelled as a crew member has volun­
tarily withdrawn their participation in the study. It is not possible to
perform a mission with a crew of three. Further, an investigation is
ongoing into an incident which occurred on February 19, 2018,
temporarily suspending the mission. […]” [194]
HI-SEAS is of course not the only habitat that saw an ambulance
being called on one of its crew members, but due to unfortunate cir­
cumstances and an unusually small crew of 4 a relatively minor incident
thwarted a whole mission.
NEK. All crew members received advanced life support training and
emergency response training. Part of the crew received refresher
training during the mission. [195].
Several cameras were installed in the modules except crew quarters
and bathrooms; some were fixed, others could be remotely controlled
from the outside. [188].
Apart from these safety measures, the mission included several
simulated emergency scenarios, such as a communications black-out
and a complete power failure. [189].
MDRS is perhaps the counter example to the previously discussed
habitats and shows how a habitat should not be run. A recent publication
complains that “fire extinguishers and emergency exits were not sign-
posted or accessible, and that a range of safety equipment and instru­
mentation was not fit-for-purpose, accurate, or functional”. In addition,
“the emergency exits don’t work and the emergency ladder won’t fit on
the window ledge”, to name a few of the problems. [196]
The bars on crew selection are low, and only minimal training is
given on the functionality of the base. No medical training is given.
Several accidents have occurred at the base, which by itself is not
alarming given the large number of crews that have inhabited so far.
What is more alarming is the shear number of avoidable safety issues
that persist despite former crews having informed the base’s manager on
various occasions.
3.7.2. Non-simulated bases
Since Aquarius is an underwater base, all crew members have to have
an open water dive certification, a minimum amount of dive experience,
C. Heinicke and M. Arnhof
and pass several dive and swim tests. [171] In addition, they need to
have experience in operations, emergency medicine and isolation and
extreme environments. As part of intensive pre-mission preparations
lasting several months, the crew is trained and certified in First Aid,
CPR, oxygen administration, and a number of scientific tasks to be
conducted during their mission. [171].
Generally, crews are composed of scientific personnel and techni­
cians (“hab techs”), with the hab techs monitoring the “aquanauts”
during their EVAs. In the case of an emergency, the designated hab techs
would alert the personnel on the main land who would come from shore
and try to fix the problem.
Due to the limitations of saturation diving, the Aquarius crews
cannot simply evacuate to the surface. Therefore, the Life Support Buoy
has “redundant generators and compressors which provide electrical
power and fresh air via umbilicals to the habitat” [171]. Communica­
tions are transfered via separate umbilicals and relayed via microwave
to the land-based personnel. Due to the small size of the habitat, the
crew has very limited capabilities to repair their base, and have to rely
on the land crew helping them if any problem arises.
Crews at Concordia are without the possibility of evacuation or de­
liveries for 9 months during the austral winter. This means that they
have to solve any problems on their own, even in emergencies.
Outside the base, temperatures may drop to as low as − 80 ◦ C. The
crew has access to appropriate cold temperature clothing, heated shel­
ters, and follows strict safety protocols for work outside, such as always
carrying a radio. As a former crew member puts it, “[…] the main thing
we talk about is prevention, prevention and prevention.” [197].
The station has a fully equipped medical facility (also see Section 3.6
separate emergency camp (which serves as additional housing during
the summer). There is an extra fuel supply at the emergency camp and
emergency diesel generator inside the noisy building. [144].
HMP. All personnel receive safety training and refresher training
during each field campaign. Safety documents and a personal packing
list help to prepare for a safe campaign. There is usually a Medical Of­
ficer with experience in emergency field medicine, although in the case
of a serious medical issue “a medevac airlift would be called, weather
permitting”. [198].
In the 20 years since its creation, HMP has seen no major injuries
[198], despite the base being located in Polar bear territory.
PES. Similar to HMP, there is medical supervision at Princess Eli­
sabeth Station and capabilities for minor surgeries. However, for serious
medical issues, the patient would be evacuated. Therefore, all crew
members undergo thorough physical examinations prior to their de­
parture to Antarctica. They receive field training before and during their
stay at the station, and are accompanied by certified field guides during
field trips. [199] Just as for Concordia, “the best way to avoid medical
problems in Antarctica […] is prevention”. [200].
In addition, the base has emergency generators, and there is a “stand-
alone, under-snow emergency shelter for 20 people” that contains “a
living area (sleeping and communication), a technical area (generator
and water melting) and storage (food, emergency clothing)”. [191].
ISS. ISS crews receive extensive emergency response training for
specific types of emergencies (e.g. [201,202]) and are undergoing reg­
ular intensive medical screening. Nevertheless, should a serious medical
issue arise, the crew member could be evacuated in one of two docked
Soyuz capsules. The Soyuz can undock within 3 min; the return to Earth
can be accomplished in 3-4 h. [203].
If the emergency is not medical in nature but a vehicle emergency,
the entire 6-person-crew can be brought to Earth. In this case, the ISS
would be operated from the ground until another crew is sent up. Such a
vehicle emergency could be fire, toxic atmosphere (e.g. due to a gas
leak), or rapid depressurization (e.g. due to a collision with space
debris). [201,203].
Note that in the entire history of the Russian space program only 3
cosmonauts had to be evacuated [204], and no evacuation was neces­
sary from the ISS within its 20 year life time so far.
18
REACH 21–22 (2021) 100038
3.8. Summary
In this chapter, we discussed factors influencing the habitability of
analog habitats. A 2011 NASA Habitable Volume Workshop determined
categories of potential stressors [165], which—next to habitat geometry
and size—we used for analyzing the selected habitats.
In the first two sections we looked at the geometry and spaciousness
of habitats (Section 3.1) and the allocation of space (Section 3.2).
The sizes and habitable volumes of bases vary widely between about
9 m3 per person for a crew of six in Aquarius and more than 60 m3 per
person for the same crew size in HI-SEAS. However, Aquarius missions
only last 1–2 weeks, while HI-SEAS missions last up to a year.
Both Antarctica stations provide relatively generous habitable space
(50 m3 to 80 m3 per person). However, due to the large size of the fa­
cilities all together, and their much bigger crew sizes, they can not be
fairly compared to the smaller habitats.
The other bases all provide a habitable volume per person between
25 m3 and 50 m3. Besides Aquarius, Bios-3 (mission durations up to 6
months, crew of 3), SHEE (mission duration a week, two people), and
MDRS (mission durations mostly 2–3 weeks, crew of 6) are the habitats
with the smallest habitable space per person (25–30 m3). NEK (mission
durations up to 520 days, crew of 6) and HESTIA (mission durations up
to 3 months, crew of 4) are the bases with the largest habitable space per
person (40–50 m3) besides the Antarctic stations and HI-SEAS. Bios-3
seems to be very small for accommodating a crew for such long missions.
We need to keep in mind though that this habitat was a LSS testbed and
the smaller volume contributed to the feasibility of the experiments.
It is important to note that the factors mission duration and crew size
are essential, when considering if the habitable volume of a base is
adequate. Particularly during long duration missions, the aspect of
available habitable space per person becomes increasingly important.
Likewise, the significance of availability and quality of common and
private areas and the distribution of spaces in a habitat increases
considerably with the duration of the mission. If the mission duration is
short (1–2 weeks), inconveniences like limited space or limited privacy
(e.g. lack of individual quarters), or no or few dedicated areas for crew
bonding and social activities can be more easily accepted. In contrast,
habitats that accommodate missions lasting several months or longer
need to consider crew comfort, privacy, and social interaction very
carefully in the design as it has significant impact on crew health and
team cohesion.
The next three topics we addressed were lighting, acoustics, interior
materials selection (Section 3.3), general and individual control over
environment (Section 3.4), and communication and avoidance of social
monotony (Section 3.5).
The habitats in our selection feature few sensory stimulation efforts.
Notable exceptions are for example HERA, which features a virtual
window with modifiable views, and Aquarius, where the surrounding
ocean is illuminated and allows for underwater fauna observation
through the viewports. Yuegong-1 features a lighting system to test ef­
fects of different lighting conditions on the circadian rhythm. Most
habitats provide coloured LED lights, which in some cases the crew
members themselves can control.
Looking at the negative aspects, a frequent issue, particularly in
smaller habitats, is the lack of acoustic insulation. The same is true for
olfactory nuisances. In many cases, the interior surfaces offer little
tactile comfort or variation, as they are chosen to be easily cleanable and
affordable.
HERA, HI-SEAS, and HESTIA allow the crew members to re-arrange
or control aspects of their environment, such as lighting. MDRS, Con­
cordia and Princess Elisabeth Station offer at least limited possibilities to
re-arrange some furniture. Aquarius, NEK and Yuegong-1 do not offer
any sort of individual control or reconfigurability of the habitat. This is
unfortunate, as a lack of control over the environment can directly cause
performance deterioration in crew members [165].
As expected, habitats for short simulations (< 1 month) (e.g.
C. Heinicke and M. Arnhof
Aquarius, HERA, MDRS) don’t much consider private and crew com­
munications aspects. Larger, long-duration mission habitats (e.g. NEK,
Concordia Station) have more measures in place to promote efficient
communication on all levels.
In the last two sections we looked at physiology and medicine
(Section 3.6), and contingency readiness (Section 3.7).
The section physiological and medical support addresses hygiene,
exercise, medical research as well as medical treatment aspects. Hygiene
facilities are very uniform over all bases in terms of size and facilities
(toilet, sink, shower, mirror, and storage space). Neither Aquarius nor
MDRS feature any sort of dedicated exercise equipment. Diving EVAs are
an integral part of activities on Aquarius though, so it is reasonable that
no additional equipment is placed in the already small habitat. MDRS
provides enough room to do exercise that doesn’t require equipment.
Many other habitats provide one or a combination of the usual space
station exercise facilities: stationary bike, treadmill and resistive exer­
cise equipment and some bases also have weight-lifting machines. When
comparing the medical facilites among bases, we noticed that the
biggest determining factors for the quality and size were primarily the
size of the habitat as well as crew status.
Similarly, the habitats which lack essential medical facilities and
equipment (e.g. HESTIA, HI-SEAS, Lunares, MDRS), also lack stringent
contingency planning for emergencies. We found that bases that are
specifically built for simulating space missions, normally plan to abort
and evacuate the habitat. For operational bases in harsh and isolated
environments this is simply not possible.
4. Technologies
The technologies that an analog habitat is equipped with depend
primarily on the reason why the habitat was built in the first place
(technology testing, focus on field research or human factor research,
etc.), but also on its location and environment (Antarctica, underwater,
laboratory, etc.). In this section, we discuss the habitat technology fields:
shell structure, airlocks, radiation shielding and impact monitoring, life
support systems, thermal control, energy systems (production and
storage), and communication systems. We also discuss one technology
that has not been integrated into any existing habitat yet, but should be
considered for future habitats: artificial gravity as a countermeasure for
the physiological deconditioning resulting from decreased gravitational
stimulus in space, on the Moon and on Mars.
Shell structures have been introduced in Section 3.1, where we
described basic shapes and sizes; here we focus on materials and func­
tions. Communication has already been discussed in Section 3.5, where
we presented the crews’ paths within the habitat and procedures of
contact with humans outside the habitat. Here, on the other hand, we
focus on the technological means provided to the crew for contacting
humans outside the habitat and other crew members (during EVAs).
4.1. Shell
The wall structures of the analog habitats described vary from thin
tent-like hulls to the more than 60cm thick walls of Princess Elisabeth
Station in Antarctica to welded steel plate hulls of pressurized habitats.
Obviously, the choice of materials and structure of habitat shells de­
pends on the environmental conditions (e.g. temperature, humidity,
insulation, etc.) and the purpose of the facility (e.g. closed ecosystem
experiments). One of the most significant challenges for the hull of an
actual planetary or lunar surface base will be the need to withstand
substantial pressure differences and the air-tightness of the habitat.
Therefore we follow the same structure as in Section 3.1.
4.1.1. True pressure vessels
Aquarius. The envelope of Aquarius is made of welded steel plates
[205,206]. The atmospheric pressure in the wet porch is the same as the
ambient water pressure (about 2.6 bar). The entry lock and main
19
REACH 21–22 (2021) 100038
compartment are able to maintain pressures from ambient to normal
atmospheric pressure.
HESTIA. Like Aquarius, the HESTIA pressure chambers are made
from welded steel plates (see Fig. 5) [207].
4.1.2. Imitated pressure vessels
The habitats in this subsection are not equipped with a shell that
could withstand pressure differences of the magnitude that would be
necessary in extra-terrestrial environments. Bases like HI-SEAS and HMP
are both unpressurized shelters, covered only by thin fabric. Neverthe­
less, some habitats are designed to be watertight and airtight (esp.
Antarctic bases) and minimize their surface for thermal efficiency and
optimal energy use.
HERA. Until now, the built versions of HERA or HDU (see Fig. 3)
were non-pressurized Earth-analogs of pressurized habitation modules
[46]. To facilitate transportation and simplify production, the composite
(resin impregnated fiberglass) structure of the habitat shell comprises
seven identical slices and one custom fitted final slice. Those slices are
manufactured from a common mold and modified (e.g. with doors,
window openings, etc.). A double steel rib at the interface between two
slices (one steel rib on each side of a slice) provides for easy assembly.
The exterior surfaces of the habitat and the airlock are covered with
foam insulation [208].
The habitat sits on a four legged cradle that was assembled in place
around the shell and mounted to it. The cradle also supports the habitat
during transport with a flatbed trailer, which acts as an analog substitute
for the All-Terrain Hex-Legged Extra-Terrestrial Explorer (ATHLETE) in
the lunar architecture concept [73].
HI-SEAS. The cover of the habitat dome consists of two layers of vinyl
with air as insulation in-between (see Fig. 1). The shell provides pro­
tection against water and wind, but little protection against temperature
variations [209].
ILMH/LMAH. ILMH is the only pressurized facility featuring light­
weight structures and inflatables. The hull of the original habitat module
consists of an internal space frame of interlocking hub and strut ele­
ments connected to an inflatable, flame retardant bladder on the
outside. To provide protection from contamination during EVAs, the
inflatable can sustain a positive pressure gradient of 1 psi (0.07 bar)
[77].
In 2017–2018, four other modules were added: a ‘greenhouse’, an
EVA and maintenance module, an exercise and human performance
module and a geology module. A floor, rib and stringer structural design
was chosen for the internal aluminium structure of the cylindrical
modules (7 m length, 3 m diameter). [56].
Princess Elisabeth Station. The building aims to be air- and water-tight.
The more than 60 cm thick walls, roof, and floor are composed of various
materials [210].
Each window consists of two layers of insulating glass with a solar
filter, resulting in ‘quadruple-glazing’. The outermost panes of the
window are armoured to withstand temperature extremes down to
− 71 ◦ C and wind speeds of up to 280 km/h [210].
Concordia. The cylindrical shape of the station’s two main modules
minimizes the surface of the hulls, while providing a large usable floor
space (see Fig. 7). Each sleeping quarter has a small window, but only
few other rooms have windows to minimize heat loss [146].
4.1.3. Other geometries
Bios-3. The hull of the Bios-3 facility was made of welded steel plates.
Pressure inside the habitat was slightly higher than ambient to prevent
contamination [93].
HMP. The base camp consists of transportable, unpressurized, fabric
shelters (tents) and a greenhouse. Researchers have to provide their own
sleeping tents, which are pitched around 100 m from the Base [16].
C. Heinicke and M. Arnhof
4.2. Airlocks
Beside HESTIA and Yuegong-1, there are no analog bases with a true
airlock in the sense of a passage-way between a pressurized interior and
vacuum or normal pressure. Rather, within the analog base context, we
distinguish between functional airlocks (e.g. the airtight doors of Prin­
cess Elisabeth Station or Bios-3), and simulated airlocks that are incor­
porated into mission scenarios, but would not have any effect on the
integrity of the habitat interior.
4.2.1. Functional airlocks and airtight habitats
HESTIA. As mentioned above, the long duration testbed of closed-
loop ECLSS (see Section 4.4) can be pressurized. In order to not affect
the environment within the chamber by the transfer of material or
personnel, HESTIA features one man-lock, one transfer-lock and one
observer-lock [113].
Aquarius. The seawater interface known as Wet Porch is the main
point of entry. It is open to the ocean, the water is kept out due to the
pressure inside the Wet Porch being equal to the surrounding water
pressure. The Entry Lock functions as an airlock between the Wet Porch
and the Main Lock.
Bios-3. The access doors as well as doors between compartments
were hermetically sealed with rubber gaskets. Each compartment pro­
vided a sealed emergency exit, and two sealed exits to other compart­
ments. Samples were exchanged through sample airlocks [93].
Princess Elisabeth Station. The station does not require airlocks.
However, the passive house construction requires an airtight envelope.
There are only few doors to the station—two in the roof, one in the
tower, the garage doors and an emergency exit at the station’s bottom.
They are all airtight and sealed with solid hinges [211].
Yuegong-1/Lunar Palace 1:. The sealed cabin of Yuegong-1 provides
one airlock and one sample airlock [105].
4.2.2. Simulated airlocks
ILMH/LMAH. Beside the habitat, the ILMH/LMAH complex com­
prises a pressurized rover and two EVA suits. Each element can be de­
tached from the complex and function independently. The habitat is
equipped with an emergency/EVA airlock and a docking tunnel airlock
between the habitat and the electric rover. The electric rover has a
sample box airlock and two suitports [77]. Note that the ILMH/LMAH is
the only habitat that uses suitports.
HERA. The main module is equipped with four docking ports, of
which one leads to the deployable airlock that gives access to the porch
and ramp (see Fig. 3). A ‘dual chamber inflatable suitlock’ (DCIS) has
been suggested [46] to simulate a suitport.
HI-SEAS has a single simulated airlock, although the habitat has
another exit that is used for resupply logistics and emergencies. The
“airlock” is a simple wooden shed, containing most of the EVA equip­
ment including suits. Some additional equipment and spares are stored
in the adjacent container. [9].
Lunares. A simulated airlock connects the habitat with an airplane
hangar that is used as a lunar or Martian surface analog [212].
NEK. During missions, each of the four interconnected habitat
modules were hermetically sealed, as they all provided an artificial at­
mosphere. One additional, non–hermetical, module was used to simu­
late the Martian surface and crew members only entered it wearing
space suits.
All modules are connected via transfer tunnels with hatches. The
medical module has a hermetical door and an emergency hatch at the
other end. [78]. The Mars landing module simulator has a transfer
tunnel which leads to the Martian surface simulation module.
MDRS. The MDRS features two airlocks, one for ‘out of simulation’
events involving fuel or oil checks and an EVA airlock with an adjacent
preparation room containing spacesuit simulators [25].
20
REACH 21–22 (2021) 100038
4.3. Radiation shielding, impact monitoring, and dust control
Very few habitats in our selection of reviewed projects consider the
influence of their extraterrestrial environments:
ILMH/LMAH. Ortiz et al. [213] claim that the structure of the main
habitat module would be able to support a 1 m thick layer of regolith in
Martian gravity. They suggest manufacturing panels on the interior of
the habitat from hydrogen-rich material like polyethylene to increase
the radiation shielding capability of the structure [213].
HDU. The HERA habitat is equipped with the HDU Impact Moni­
toring System (HIMS) and dust control. In 2010, the system was eval­
uated by firing pellets at the outer shell of the habitat to simulate
micrometeoroid strikes. Lotus coating and electrostatic dust shield
technologies were tested for their suitability in dust control [208].
4.4. Life support system (LSS)
Beside the pressure shell, LSS are arguably the most important sys­
tem within a habitat to keep humans alive in an extraterrestrial envi­
ronment. Some habitats have therefore been built specifically for the
purpose of testing (a specific) LSS. In this section, we describe such LSS
testbeds, and some of the life support technologies that are available in
operational habitats, and simulation habitats without a full-scale LSS but
with some rudimentary life support technology.
4.4.1. Life support technology demonstrators
The facilities covered in this section were specifically built for closed-
loop environmental control and life support system (ECLSS) technology
development and testing. Those self-contained facilities offer scientists
the chance to study the ability of technology, plants and animals to
maintain a breathable atmosphere, recycle water, and produce food.
Bios-3. Built in 1972, Bios-3 was the pioneering project in exper­
imenting with biological closed LSS development with humans in the
loop. The closed eco-system facility measured 315 m3 and accommo­
dated up to three humans, with plants providing the bulk of the food,
recycling of the air and wastewater in the habitat.
Bios-3 comprised four equally sized chambers with 31.5 m2 each, one
for crew habitation, two ‘phytotrons’ (growing chambers) for higher
plants (e.g. wheat, chufa, vegetable crops), and one that contained
either algal (chlorella) cultivators or was used as another phytotron. In
the three plant chambers, the water and atmosphere of the facility could
be entirely regenerated.
Two airtanks that were connected to the isolated chambers regulated
atmospheric pressure inside the facility. Purification of the air was
achieved by the plants in the phytotrons and through thermocatalytic air
filters. Most of the transpired water in the facility was condensed for use
in the phytotrons, and some was sterilized by boiling for hygiene and
cleaning. Water for human consumption was then treated on ion-
exchange filters and supplemented with various salts to enhance min­
eral content and taste [93].
93% of the crews’ food was produced in the phytotrons, supple­
mented with monthly supplied freeze-dried meat. Human wastes were
dried and stored with the evaporating water re-entering the atmosphere.
Urine was recycled in one experiment as addition to the nutrient solu­
tion for the wheat crops [93,92]. The habitat provided equipment to
process wheat and inedible biomass, to take measurements and make
occasional repairs [92,91].
Yuegong-1/Lunar Palace 1. Yuegong-1 is an artificial, closed eco-
system with humans, animals, plants and microorganisms in the loop.
Tested in a 105-day experiment in 2014 and a 370-day experiment in
2017–2018, a crew of three produced more than half of the food
consumed inside Yuegong-1. The crew cultivated various kinds of ce­
reals, vegetables, and strawberries using high-efficiency plant cultiva­
tion equipment [169,181]. Waste of the vegetative produce was used to
raise protein-rich mealworms for consumption [214]. The rest of the
food was supplied from the outside. Human waste and organic waste
C. Heinicke and M. Arnhof
from the vegetation compartment were both treated with microorgan­
isms, and partly used as fertilizer for plant production [169,181].
All of the oxygen in Yuegong-1 was regenerated within the system.
Photosynthesis by the plants in the vegetation chamber synthesized the
CO2 produced by the inhabitants and waste processing, releasing oxygen
as waste product. Wheat was not only the primary food source, but also
the main producer of oxygen in the habitat [215].
100% of the water in Yuegong-1 was recycled and purified inter­
nally. Greywater from the kitchen and sanitary facilities, condensate
water, as well as urine were reclaimed/recycled/purified by a mem­
brane biological activated carbon reactor, activated carbon-absorption/
ultra-filtration, and reduced pressure distillation technology, respec­
tively [216].
HESTIA. The HESTIA facility is utilized to test several life support
and environmental control technologies for human spaceflight, mainly
focusing on oxygen regeneration and air quality. HESTIA can operate at
elevated oxygen and reduced pressure levels.
To produce breathable oxygen for the LSS, HESTIA’s electrolyzer
splits H2O into molecular oxygen and hydrogen. To control air quality,
HESTIA’s Air Revitalization System (ARS) comprises the following
subsystems: a fan to circulate air, a Condensing Heat Exchanger to
remove humidity in the air, a Trace Contaminant Removal System
(TCRS) and a Reactive Plastic Lithium Hydroxide (RP-LiOH) unit to
remove CO2. In unmanned testing, HESTIA’s Human Metabolic Simu­
lator (HMS) simulates CO2 and humidity production and oxygen con­
sumption of a four person human crew [114].
In future simulations, solid human waste will be stored, while urine
will be pre-treated and transferred to the waste processor outside the
habitat [113].
4.4.2. Life support systems in operational bases
Operational research bases in isolated and extreme environments are
using LSS because steady supply of life support gases and fluids is either
not possible or economically not viable. The implemented LSS are not
closed loop, because the environments they are built in allow for the use
of local resources (i.e. air, water, energy) and occasional resupply.
However, deliveries to those stations are often expensive and logistically
challenging.
Aquarius. The underwater habitat Aquarius is accessible only by
diving (see Fig. 6). To facilitate supply with life support gases and fresh
water a Life Support Buoy (LSB) with 10 m in diameter is situated on a
five-point mooring above Aquarius. It contains two air compressors; an
umbilical between the LSB and the habitat contains hoses to supply
Aquarius with high pressure air from the compressors, oxygen from
storage flasks and to remove carbon dioxide.
The habitat is equipped with a freshwater shower, a toilet, and hot
water [127]. Freshwater is brought down to Aquarius daily by surface
support divers. In case the LSB fails, reserve oxygen tanks are situated
outside the habitat [217]. Life support controls are situated in both the
entry and the main lock, so the two modules can be pressurized inde­
pendently [127].
Concordia Station. Water for the station’s hygiene and nutritional
needs is produced by melting snow. The station is equipped with a
membrane-based greywater-recycling unit with several stages of mem­
branes. This unit collects all greywater from the kitchen and bathroom.
The treatment process originally consisted of four steps including
ultrafiltration, nanofiltration, and two stages of reverse osmosis [218].
Currently, the treatment relies on fat removing pre-treatment, ultrafil­
tration and reverse osmosis alone.
Although potable, the recycled greywater is used for hygiene only.
The recycling ratio of the greywater treatment system is 85%. With a
more efficient system to treat blackwater the percentage could be
further improved to up to 95%. The remaining solid waste from the
black water treatment unit is removed from Antarctica in containers
[144,219]. Organic waste is treated in a composter.
The recycling system can be adjusted to the level of intensity needed,
21
REACH 21–22 (2021) 100038
as working hours and crew size on the base vary between summer and
winter. The system produces about 200l of water per hour and is more
energy-efficient than producing the same amount of water in the melting
unit [146].
Princess Elisabeth Station. The station also features a snow melter and
a water recycling system to treat grey and black water. 60–75% of the
treated water is used again, while the rest is disposed of. For water
purification, an anaerobic and an aerobic bioreactor, active carbon
treatment, ultraviolet germicidal irradiation (UVGI) and pH correction
are used.
Any non-recyclable and non-bio-degradable waste-material is stored
in tanks and containers and removed at the end of the austral summer
[183].
4.4.3. Partial, simulated or no life support system
HERA. The HERA habitat provides a simulated Environmental Con­
trol and Life Support System (ECLSS) to support complex operational
activities [47]. Temperature, humidity and air filtration can be
controlled within the habitat [73]. The habitat features plumbed water
for crew consumption and food rehydration. The hygiene module, which
is a separate module connected to the core module, is equipped with a
shower and sink with hot and cold running water and a toilet. Crew
members are allowed 30 min per day for hygiene and laundry.
NEK. The four habitat modules provide an artificial atmospheric
environment under Earth normal pressure during missions. Air and
water is partially recycled and their quality monitored. The Mars land­
ing simulator is equipped with a sewage and water supply system, an air-
conditioning and ventilation system and a fire suppression and alarm
system [220].
The Mars500 facility features a virtual simulator of a LSS for oxygen
and water regeneration, and an electromechanical simulator of a water
electrolysis unit for oxygen generation, “Elektron-VM” [221].
HI-SEAS. When the base is operational, water is delivered to the base
and stored in two ca. 1900 l tanks. Waste water is collected in two ca.
950 l tanks and emptied when necessary. To minimize water con­
sumption, the habitat features a waterless, electrically powered com­
posting toilet [10].
Lunares. During missions at Lunares, arrivals of ‘cargo ships’ are
simulated. Those ‘cargo ships’ refill water tanks, bring food and other
supplies, and dispose of waste. A so-called BioLab is equipped with a
hydroponic system to grow supplemental food (e.g. vegetables, herbs).
During some missions, cockroaches are grown to consume organic waste
produced in the habitat, and to produce plant fertilizer from their
excrement [212].
MDRS. Water is available from a 1700 l-tank just outside the habitat;
there is no water recycling system.
From 2003 to 2009, MDRS had an experimental, closed-loop water
recycling system which was located in the so-called GreenHab, the
greenhouse facility at MDRS. However, it was considered insufficient for
a full-time crew of six simulation astronauts and refitted to be solely
used as a greenhouse [222]. Now the GreenHab is used to grow vege­
tables to be used as supplementary food for the missions (see Fig. 2). It
provides conventional as well as aquaponic growing systems [25].
HMP. The research base uses water from a creek in the vicinity of the
base camp [16]. One of the permanent tents houses the sink and shower
supplying hot and cold water. Two permanent tents contain the toilets,
where urine is collected in repurposed 200 l fuel tanks, which are
removed from the island to prevent biological contamination. Solid
(human and other) wastes are incinerated in a small, diesel–fuelled
incinerator [17,223].
4.5. Thermal control
Most simulation bases rely heavily on passive thermal control, but
there are a few simulation bases that have (additional) active thermal
control (Bios-3, HERA, Aquarius, and the Antarctic bases). However,
C. Heinicke and M. Arnhof
some bases do not have substantial control over their internal temper­
atures, but rely on being located in a temperate environment (HI-SEAS)
or inside a laboratory building (HESTIA, Yuegong-1, and Mars500), or
are only used during certain seasons (MDRS).
4.5.1. Active thermal control
HERA. The HDU module for field testing was equipped with a heat
pump mounted to the exterior of the habitat. Airflow was directed
through the sub-floor to cool avionics and power systems through vents
into the crew compartment. Spent air was cycled back to the heat pump
through two return vents. However, the heat pump was damaged during
transport to the field-testing site and the pump was replaced by a
portable air conditioning cart [224]. The HERA setup at JSC is located
inside a building and equipped with a simulated environmental control
system [45].
Aquarius. The main function of the air conditioning in Aquarius is to
keep condensation inside the habitat to a minimum [225].
Concordia. Around 80% of the waste heat from the generators are
recovered and used to heat air and water in the station, but additional
heaters are necessary. The average temperature inside the base is kept at
around 22◦ C [144].
Princess Elisabeth Station. The station uses passive building tech­
niques to minimize energy demand. The skin, insulation, shape, orien­
tation and window position on the building are designed to keep the
ambient temperature in the building comfortable. Timber as structural
material of the base prevents thermal bridges in the building. There are
more than 60 cm of insulating layers (see Section 4.1).
The temperature inside the station is managed by three separate
ventilation systems: one for the technical core that is operational all year
long, and two for the living quarters that are only used during austral
summer. A dual-flow system allows 75–95% of thermal energy to be
recovered from warm, vitiated air that is discharged [211].
Water is heated in thermal solar panels mounted to the roof of the
station and its garages. Additional electrical reheating is provided as
backup [211].
4.5.2. Only passive thermal control
ILMH/LMAH. The hull of the habitat is equipped with a 25.4 cm layer
of fibreglass for thermal insulation. This measure kept inside tempera­
tures in the habitat during the 10-day simulation relatively stable (be­
tween 16◦ C and 21◦ C). Due to a blockage of the air intake in the
ventilation system and a simulated emergency loss of power, pressuri­
zation in the habitat was lost during the first simulation mission. The
inside and inflatable bladder were protected by the rigid structure of the
habitat, but the thermal regulation function of the inflatable structure
was affected [77].
4.5.3. External thermal control
HESTIA, Yuegong-1, and Mars500 are each situated within facilities
that provide thermal control to the habitat.
4.5.4. Rudimentary thermal control
HI-SEAS. The lack of proper insulation and adequate ventilation in
the habitat results in temperature fluctuations and uneven distribution
of heat inside the building, with bedrooms on the upper level heating up
uncomfortably during warmer days. At the same time the lower level of
the habitat needs to be heated on cold days. While the habitat is
equipped with CO2 sensors and temperature sensors that actuate an
automated ventilation fan at the top of the dome, the efforts are insuf­
ficient to redistribute the heat within the habitat [209].
MDRS. Missions take place during winter, as the habitat is not usable
at summer temperatures in the area [226]. A propane gas burning,
forced air system supplies central heating to the main habitat [227]. The
climate in the GreenHab is controlled by a propane heater and an
evaporative cooler [25].
22
REACH 21–22 (2021) 100038
4.6. Energy systems
In this section we discuss the generation of or supply with power in
the habitats. We start with solar power (HI-SEAS, MDRS) as most real­
istic power source for a planetary or lunar mission, and consider the
zero-emission approach of the Princess Elisabeth Station. Some bases
rely on diesel generators for power supply, or are even connected to
their local grids. While this supply is unrealistic for a lunar or planetary
mission, it may still be interesting to compare the power consumption
and supply of the respective bases.
4.6.1. Solar power
HI-SEAS. HI-SEAS is completely solar-powered by a 10kW solar array
situated south of the habitat (visible in Fig. 1). Backup is provided by a
hydrogen fuel cell generator (two 5kW fuel cell arrays and six high-
pressure H2 gas tanks), a propane generator as well as batteries
charged by excess solar power. Crews take energy-saving measures such
as turning off as many appliances as possible during cloudy days [10].
MDRS. Power for the MDRS is generated by a 15kW photovoltaic
system feeding a 12kW battery bank. A 12kW diesel generator is used as
a back-up [25].
4.6.2. Zero-emission habitation
Princess Elisabeth Station. This habitat is the first and so far only zero
emission base in Antarctica. It is entirely powered by solar (during
austral summer) and wind energy: 12% of the energy are produced by 22
m2 of thermal solar panels, 40% are produced by 380 m2 of photovoltaic
solar panels and 48% are produced by 9 wind turbines. Two 44kWh
diesel generators are installed as backup energy sources [183].
A micro smart grid for energy prioritization and optimization of
energy consumption was developed for the station [139]. All its energy
consuming systems are regulated by a programmable logic con­
troller—safety relevant and life support systems are given the highest
priority. The technical core of the station features around 15t of lead
batteries with a total capacity of 6000Ah [211].
In the four months of austral summer, during which the station is
inhabited, energy demand is around 7000kWh/month. During the eight
months of winter the energy demand is around 2000kWh/month [183].
4.6.3. Diesel generators
Concordia. Concordia station is powered by three 125kW diesel
generators. Only two generators run at a time, the third serves as back-
up. To prevent freezing, the fuel powering the generators needs to be
heated. Power consumption during austral summer averages 150kW
[144].
Aquarius. During missions, power is supplied by two 40kW diesel
generators on the LSB. When Aquarius is not operational, sensors can be
powered by solar panels [127].
HMP. During summer, power is supplied by 7kW and 12kW diesel
generators and multiple gasoline generators (1–3kW) that are portable
for field use. Power for the greenhouse can be supplied from the base
camp, or generated by wind turbines and solar panels [16].
HERA. During field testing, energy was provided by a diesel gener­
ator [208].
In the HERA-setup at JSC, the power system is designed to operate
with various power sources (portable generator, solar, building sup­
plied) based on commercial off the shelf components. Another goal is to
test capabilities for load sharing and interconnection between different
power sources [46].
4.6.4. Power-grid supplied power
Bios-3. The facility required about 400kW that were supplied by a
close-by hydroelectric plant [93].
HESTIA and Yuegong-1. Both habitats get their power supply from the
building they are situated in [114,228].
ILMH/LMAH. The habitat is connected to local power lines, a 15kW
C. Heinicke and M. Arnhof
diesel generator serves as backup and mobile power supply (for different
simulation sites) [77].
4.7. Communication
Within this subsection, we discuss the technical supplies that the
crews can use to contact the outside world or each other during EVA. For
communication within the habitat, and communication practices, see
Section 3.5.
Aquarius. Communication between the Aquarius habitat and the
outside world is provided by a DS3 50 Mb/s connection. There are
several webcams inside and outside the habitat that enable video feeds
and video conferencing. Divers can communicate with other divers, with
the base and with shore. Ethernet connects Aquarius to the communi­
cation tower on the Life Support Buoy (LSB) via umbilical, the LSB is
connected to shore with a wireless bridge [127].
Bios-3. During the three full-scale human experiments, crews were
connected to the world outside through telephone, television and
(sealed) windows [93].
Concordia. The base is connected to the outside world by satellite
connection that is mainly used for small data volume transfer, emails
and medical teleconference capabilities. As telecommunication is very
limited, most scientific data is processed and analysed on site. The sci­
entific instruments and heated shelters are connected to the station via
an optic fibre network of about 1 km radius [144].
HERA. During missions, the crew is not allowed any communication
with the world outside, except for uplinks of two newspapers on
weekdays, and once a week non-compulsory, private conferences with
family, medical or psychological support. Communication delays of up
to 10 min in one direction are simulated as well as AOS/LOS (Acquisi­
tion of Signal/Loss of Signal) of varying duration. Missions are video and
audio surveilled and recorded around the clock. The medical workshop
is equipped for remote medical examinations and procedures [47].
HI-SEAS. Communication to the outside world is restricted to the use
of email and file transfer. To simulate communication delays on a
mission to Mars, messages are sent and received with a 20 min delay.
Exceptions are granted for the use of an emergency cell phone (e.g. for
hurricane warnings) and visits of cached, non-dynamic websites [229].
HMP. A Ka band satellite link provides access to the internet at the
Base Camp. Deployable repeaters linking back to the camp provide ac­
cess in field locations, but data rates are subject to variations [16].
ILMH/LMAH. For communication with mission control, family and
friends, the crews use ultra high frequency (UHF) radio, citizens band
(CB) radio, email, skype and cell phones [230].
Yuegong-1/Lunar Palace 1. To communicate with the outside world,
the crew were allowed the use of mobile phones and computers con­
nected to the internet. They used email and the messenger ‘WeChat’ to
communicate with family and friends. A daily common activity was
watching evening news on China Central Television (CCTV) [126].
Lunares. During missions, only limited means of communication are
available to the crew. They can communicate through emails and social
media. Teleconferencing via skype is used as communication channel
between mission control and the crew in some missions [231].
NEK. During Mars500, the crew had access to four means of
communication: a live communications intercom (only during the first
month and last month of the simulation), a LAN-based web server, a
video channel with a progressive delay manually set by the ground, and
a POP mail server. [188].
MDRS. During closed simulations, communication is only allowed
via email [232]. Earlier simulations struggled with unreliable connec­
tivity and the limited bandwidth [27].
4.8. Laboratory equipment
Here we present some laboratory equipment available at analog
habitats. The list of equipment presented here is by no means
23
REACH 21–22 (2021) 100038
exhaustive. It is limited by the (scarce) information available on this
aspect, and the fact that most bases aim to update their equipment
whenever possible and needed so that any such list, even if available,
would be very soon outdated. Rather, we attempt to highlight some
exemplary equipment that represents the interests and capabilities
represented at each base.
Concordia. Concordia research station features a large variety of in­
struments for conducting glaciology, atmospheric sciences, and
geophysics experiments and astronomical and astrophysical observa­
tions. All scientific facilities of the station are within a kilometre of the
main station. Furthermore, the station provides medical and laboratory
equipment to research human physiology and psychology [144].
HERA. The original HDU provided crews with equipment to conduct
sample analysis of geological samples and investigate human health
adaptation. It included photographic equipment, sampling instruments,
a glovebox and a tele-robotics workstation [73]. The current stationary
HERA set-up has a glovebox and microscope, among equipment to
experiment “with brine shrimp, seed and crystal growth [and the
collection of] bio samples from crew members and habitat surfaces for
microbial analyses” [233]. Further experiments included the use of a
flight simulator and facial recognition for automated detection of the
crew’s emotional state [233].
HI-SEAS. The HI-SEAS laboratory is equipped with biology instru­
mentation, such as a centrifuge, an autoclave, and a photo-incubator. A
3D printer is available.
During the long-term missions crew members ordered supplies (re­
agents, tubes, etc.) before the mission and were otherwise dependent on
few resupplies. Besides safety precautions, research activities were
restricted by the limited space and equipment, the unpredictable power
supply, finite water-supply, strongly varying temperatures, and the
extremely bounded access to the internet [234].
HMP. Of the eight tents, there is one dedicated science tent and one
laboratory tent. The laboratory provides a polarizing microscope.
Equipment for field research is available on location, such as magnifying
glasses, rock hammers, hand-operated drills, shovels, stakes, field
markers, and other sampling equipment [16].
ILMH/LMAH. The core module contains a workstation where most of
the lab tests (e.g. reaction time, polygraph) are conducted. The EVA
module contains a soldering and electronics station and a tool station
[230].
Lunares. The BioLab Module provides lab equipment to perform
chemical and biological experiments and aeroponic and hydroponic
systems to grow supplemental food (e.g. vegetables, herbs). The
Analytical-Workshop Module is provided with tools, measuring devices
and a 3D printer [87].
MDRS. The science facilities in the habitat include a microscope, an
analytical balance, an autoclave and a variety of chemicals and reagents.
They are primarily used for geology and biology research [38].
Furthermore, the station is equipped with a solar observatory and a
robotic observatory [25].
Research activities are limited by conflicting experimental needs,
environmental conditions (drafts and unstable temperatures), lack of
stowage space, and the fact that the laboratory doubles as the
passageway between crew quarters and hygiene area [27].
NEK. The medical module, where crew health was monitored, con­
tained equipment for telemedical, laboratory, and diagnostic in­
vestigations [78].
Princess Elisabeth Station. The station features a wide array of scien­
tific instruments to support research in the fields of biology, geology,
geomorphology, glaciology, meteorology and planetary science. Mobile
labs provide the infrastructure to conduct research in the field [235].
4.9. Altered gravity
Systems for both reduced and increased gravity have been used in
various studies. However, so far none of these have been incorporated
C. Heinicke and M. Arnhof
into habitats or multi-day simulations of planetary exploration missions.
4.9.1. Reduced gravity
Along with space radiation and long-duration isolation and
confinement, reduced gravity is considered a major risk to astronauts’
well-being [236]. While habitats for simulating the isolation and
confinement of long-duration spaceflight are relatively easy to build and
are being discussed in this paper, space radiation cannot be reproduced
in Earth analogs satisfactorily [237]. Reduced gravity lies somewhere in
the middle: The physiological effects are routinely invoked during bed
rest studies (e.g., [238–240]), but the requirement of continuous hori­
zontal positioning is impractical to integrate into other simulations.
Pressure-based approaches, where the crew is exposed to lower-body
positive pressure (LBPP [241]), allow the crew to be more active, but the
exposure can only be intermittent. Potentially, such pressure chambers
could be made more mobile (see below), allowing the crew to complete
their tasks while the low pressure invokes similar physiological re­
sponses as reduced gravity. Other systems rely on tethering for load
reduction (e.g., [242–246]). With such a system the entire human body
has to perform less work as it would be in lower gravity; however, they
are very cumbersome and thus only allow a very limited range of motion
and application.
4.9.2. Countermeasures to reduced gravity and hypergravity
Rather than trying to replicate lower gravity levels, however, it
might be more practical and worthwhile to integrate countermeasures
against the physiological deconditioning due to lower gravity. For
example, an often proposed countermeasure is artificial gravity. Studies
have shown that exposure to training in a centrifuge improved ortho­
static tolerance [247–249]. There are two types of approach to artificial
gravity: large centrifuges with arms of more than 100 m (e.g., the pro­
posed but not built Human Hypergravity Habitat [250,251]), and short-
arm centrifuges [252,253] that could be incorporated into smaller
habitats and potentially on spacecraft. These centrifuges could be used
intermittently and with personalized protocols [240,249].
Another countermeasure are lower-body negative pressure (LBNP)
chambers that allow subjects to exercise in increased gravity conditions
[254,241]. Recently, a LBNP suit has been tested that allows study
participants to be mobile [255]. Compared to aerobic exercise in a
centrifuge, aerobic exercise under a LBNP not only restores cardiovas­
cular function but also helps protect the musculoskeletal system [256].
Neither system has been incorporated in any analog habitat so far, but
might be considered for future habitats that aim for physiologically
more realistic simulations.
4.10. Summary
In this chapter, we discussed essential habitat technologies: shell
structure, airlocks, radiation and impact shielding, life support systems,
thermal control, energy systems, and communication.
In the first Section 4.1 we gave an overview of the large variety of
exterior shells used for the different analog habitats. The most important
factor in the choice of material and structure of the habitat’s envelope
are the climate and environmental conditions of the building’s location.
Antarctic bases like Concordia and Princess Elisabeth Station are
equipped with thick, well insulated walls to shelter from temperature
extremes (down to -80◦ C) and wind speeds of up to 280km/h. In
contrast, HI-SEAS only has a thin, tent-like hull, as it is located in a much
more benign climate (Mauna Loa) and is exposed to stable temperatures
and little precipitation year-round. Entirely different requirements exist
for the shell of the underwater habitat Aquarius. Its ability to sustain
significant pressure differences, its water-tightness and resistance to
seawater are vital, yet, water temperatures around the habitat are stable
and hardly affect the choice of hull material and structure. The insu­
lation of the MDRS habitat is insufficient for temperatures of the Utah
desert summer. Therefore it is only usable during winter months.
24
REACH 21–22 (2021) 100038
Similarly, the use of tents in the Arctic Archipelago at HMP allows for
the base only to be used during summer months.
The other important determinant for the choice of shell materials and
structure is the objective of the base. HESTIA, Lunar Palace 1, and Bios-3
are testbeds for closed-loop life support system elements. The environ­
ment does not play a role in the choice of outer structure, as they are all
located in laboratory environments. Rather it is vital that the habitat is
air-tight to allow for flawless conduction of the experiments. ILMH and
HERA specifically study space habitation modules. Even though the
modules are not exposed to large pressure differences, they are well
suited to study habitat assembly and lightweight, deployable and mobile
structures.
In Section 4.2 we looked at the use of airlocks in analog habitats.
HESTIA and Yuegong-1 feature true airlocks. In addition, both of them
as well as Bios-3 feature(d) sample airlocks.
Several habitats are equipped with functional airlocks—Aquarius
has a wet porch, Princess Elisabeth Station and Bios-3 are equipped with
airtight doors. Another group of bases—all of them specifically built for
the purpose of spaceflight simulations—feature airlock simulations in
their missions—namely ILMH, HERA, HI-SEAS and Lunares, NEK and
MDRS.
Section 4.3 describes the consideration of radiation shielding, impact
monitoring, and dust control in the analog habitats. Two habitats in our
selection were found to incorporate radiation shielding and impact
monitoring considerations. The ILMH habitat provides enough struc­
tural strength and suggestions for covering the habitat with a thick layer
of regolith, as well as strategies for radiation shielding with poly­
ethylene panels. HERA features an impact monitoring systems and dust
control strategies were tested during early missions.
In Section 4.4 we addressed the vital topic of Life Support Systems
(LSS). Some of the habitats in our selection are LSS technology testbeds
(Bios-3, HESTIA, Yuegong-1) and feature sophisticated LSS technology.
Antarctica is a sensitive ecological environment, and wastewater
cannot simply be disposed of. In addition, melting ice for water con­
sumption takes a lot of energy. Therefore, Concordia and Princess Eli­
sabeth Station feature elaborate water recycling systems. Concordia in
particular is a testbed for water recycling technology developed by and
in collaboration with scientists at the European Space Agency.
Several of the simulation habitats in our selection were built with the
objective to test physiological, psychological and sociological effects of
human spaceflight on crew. However, they often still feature LSS ele­
ments in their habitats or missions: some partially recycle air and water
(NEK), some feature LSS simulators (NEK, HERA), and some feature
small plant or insect growth studies (Lunares, MDRS). Many of them
collect wastewater (HI-SEAS, Lunares, HMP, NEK) and have limits on
water consumption (HI-SEAS, HERA, MDRS).
Section 4.5 considers thermal control of analog habitats. Most hab­
itats (e.g. ILMH) rely heavily on passive thermal control, with Antarctic
stations exhibiting—for obvious reasons—the most elaborate consider­
ations (Princess Elisabeth Station via insulation, skin, shape, orientation
and window position and glazing; Concordia Station via insulation,
shape, window size and glazing). Some simulation bases feature (addi­
tional) active thermal control (Bios-3, HERA, Aquarius, Concordia and
Princess Elisabeth Station). HESTIA, Yuegong-1, and Mars500 are situ­
ated in laboratory environments, hence they do not have to regulate
temperature oscillations of the environment. Neither HI-SEAS nor MDRS
feature substantial thermal control. Due to its location in a temperate
climate, HI-SEAS can be operated year-round, while MDRS can only be
used during winter months.
Section 4.6 addressed the power supply of the selected habitats. At
first, we looked at a more realistic approach for lunar or planetary
missions: solar power, which is used as the main power supply at HI-
SEAS and MDRS. We then discussed Princess Elisabeth Station’s zero-
emission design as an interesting example for sustainable habitat
design. Four bases in our selection (i.e. Concordia, Aquarius, HMP and
HERA during field testing) receive their power supply via Diesel
C. Heinicke and M. Arnhof
generators. However, in the setup at JSC, HERA’s power system can
operate with various power sources (at once). ILMH, HESTIA, Yuegong-
1 and Bios-3 are power-grid supplied, the last three bases being labo­
ratory environments and quite power consuming.
In Section 4.7 we looked at the equipment that is available for the
crew to contact the world outside their habitat, and each other (e.g.
during EVAs). Due to their remote location, HMP and Concordia are
connected only via satellite link, which is limited and mostly used for
data transfers, emails and medical telecons. However, in most bases
communication with the outside is limited to email and sometimes
messenger apps, teleconferencing or telephone/mobile phone calls with
family or medical or psychological support, albeit bandwidth limitations
are rarely as severe. The internet can be accessed in most bases (Yue­
gong-1, Lunares, Aquarius, NEK, HI-SEAS), but the extent and connec­
tivity quality is subject to variations. Some bases allow(ed) other
consumption of news media (online newspapers in HERA, TV in Bios-3
and Yuegong-1). Some habitats that are used for simulating Mars mis­
sions use a communication delay of 10–20 min (NEK, HI-SEAS, HERA).
For communication between crew, intercoms, webcams and UHF/CB
radio are used.
In Section 4.8 we listed laboratory equipment available at the
selected analog habitats. Very little concrete information is available on
this topic and equipment often changes with missions and mission ob­
jectives. For this reason it is our aim to point out exemplary equipment
that represents the objectives and aptitudes of the habitats.
In our last section of this chapter, Section 4.9, we provided insight
into some technologies that could allow exposure of the crew to either
reduced gravity (to simulate the gravity conditions on the Moon and on
Mars) or increased gravity (then serving as countermeasures to physi­
ological deconditioning due to the lower gravity on the Moon and on
Mars). None of the technologies are currently used in any existing
habitat, but could be implemented to make simulations more realistic
from a physiological point of view.
Finally, we stress that it is important to note the following: space
technological fidelity of simulation habitats is vital, if a specific tech­
nology (or several) are to be demonstrated in the habitat, such as closed-
loop life support systems (e.g. HESTIA). However, if the main focus of a
base are psycho-social or medical studies or operations testing, it might
not be of utmost importance that all the habitat technologies are of the
same technological sophistication as actual lunar of planetary surface
habitation modules would be. A habitat shell made from space-grade
material or an actual airlock available at the base is of little interest to
most analog habitat studies/missions. Depending on the subject(s) to be
studied, it might suffice to focus on the main capabilities and interests of
a base.
5. Design recommendations and conclusion
None of the habitats presented in this paper meets the requirements
of an actual lunar or Martian base, as they were built for simulations on
Earth. Nonetheless, we believe that the research conducted at these
habitats and the reports from crews who have lived there can provide
valuable input into the design of an actual prototype base.
In this final section we distill design recommendations based on our
findings in the previous sections. We point out design aspects that (i) are
found to be problematic and should be avoided in a real lunar or Martian
habitat (“Don’ts”), and others that (ii) have turned out positive and
would benefit the crew and the mission if copied into a real habitat
(“Dos”). An overview of strengths and limitations of analog habitats is
presented in Table 8. We also include recommendations for future
(terrestrial) simulation bases, as we believe that more analog habitats
need to be built, but without repeating mistakes that have already been
made.
We group our recommendations into the four categories architecture
and geometry (Section 5.1), functionalities (5.2), crew comfort (5.3),
and infrastructures and simulation realism (5.4). Some of the
25
REACH 21–22 (2021) 100038
recommendations contradict each other—it is then up to the future
mission planner to make a decision based on mission priorities.
5.1. Architecture and geometry
Our general recommendations in this category are:
The habitat should consist of an assembly of multiple modules. The basic
habitat layout should be a multi-module design and ready to deal with
contingencies in any one module. Examples of multi-modular simulation
habitats are Lunares (8 modules), NEK (3 + 1), and HERA (3). However,
a considerable number of analog bases exists that are single modules
(FMARS, HESTIA, D-MARS, SHEE, Exohab, and others).
Safety and contingency planning should be an integral part of any habitat
design. Safety is a major issue at (too) many simulation habitats. There is
the MDRS with its numerous reported safety issues, but apart from that
practically all habitats assume their crews to be and to remain healthy
and fit, when in fact accidents and disabling injuries are just a matter of
time.
A noteworthy exception is Lunares, home to the first mission with a
(physically) disabled crew member, ICAres-1 [90]. The team investi­
gated how the usability of the habitat differs for a crew member with
disability.
Avoid ladders and (steep) stairs. A simple sprain or fracture in the
lower extremities would render most habitats with ladders or stairs
unusable. At HERA, where the crew compartments can only be reached
by a ladder, an injured crew member would have to choose between
being able to sleep in their bed or being able to use the restroom. Even
more so, some habitat features are downright provoking accidents. For
example, the stairs at MDRS have caused several broken bones already,
and the varying heights of the doorsteps at Lunares have caused a
number of minor accidents.
Include a window in your hull design. The long-term HI-SEAS crews and
the ISS crews agree: windows are some of the most favorite places inside
the habitat. They must be incorporated into the radiation protection
concept, however.
Provide open space. The large open space at the HI-SEAS habitat has
been regarded by crews as reducing the feeling of confinement.
Provide more than one hygiene facility. This may seem obvious to
anyone living in a multi-person household, yet several simulation bases
have only one restroom (e.g., Lunares, MDRS, HERA).
For future simulation facilities we would like to add the following
recommendations:
The habitat geometry should (in principle) be able to withstand sub­
stantial pressure differences for mission fidelity. Operational bases such as
Aquarius and the ISS are obviously capable of withstanding the pressure
difference between interior and exterior, and HESTIA too has been
pressurized in the past. Other habitats such as MDRS/FMARS, HERA,
SHEE are at least designed to resemble pressure vessels, even though
they are not pressure tight. Again, this may seem like a rather basic
recommendation, but the fact that non-pressure-geometry bases like
Lunares and Lunar Palace 1 exist seem to make this recommendation
necessary.
Habitat modules should be connected by hatches. In most multi-module
habitats the modules are permanently connected, with modules sepa­
rated by household doors. In some bases, such as Lunares, the habitat
consequently feels more like a normal flat rather than an extraterrestrial
base. On the multi-module campus of MDRS, it is possible to spend time
outdoors without leaving the fenced walkways connecting the modules.
The most realistic hatches are at NEK and HERA, besides the operational
ones on the ISS.
Consider potential infrastructure near the habitat, even if only building
the habitat itself. Almost no simulation base has a radiation protection
concept, except for ILMH. In terms of power supply, the more realistic
bases have an autonomous power supply, usually solar power such as at
HI-SEAS and MDRS. Bases like MDRS, ILMH, and (initally) HERA
include a rover concept.
 C. Heinicke and M. Arnhof
Table 8
Summary of strengths and limitations of analog environments described in this paper. The table gives an overview of the described habitats with respect to aspects concerning architecture and geometry (Section 5.1),
functionalities (5.2), crew comfort (5.3), and infrastructures and simulation realism (5.4) that are found to be positive (+), problematic (–), or neutral/in-between (o). Empty fields indicate unknown parameters.
multi − modular

realistic, functionalortrueairlock(s)

commoncrewspace

realisticcommunicationwithoutside
realistichatches

autonomouspowersupply

localresourceutilization

medicalfacilities

multiplehygienefacilities

crewcontroloverlightsandtemperature

comments
(significantelementsof)actualorsimulatedLSS
realisticgeometryortruepressurevessel

naturalsetting

contingencyplanning

exercisefacilities

useful/safelaboratory/workshop/workspace

soundinsulation

rearrangeablefurniture
windows(realorvirtual)

realisticlogisticalconstraints

comparablephysicalandemotionalstrain
periphery(rovers, suits, etc.)

interiormaterials(comfort, sensorystimulation)
privacy(e.g.availabilityofprivatecrewquarters)
26

Aquarius + + + + o o o o + – o + + – – o – – – – – – o underwater base - true pressure vessel

BIOS-3 o – + + + + – – – o – o + o – – + o + – – – o sophisticated LSS
Concordia Station o o + – o + o o + + + + + + + + + + + + o + + o large base - decreased fidelity for analog
HERA (HDU) + + o + + + –(o) o (+) –(+) – – o o + – + + o o o + + o + crew quarters only accessible via ladder
HESTIA – + + o + + – – – – – o o – + + + o + – o + – sophisticated LSS, steep ladders
HI-SEAS – o + o o – + o + + + + o o + + o + + – o + o + strict monitoring and limitation of resources
HMP + – + – – – o o + + + + + + + o + o + o o o o + low habitat, layout and mission fidelity
ILMH/ LMAH + + o + + – + – – – o o o pressurized, lightweight structures
Lunares + – – – o o – o – – – o – – – + – o o – o o o o surface analog module for EVAs
Lunar Palace 1 + + o + + + – – – – – o o + – – – o sophisticated LSS
MDRS + + + o o o o + + – + + – – – o o o o – – – – o numerous safety hazards
NEK + + – + + + – o – – – + + + + + o + + o – – o + realistic mission set-up, Martian surface analog module for EVAs
PES – – + – o + + o + + + + + + + o + + – + o + + o large base - decreased fidelity for analog

REACH 21–22 (2021) 100038

C. Heinicke and M. Arnhof
5.2. Functionalities
Functionalities of a space simulation habitat depend on mission goals
(e.g. operations the crew will perform, data to be collected, data
collection methods, etc.). Hence, the design of such habitats is often
determined through mission objectives. For example, the collection of
crew psychological data is relevant in almost all space simulation mis­
sions, but requires relatively little equipment. On the other hand, CLSS
studies need a lot of specialized equipment and design measures, and are
only part of few specialized analog habitats (e.g. Lunar Palace 1, Bios-3).
It is neither possible nor practical to build analog facilities that
provide all functionalities one might wish for in a simulation habitat.
Rather, it is more useful to focus on fewer functionalities in a realistic
way and design specifically for the chosen objective.
Provide a usable laboratory. Laboratories in analog habitats are
notoriously under-equipped and rudimentary, and most operational
bases rely on returning samples to better equipped facilities. If humans
are on an extraterrestrial body, they should be given the facilities to
analyze reasonably large volumes of samples, and only a fraction of the
samples should be sent to Earth for deeper analysis.
Provide a usable workshop. Similarly, there is usually little to no space
dedicated for repairs and maintenance work (e.g. Mars500, and most of
the habitats presented in Section 2 that are not part of the later sections).
Work areas often interfere with areas dedicated to other activities or to
storage (Lunares, Aquarius), or are only suited for rudimentary or pre-
selected work (e.g. Lunar Palace 1). Even operational bases such as
Aquarius partly rely on repairs away from the base; the ISS lacks some
capabilities that would be crucial in a Martian base, like suit repair for
example.
Provide a medical bay. Very few analog bases are prepared to treat any
sort of medical issue, apart from providing a first-aid kit. This may be
largely attributed to the fact that most bases are inhabited by scientist/
engineer crews and more often than not are without medical personnel
who could treat those issues. Besides, most analog habitats would simply
evacuate the crew member in need of medical attention. Nevertheless,
this usually leads to potential medical problems being disregarded in
analog bases and base design in particular. In some instances, crews
attempt to make up for that by including some sort of “contingency
simulation” in their rotation. However, such simulations are usually
only for the benefit of the crew and end after successful
“resuscitation”—as such they are rather unsuitable to uncover problems
due to inadequate or poorly located medical equipment.
Provide space and equipment for exercise. Exercise is often left to the
creativity of the crew to utilize make-shift gym equipment: MDRS,
Aquarius, SHEE and many others do not even have a dedicated exercise
area. In other habitats, dedicated equipment exists (HESTIA, HI-SEAS,
Mars500), but is frequently supplemented by re-purposed items (e.g.
water tanks and fellow crew members who donate some of their time to
act as weights). At the other extreme, Concordia probably has every­
thing one could wish for in terms of exercise equipment—but the total
weight of the items will make it impossible to bring them all. A good
compromise needs to be found, and to some extent the ISS may provide
inspiration.
Provide (thought-through) storage space. Especially at the longer-
running bases there seems to be an accumulation of clutter with each
change in crew, and a loss of information on what is available already at
the base. Rigorous inventoring and an adequate amount of (dedicated
and properly labeled) storage space may help. In addition, a dedicated
area for items that would be considered trash on Earth, but would be too
valuable to throw out on Mars seems appropriate.
Have a plan for trash. We would like to point out that trash in general
is a delicate topic on Mars for multiple reasons, including planetary
protection and shortage of resources. While there are already good
concepts for saving and restoring raw materials, and for recycling bio­
logical material into BLSS, few ideas exist for trash that arises during
daily activities and laboratory work, like worn-out clothing, packaging
27
REACH 21–22 (2021) 100038
materials, chemical and biological waste products or one-time use pro­
tective equipment such as lab gloves.
Specifically for simulation bases we recommend:
Include as many parts of a functioning LSS as possible. Some habitats
have been built specifically for testing LSS (Lunar Palace, Hestia, Bios-3,
CEEF; Biosphere 2). Of course, the cost and effort involved in closing all
material loops is immense, but an analog base gains tremendously in
realism if the crew depends on a (more or less) closed LSS, even more so
if they have to tend to it themselves.
Place the habitat in a realistic natural environment. If the base is located
in a natural environment, crews can conduct fieldwork and undertake
scientific investigations, both for the benefit of science and the crews’
mental well-being. The scientific output from fieldwork at simulation
bases (such as MDRS, HI-SEAS, FMARS, and SHEE) is generally lower
than from bases whose primary goal is fieldwork rather than simulating
life off Earth (i.e. the operational bases and HMP). Nevertheless,
incorporating EVAs into (analog) missions helps better understand the
technical and procedural requirements for suits and airlocks.
Alternatively, add a “planetary surface” module to the habitat. Lunares
and Mars500 successfully incorporate a module entirely dedicated to
“Martian” (Mars500) or “lunar and Martian” surface excursions; the
Flexhab planned in Cologne will likewise have its own “lunar” surface.
One major advantage is that the environment can be sealed off and
conditions inside are controlled; the downside is the limited range of the
crews.
5.3. Crew comfort
Provide adequate sound insulation. The number one complaint shared
by analog mission crews is the poor sound insulation of their respective
bases: HESTIA, HI-SEAS, MDRS, Lunares, to name a few. Any base ar­
chitect who has to make a choice between better sound insulation and a
few extra centimeters of space for the crew should always opt for the
insulation. Quiet crew quarters improve sleep quality and increase
privacy.
Provide adequate environmental control. Most bases have only rudi­
mentary thermal control. Some (like HI-SEAS or MDRS) have heaters,
but located in inefficient locations; and a cooling system lacks entirely.
Provide adequate sensory stimulation. Only few bases take deprivation
of stimuli into serious account, and those that do are often limited to
adjustable lights (e.g. HI-SEAS, HERA) and rearrangement of furniture
(HI-SEAS). Concordia for example offers quite extensive opportunities
for rebuilding and repurposing materials and rooms, e.g. the winter-
over team of 2018 built a climbing wall during their mission. By
contrast, some of the smaller bases prevent reorganizing of furniture
entirely (like Aquarius) or to a great extent (like MDRS).
In any case, sounds and textures remain the same in all of the
simulation habitats throughout the duration of each respective mission,
depriving crews of many options for sensory stimulation.
Provide options for customizing. In general, customizability is sought
after for long-term bases, especially for the private quarters. Virtually all
bases allow decoration of private quarters, albeit usually only for the
duration of a respective mission (i.e., decoration options are limited to
photos on the wall and other items that are easily removable). HI-SEAS,
for example, provides color-strip LEDs so crew members can have their
room lit in their preferred color, or change it according to mood or
simply to have a change.
Provide a “cozy” interior. Most habitats have functional, easy to clean
surfaces, often metal or plastic (also see Section 3.3. Notable exceptions
are Mars500 with an interior of wood veneer or fibreboards and Con­
cordia and PES where timber dominates. In these three cases the interior
was chosen specifically to increase crew comfort and coziness.
Provide adequate crew space. Practically all habitats have a meeting
place where the crew can gather as a whole, but only the larger bases
(MDRS, HI-SEAS, Lunares, and a few others) allow the crew to sit jointly
without feeling cramped or being in each others way (as is the case in all
C. Heinicke and M. Arnhof
underwater stations, at Exohab, SHEE and others). Even the galley on
the ISS does not allow a full crew to dine together.
5.4. Infrastructures and simulation realism
The following recommendations are relevant to simulation habitats
only:
Provide a mission set-up as realistic as possible. The most holistic
concept is perhaps implemented at ILMH. The habitat is complemented
by a rover, a suitport, and simulated surface suits. The only other base
that was accompanied by a rover concept and by suit simulations is HDU
during the D-RATS missions in 2010 and 2011 [46] before its set-up as
HERA. It is hardly viable for each base to include rovers and surface
suits, but other options for integrating further mission elements may be
found.
Limit resources. Virtually all existing analog bases have access to an
unrealistic, practically unlimited supply of water: some are connected
directly to an irrigation system (e.g., HERA), others have external tanks
that are re-filled on demand by external helpers (HI-SEAS, MDRS) or
from local resources such as streams or snow (Antarctic bases, FMARS).
HI-SEAS monitors water usage, such that the crews always know their
currently available water. At other bases (Lunares, MDRS) crews occa­
sionally track their own water usage out of curiosity, but no monitoring
system is installed in the habitat. Food supply is usually more restrictive
(i.e. bases usually do not allow their crews to leave after the start of a
simulation to replenish their stocks).
Limit communication. Most bases have some sort of restriction on
internet connectivity, typically a delay in communication of up to 20min
(HI-SEAS, HERA, NEK), or limited bandwidth (e.g., MDRS). Some bases
restrict which websites can be visited (e.g., HI-SEAS), or simulate
various black-outs (HERA, NEK). There are some bases that use a user-
enforced time-delay (at e.g. MDRS or Lunares crews and mission sup­
port wait 20 min before responding to a message), but this is not rec­
ommended as it is prone to error and tempts the crew to ignore the delay
at the appearance of the slightest difficulties—which would be the most
relevant test phase for most missions.
Limit interactions with non-mission personnel. If the mission goal is to
achieve isolation for the crew, it is important to prevent strangers from
approaching the habitat and interacting with the crew. At MDRS, it is
quite common for unannounced visitors to come by and knock on the
station door, while at Lunares it can happen that the crew hears noise
from the neighboring property.
Provide an autonomous power supply. Less than half of the bases have
their own, autonomous supply. Of those that are autonomous, most are
primarily solar powered, and practically all (HI-SEAS, ILMH, MDRS,
Aquarius etc.) rely on generators as their back-up.
Provide a realistic airlock. Airlocks are the interface between the
human habitat and the extraterrestrial environment and as such argu­
ably one of the most critical parts of a habitat. Yet, almost all bases have
non-functional airlocks; at best there is a separate room with a door at
each end. The exceptions are HESTIA and the space stations; however,
their airlocks do not incorporate measures against dust mitigation or
planetary protection. HERA, at least was exposed to a dusty environ­
ment in its early days, and Lunares has a purple LED strip simulating UV
exposure for decontamination. Often bases do not have a consequent
separation into clean and dirty areas; at HI-SEAS and MDRS suits are
frequently put on in the social areas which are more spacious than the
airlocks.
Provide a realistic environmental setting. The habitat gains in fidelity if
it is located in a Moon-like or a Mars-like landscape, plus there is the
benefit of being able to conduct fieldwork as mentioned above. Beside
the location, color filters may improve the realism of the habitat setting:
Except for the recently added filters at the HI-SEAS habitat, all habitats
located in the outdoors show a blue (or cloudy) sky, rather than a lunar
or Martian sky.
Consider physiological responses. Crews on the Moon and on Mars will
28
REACH 21–22 (2021) 100038
be affected by the partial gravity environment, hence they will have to
follow strict exercise protocols as a countermeasure. Providing a setup
that reduces the gravitational load on the crew during tasks could help
better estimate how the crew and mission goals will be affected during a
real mission. Even integrating “counter”-measures against reduced
gravity would make the simulation more realistic, as they will be part of
the routine of a real mission.
Consider logistical constraints. The very fact that some habitats are
extremely remote (e.g. HMP, Concordia, to a lesser extent MDRS) has
several “positive” side effects. The logistics of getting personnel and
equipment to these bases is more involved than sending the same to
habitats near major cities (e.g., HERA, Lunares). The planning of mis­
sions there is consequently more comprehensive; logistical constraints
imposed by mission designers on less remote bases might help prepare
more realistic missions.
Safety and contingency planning should be an integral part of any mission
design. Most bases have a clear policy on real emergencies (such as fire,
serious injuries) and a functioning emergency response chain in place.
Yet, several bases give their crews rather rudimentary training, if any, on
the habitat systems (in most analog bases “real” repairs are done by
members of the outside support team) and in basic safety protocols (for
example, some bases provide their crews with hand-held radios, but do
not train them on effective radio communication); and the vast majority
of analog bases lacks any emergency drills, see also Section 5.2).
It is understandable that analog base operators are reluctant to let
short-time visitors fiddle with their habitat hardware at considerable
risk for both the crew and the hardware. Nevertheless, these factors
influence the fidelity of the mission directly and indirectly—a crew that
spends a considerable amount of time on training and preparing is likely
to take their mission more seriously, and will more likely be able to
remain in control even during off-nominal situations.
Scientifically exploit accompanying physical and emotional strain (in a
responsible manner). Some habitat locations impose physical strain on
the crews: HI-SEAS is located at 2500 m above sea level, Condordia at an
even higher 3200 m. Besides hypoxia, crews at Concordia suffer from
extreme dryness of the air and long-term sleep deprivation (see e.g.,
[257]). HERA is located at sea level, but simulations there contain
studies on the effects of sleep deprivation [233].
Finally, we would like to mention the emotional strain on the crew of
being exposed to “real” dangers at some of the bases, like hypothermia
and frostbite (FMARS, HMP, Antarctic bases), dehydration and heat-
related injuries (D-Mars, MDRS, HI-SEAS), drowning or pressure-
induced injuries (Aquarius), polar bear encounters (FMARS, HMP),
and the generally increased weariness of traversing unfamiliar terrain
far from the nearest hospital (Arctic and Antarctic bases, most desert
bases). We do not recommend exposing test subjects to any strain,
neither physical nor emotional, but we would like to point out that if any
threat to the crew’s life and health exists, it might as well be integrated
into the simulation concept or into studies on its effect on the crew.
More generally, the more advanced preparations for long-term
human exploration become, the more important it becomes to inte­
grate data across different systems and analog environments to build
more advanced habitats (e.g., [258]). We are therefore enthusiastic
about two simulation bases that at the time of writing are still under
development and have not been inhabited (overnight) yet, but both
strive for a technologically feasible and realistic habitat, incorporating
most of the recommendations presented in this section: The Space
Analog for the Moon and Mars (SAM) near Biosphere 2 will be her­
metically sealed and have a BLSS. It will also have a “Mars yard” where
crews can wear pressure suits and experiment under reduced gravity
[259]. The Moon and Mars Base Analog (MaMBA) in Bremen, Germany,
aims to create a functional prototype of an extraterrestrial habitat,
addressing the engineering, architectural, and scientific requirements of
an exploration mission and taking into account limitations imposed by
the Martian environment (esp. due to low pressure atmosphere and ra­
diation) [260].
C. Heinicke and M. Arnhof
5.5. Conclusion
Each of the presented habitats has its own strengths and weaknesses.
They all possess one major strength, however: that of having been built.
This sets them apart from the many habitat designs that have been
created for competitions, project works, or in anticipation of a certain
mission. Designing a habitat for a real planetary mission is certainly a
task that requires many iterations and inputs from many fields. No single
existing simulation habitat would be fit for a real mission, except with
drastic modifications at the conceptual level. Nevertheless, they all
provide valuable insight into “what works and what doesn’t”.
We have provided the reader with an overview of habitat concepts
that have withstood the testing by crews and that should be adopted into
a habitat for the Moon or for Mars. We hope that the lessons learned
from the presented habitats will (1) transpire into the design of future
habitat prototypes and ultimately into that of truly extraterrestrial
habitats, (2) help create a minimum standard for future analog bases and
better informed decisions on future habitat designs, and last but not least
(3) help researchers and students in search of a host habitat select a
suitable location based on research requirements.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
This work was made possible by the financial support of the Klaus
Tschira Stiftung gGmbH.
References
[1] ISECG. The global exploration roadmap. Technical report, International Space
Exploration Coordination Group; 2018. URL: https://www.
globalspaceexploration.org/wordpress/wp-content/isecg/GER_2018_small_
mobile.pdf.
[2] ISECG. Scientific opportunities enabled by human exploration beyond low-earth
orbit. Technical report, International Space Exploration Coordination Group;
2016. URL: https://www.globalspaceexploration.org/wordpress/wp-content/
isecg/ISECG%20SWP_FINAL-web_2017-12.pdf low-earth –> low-Earth.
[3] The Mars Society. MDRS Application Instructions & Information. URL:http://
mdrs.marssociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/2019-2020_Application_
Instructions.docx; 2018 [accessed: 2018-09-27].
[4] The Mars Society. Flashline Mars Arctic Research Station. URL: http://fmars.
marssociety.org/about-the-fmars/ [accessed: 2018-05-27].
[5] Bamsey M, Berinstain A, Auclair S, Battler M, Binsted K, Bywaters K, Harris J,
Kobrick R, McKay C. Four-month Moon and Mars crew water utilization study
conducted at the Flashline Mars Arctic Research Station, Devon Island, Nunavut.
Adv Space Res 2009;43(8):1256–74.
[6] Ferrone Kristine, Cusack Stacy L, Garvin Christy, Kramer Walter Vernon, Palaia
Joseph E., Shiro Brian. Flashline Mars Arctic Research Station (FMARS) 2009
Crew Perspectives. In: SpaceOps Conference; April 25, 2010 - April 30, 2010,
Huntsville, AL, United States; 2010. URL: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?
R=20100011348.
[7] Bishop Sheryl L, Kobrick Ryan, Battler Melissa, Binsted Kim. FMARS 2007: Stress
and coping in an Arctic Mars simulation. Acta Astronaut 2010;66(9–10):1353–67.
[8] Clancey William J. Participant observation of a Mars surface habitat mission
simulation. Habitation 2006;11:27–47.
[9] HI-SEAS. Hawaii Space Exploration Analog and Simulation. http://hi-seas.org/.
[accessed: 2018-05-27].
[10] Engler Simon, Caldwell Bryan J. HI-SEAS media kit 2018.
[11] Häuplik-Meusburger Sandra, Binsted Kim, Bassingthwaighte Tristan, Petrov
Georgi. Habitability studies and full scale simulation research: Preliminary
themes following HI-SEAS mission IV, 16–20 July 2017.
[12] Ehrlich Joshua W, Massa Gioia, Wheeler Raymond, Gill Tracy R, Quincy Charles,
Roberson Luke, Binsted Kim, Morrow Robert. Plant growth optimization by
vegetable production system in HI-SEAS analog habitat. In AIAA SPACE and
Astronautics Forum and Exposition, page 141, Reston, Virginia, 09122017.
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
[13] UH News. Moon/Mars crew exits HI-SEAS habitat. URL: https://www.hawaii.
edu/news/2019/03/06/moon-mars-crew-exits-hiseas-habitat/; 2019 [accessed:
2019-03-06].
[14] Haughton Mars Project. Haughton Mars Project. URL:www.marsonearth.org
[accessed: 27.05.2018].
29
REACH 21–22 (2021) 100038
[15] Gralla Erica, Shull Sarah, Silver Matthew, Ahn Jaemyung, Sidiqqi Afreen, de
Weck Olivier. Remote Terrestrial Sites as Operational/Logistics Analogs for
Moon/Mars Bases: The Haughton Mars Project. In SpaceOps 2006 Conference,
page 2006, Reston, Virigina, 06192006. American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics.
[16] Pascal Lee, Stephen Braham, Terry Fong, Brian J. Glass, Stephen J. Hoffman,
Christopher Hoftun, Brage Johansen, Kira Lorber, Christopher P. McKay, Robert
Mueller, John W. Schutt, Michael Sims, Jesse T. Weaver, Kris Zacny. Haughton-
Mars Project Research Station (HMPRS), Devon Island, High Arctic: A planetary
science and exploration field research facility, 2016. URL: https://www.hou.usra.
edu/meetings/lpsc2016/pdf/3073.pdf.
[17] Olivier de Weck, David Simchi-Levi. Haughton-Mars Project Expedition 2005
Final Report. Technical report, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and
Kennedy Space Center, Florida; 2006. NASA/TP–2006-214196.
[18] NASA. NASA’s Analog missions: Paving the way for space exploration. 2011.
[19] Groemer Gernot. AMADEE-18 Final Report.
[20] Groemer Gernot, Losiak Anna, Soucek Alexander, Plank Clemens,
Zanardini Laura, Sejkora Nina, Sams Sebastian. The AMADEE-15 Mars
simulation. Acta Astronaut 2016;129:277–90.
[21] OEWF. Amadee-18 press kit: Oman Desert Mars simulation.
[22] China’s Mars simulation base debuts in Gobi Desert. https://eblnews.com/video/
chinas-mars-simulation-base-debuts-gobi-desert-525528, 2018. [accessed: 2020-
01-02].
[23] Zhou Joyce, Peter Thomas. Back on Earth, China’s Mars simulation base greets
first visitors. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-space-exploration-china-mars/
back-on-earth-chinas-mars-simulation-base-greets-first-visitors-idUSKCN1RT11S,
2019 [accessed: 2020-01-02].
[24] Browning Jonathan. China’s Mars base. http://www.thestoryinstitute.com/
chinas-mars-base, 2019. [accessed: 2020-01-02].
[25] The Mars Society. About the MDRS - Mars Desert Research Station. URL: http://
mdrs.marssociety.org/about-the-mdrs/ [accessed: 2020-02-05].
[26] Souchier Alain. Private ground infrastructures for space exploration missions
simulations. Acta Astronaut 2010;66(11–12):1580–92.
[27] Thiel Cora S, Pletser Vladimir, Foing Bernard. Human crew-related aspects for
astrobiology research. Int J Astrobiol 2011;10(03):255–67.
[28] Goemaere Sophie, Brenning Katrijn, Beyers Wim, Vermeulen Angelo CJ,
Binsted Kim, Vansteenkiste Maarten. Do astronauts benefit from autonomy?
Investigating perceived autonomy-supportive communication by Mission
Support, crew motivation and collaboration during HI-SEAS 1. Acta Astronaut
2019;157:9–16.
[29] Goemaere Sophie, Van Caelenberg Thomas, Beyers Wim, Binsted Kim,
Vansteenkiste Maarten. Life on Mars from a Self-Determination Theory
perspective: How astronauts’ needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness go
hand in hand with crew health and mission success-Results from HI-SEAS IV. Acta
Astronaut 2019;159:273–85.
[30] Nasrini J, Dinges D, Binsted K, Caldwell BJ. Cognitive performance in long-
duration mars simulations at the Hawaii Space Exploration Analog and
Simulation (HI-SEAS). In NASA Human Research Program Investigators’
Workshop; 2017. p. 1–2.
[31] Caldwell Bryan J, Roma Peter G, Binsted Kimberly. Team Cohesion, Performance,
and Biopsychosocial Adaptation Research at the Hawai’i Space Exploration
Analog and Simulation (HI-SEAS). In: 31st Annual Conference of the Society for
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Anaheim, California; 2016.
[32] HI-SEAS. HI-SEAS research. URL:http://hi-seas.org/?cat=84, 2017 [accessed:
2018-03-11].
[33] NASA. Haughton Mars Project. URL: https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/
humanresearch/analogs/research_info_analog-haughton.html; 2013 [accessed:
16.04.2018].
[34] NASA. NASA’s Analog Missions - Paving the Way for Space Exploration. URL:
https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/563511main_NASA-Analog-Missions-06-2011_508.
pdf; 2011 [accessed: 26.02.2018].
[35] Bishop SL, Dawson S, Rawat N, Reynolds K, Eggins R. Expedition one: assessing
group dynamics in a desert Mars simulation. In: Proceedings of the 55th
international astronautics conference vancouver; 2004.
[36] Bishop SL, Dawson S, Rawat N, Reynolds K, Eggins R, Bunzelek K. Mars Analog
Research, chapter Assessing Teams in Mars Simulation Habitats: Lessons Learned
from 2002–2004, page 177. Univelt, San Diego: American Astronautical Society
Science and Technology Series; 2006.
[37] Bishop Sheryl L. Psychology of Space Exploration, volume NASA SP-2011-4411,
chapter From Earth Analogs to Space: Getting There from Here. The NASA
History Series 2011. URL: https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/607107main_
PsychologySpaceExploration-ebook.pdf.
[38] The Mars Society. Research summaries. URL: http://mdrs.marssociety.org/
category/science-report/ [accessed: 2018-03-11].
[39] About D-MARS. URL: https://www.d-mars.org/about [accessed: 30.05.2018].
[40] Amichay Rami, Lewis Ori, Blair Edmund. Israeli scientists complete mock Mars
mission in Negev desert. Reuters, Science News, February 18, 2018 [accessed:
31.05.2018].
[41] Schlacht Irene Lia, Foing Bernard, Ceppi Giulio. Exohab1 development: Spin-in/
out from space habitat to disaster management facility. 2015.
[42] Irene Lia Schlacht, Orla Punch, Bernard Foing, Agata Maria Kolodziejczyk, Aidan
Cowley, and Giulio Ceppi. Design for the future: Flexhab project, the future lunar
exploration habitat; M.A.R.S.; and Exohab.
[43] Foing BH, Boche-Sauvan L, Stoker C, Ehrenfreund C, Wendt L, Gross C, et al.
ExoGeoLab and ExoHab teams, and EuroGeoMars team. Exohab & EuroGeomars
campaigns: Human exploration and astrobiology; 2010.
C. Heinicke and M. Arnhof
[44] Foing BH, Barton A, Blom J, Mahapatra P, Som S, Jantscher B, et al. ILEWG
ExoGeoLab team1-4, and Eifel Field Test team. ESTEC & Eifel ExoGeoLab lander,
rovers & instruments: Tests at estec & eifel volcanic field; 2010.
[45] Mars Kelli. HERA - Human Exploration Research Analog. URL:https://www.nasa.
gov/analogs/hera; 2016 [accessed: 2018-05-31].
[46] Scott Howe A, Kennedy Kriss J, Gill Kriss J, Smith Russell W, George Patrick.
NASA Habitat Demonstration Unit (HDU) deep space habitat analog. In AIAA
SPACE 2013 Conference and Exposition, page 34, Reston, Virginia, 09102013.
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
[47] NASA Human Research Program. Human Exploration Research Analog (HERA)
Facility and Capabilities Information; 2016 [accessed: 2018-10-10].
[48] Akin David L, McBryan Katherine, Limparis Nicholas, D’Amore Nicholas, Carlsen
Christopher. Habitat design and assessment at varying gravity levels, 13–17 July
2014.
[49] Davis Kevin, Di Capua Massimiliano, Akin David, Salmoiraghi Amanda.
CHELONIA: Development and Manufacturing of an Earth Analog Habitat
Evaluation Facility. In 42nd International Conference on Environmental Systems,
San Diego, California, 15–19 July 2012. American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics.
[50] Kennedy Kriss J. HDU Deep Space Habitat (DSH) Overview, 17–21 July 2011.
[51] Barbeau Zach. Habitat Demonstration Unit-Deep space Habitat (HDU-DSH)
integration and preparation for Desert Rats 2011: Nasa USRP – internship final
report.
[52] Gill TR, Merbitz JC, Kennedy KJ, Tri TO, Howe AS. Integration process for the
Habitat Demonstration Unit: Presentation and accompanying article, August 31 -
September 2, 2010.
[53] Howe A Scott, Howard Robert L, Moore Nathan, Amoroso Michael. Designing for
virtual windows in a deep space habitat, July 14–18, 2013.
[54] Cadogan Dave, Scheir Craig. Expandable habitat technology demonstration for
lunar and Antarctic applications. 2008.
[55] Spampinato Phil. Expandable habitat structures for long duration lunar missions,
February 27, 2008.
[56] Valentour Nanette, de León Pablo. Development and construction of operational
modules for planetary habitat research, 12–14 Sep 2017.
[57] Cisneros Jessica, Vaishampayan Parag, de Leon Pablo, Perry Jay, Venkateswaran
Kasthuri. Comprehensive microbial diversity characterization of the International
Space Station and analogous closed habitats on Earth, May 17–20, 2014.
[58] Van Broock Lynn, de León Pablo, Vigo Daniel E. Integrated Planetary Outpost
Simulation to Assess Crew Psychophysiological Response as a First Approach to a
Lunar/Mars Manned Base Settlement. Am J Med Biol Res 2015;3(4).
[59] Daga Andrew, Schneider Puente Irene, Uzman Zeyn, de Leon Pablo, Harris Gary.
Habitat Architecture Concept Definition for “Integrated Strategies for the Human
Exploration of the Moon and Mars” (A NASA-funded Study): Interim Status
Report; 2010.
[60] Mayer Teresa, Blachowicz Adriana, Probst Alexander J, Vaishampayan Parag,
Checinska Aleksandra, Swarmer Tiffany, de Leon Pablo, Venkateswaran Kasthuri.
Microbial succession in an inflated lunar/Mars analog habitat during a 30-day
human occupation. Microbiome 2016;4(1):22.
[61] North Dakota University System. UND Space Studies students conclude two
extraterrestrial weeks sealed in Inflatable Lunar/Mars Habitat.
[62] Kitmanyen Victor A, Disher Timothy J, Kobrick Ryan L, Kring Jason P. Human
Factors for Small Net Habitable Volume: The Case for a Close-Quarter Space
Habitat Analog, 16–20 July 2017.
[63] Munoz Gisela, Fehlinger Michael, Kring Jason. Designing for mars: Mitigating
habitability factors to support crew performance. Proceedings of the Human
Factors and Ergonomics Society 57th Annual Meeting, vol. 57; 2013. p. 1392–4.
[64] S.H.E.E. URL: http://shee.eu/main [accessed: 2018-05-27].
[65] SHEE Consortium. SHEE, Self-deployable Habitat for Extreme Environments:
Project summary.
[66] SHEE Consortium. Executive study - Self-deployable Habitat for Extreme
Environments (SHEE): Europe’s first transportable space analogue habitat; 2017.
[67] SHEE Consortium. Newsletter 2 demonstration report. URL: http://shee.eu/press
[accessed: 2018-05-27].
[68] Imhof Barbara, Nelson Joshua, Kumar Madakashira Hemanth, Aabloo Alvo, Weiss
Peter. SHEE – A Self-deployable Habitat for Extreme Environments: Exploitation
and lessons learnt from testing, 10–14 July 2016.
[69] Doule Ondrej, Imhof Barbara. Self-deployable Habitat for Extreme Environments -
universal platform for analog research. In AIAA SPACE 2014 Conference and
Exposition, page 12, Reston, Virginia, 08042014. American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics.
[70] MOONWALK Consortium. Press Release: Mission Accomplished. MOONWALK -
Simulation - Rio Tinto 2016.
[71] MOONWALK Consortium. Executive study moonwalk a step further into the
future of human space exploration: where humankind pairs with technology to
transcend known boundaries. URL: http://www.liquifer.com/moonwalk/
[accessed: 2018-05-27].
[72] NASA. HERA - research by campaign. URL: https://www.nasa.gov/analogs/hera/
research, 2018 [accessed: 2018-04-01].
[73] Litaker Harry L Jr, Archer Ronald D, Szabo Richard, Twyford Evan S, Conlee Carl
S, Howard Robert L. Human habitation field study of the Habitat Demonstration
Unit (HDU). Acta Astronaut 2013;90(2):391–405.
[74] Miguel Pedraza Juan. UND Space Studies launches fifth ”Mars” mission with
physician aboard. URL: http://blogs.und.edu/uletter/2018/05/und-space-
studies-launches-fifth-mars-mission-with-physician-aboard/, 2018 [accessed:
05.05.2018].
30
REACH 21–22 (2021) 100038
[75] Miguel Pedraza Juan. Going to the ‘Moon’ without leaving campus. URL: http://
www1.und.edu/features/2013/10/ndx-planetary-exploration-system.cfm, 2013
[accessed: 05.05.2018].
[76] Miguel Pedraza Juan. All-female international crew of UND master’s degree
students spending 10 days in Lunar-Mars ‘habitat’ on campus. URL: http://
www1.und.edu/news/2016/04/all-female-habitat-team.cfm, 2016 [accessed:
05.05.2018].
[77] Swarmer Tiffany, Anderson Lindsay, de Leon Pablo. Performance review of a
pressurized inflatable lunar habitat integrated with an electric rover and
pressurized analog planetary suits during an initial ten day simulation. In: 44th
International Conference on Environmental Systems, pages ICES–2014–188.
Tucson, Arizona: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics; 2014.
[78] IBMP. Mars-500 Project. URL: http://mars500.imbp.ru/en/index_e.html
[accessed: 2018-05-27].
[79] Belakovskiy MS, Demin EP, Morukov BV, Voloshin OV. Finishing of 520–day
isolation. Moscow: Institute of Biomedical Problems; 2011, ISBN
9785902119258.
[80] European Space Agency. Announcement of Opportunity for research in the
context of ESA’s participation in the Mars500 programme AO-07-Mars 500, 2007.
[81] European Space Agency. Mars500 quick facts. URL: https://www.esa.int/Our_
Activities/Human_Spaceflight/Mars500/Mars500_quick_facts [accessed: 2018-
05-27].
[82] European Space Agency. Welcome back and thank you, Mars500. URL: https://
www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Human_Spaceflight/Mars500/Welcome_back_and_
thank_you_Mars500 [accessed: 2018-05-27].
[83] Schwendner Petra, Mahnert Alexander, Koskinen Kaisa, Moissl-
Eichinger Christine, Barczyk Simon, Wirth Reinhard, Berg Gabriele,
Rettberg Petra. Preparing for the crewed Mars journey: microbiota dynamics in
the confined Mars500 habitat during simulated Mars flight and landing.
Microbiome 2017;5(1):129.
[84] NASA. NASA is ”SIRIUS” about its analog missions. URL: https://www.nasa.gov/
feature/nasa-is-sirius-about-its-analog-missions, 2017 [accessed: 2018-05-27].
[85] Cowley Aidan, Diekmann Andreas, Coene Sander, Nash Victoria, Cristoforetti
Samantha. Human Lunar Exploration at EAC – the LUNA analogue facility and the
Spaceship EAC project.
[86] Irene Lia Schlacht, Bernard Foing, Olga Bannova, Frans Blok, Alexandre Mangeot,
Kent Nebergall, et al.. Space analog survey: Review of existing and new proposal
of space habitats with Earth applications, 10–14 July 2016.
[87] Space Garden. Lunares simulated space base. URL: http://lunares.space/
[accessed: 2018-05-27].
[88] The main purpose of 520-day isolation. URL: http://mars500.imbp.ru/en/520_
about.html [accessed: 2018-04-01].
[89] Space Garden. Lunares missions 2017. URL: http://lunares.space/missions-2017/
[accessed: 2018-05-05].
[90] Heinicke Christiane, Kaczmarzyk Marcin, Perycz Malgorzata, Wasniowski
Aleksander . Dealing with a physically disabled crew member: Lessons learned by
the crew of the icares-1 mission. European Planetary Science Congress, Berlin,
Germany, 2018, 2018. EPSC2018-592.
[91] Gitelson II, Terskov IA, Kovrov BG, Lisovskii GM, Okladnikov YuN. Long-term
experiments on man’s stay in biological life-support system. In Robert D.
MacEIroy, Brad G. Thompson, Theodore W. Tibbitts, Tyler Volk, editors,
Controlled Ecological Life Support Systems: Natural and Artificial Ecosystems.
Sponsored by Subcommision F.4, XXVII COSPAR meeting, Espoo, Finland, July
1989, NASA Conference Publication 10040; 1989.
[92] Gitelson Iosef I, Lisovsky Genry M. Creation of closed ecological life support
systems: Results, critical problems and potentials. J Siberian Federal Univ Biol
2008:19–39.
[93] Salisbury Frank B, Gitelson Iosef I, Lisovsky Genry M. BIOS-3 - Siberian
experiments in bioregenerative life support. BioScience 1997;47(9):575–85.
[94] Guo Shuangsheng, Dong Wenping, Ai Weidang, Feng Hongqi, Tang Yongkang,
Huang Zhide, Shen Yunze, Ren Jin, Lifeng Qin Gu, Zeng Lihong Zhang,
Zhu Jingtao, Fei Jinxue, Guoxin Xu. Research on regulating technique of material
flow for 2-person and 30-day integrated CELSS test. Acta Astronaut 2014;100:
140–6.
[95] Dai Kun, Qingni Yu, Zhang Zhou, Wang Yuan, Wang Xinming. Aromatic
hydrocarbons in a controlled ecological life support system during a 4-person-
180-day integrated experiment. Sci Total Environ. 2018;610–611:905–11.
[96] Guo Shuangsheng, Ai Weidang, Fei Jinxue, Guoxin Xu, Zeng Gu, Shen Yunze.
Study on the kinetic characteristics of trace harmful gases for a two-person-30-
day integrated CELSS test. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 2015;22(9):7020–4.
[97] Guo S, Liu X, Ai W, Tang Y, Zhu J, Wang X, Wei M, Qin L, Yang Y. Development of
an improved ground-based prototype of space plant-growing facility. Adv Space
Res 2008;41(5):736–41.
[98] Guo SS, Mao RX, Zhang LL, Tang YK, Li YH. Progress and prospect of research on
controlled ecological life support technique. REACH - Rev Human Space Explor
2017;6:1–10.
[99] Tako Yasuhiro, Arai Ryuji, Tsuga Sho-ichi, Komatsubara Osamu,
Masuda Tsuyoshi, Nozoe Susumu, Nitta Keiji. CEEF: Closed Ecology Experiment
Facilities. Gravit Space Biol 2010;23(2).
[100] Tako Y, Tsuga S, Tani T, Arai R, Komatsubara O, Shinohara M. One-week
habitation of two humans in an airtight facility with two goats and 23 crops –
analysis of carbon, oxygen, and water circulation. Adv Space Res 2008;41(5):
714–24.
[101] Nitta K, Gtsubo K, Ashida A. Integration test project of ceef: A test bed for closed
ecological life support systems. Adv Space Res 2000;26(2):335–8.
C. Heinicke and M. Arnhof
[102] Nitta Keiji. Basic design concept of closed ecology experiment facilities. Adv
Space Res 1999;24(3):343–50.
[103] Wheeler Raymond M. Agriculture for space: People and places paving the way.
Open Agricul 2017;2(1):1401.
[104] Dong Chen, Yuming Fu, Xie Beizhen, Wang Minjuan, Liu Hong. Element Cycling
and Energy Flux Responses in Ecosystem Simulations Conducted at the Chinese
Lunar Palace-1. Astrobiology 2017;17(1):78–86.
[105] Yuming Fu, Li Leyuan, Xie Beizhen, Dong Chen, Wang Mingjuan, Jia Boyang,
Shao Lingzhi, Dong Yingying, Deng Shengda, Liu Hui, Liu Guanghui, Liu Bojie,
Dawei Hu, Liu Hong. How to Establish a Bioregenerative Life Support System for
Long-Term Crewed Missions to the Moon or Mars. Astrobiology 2016;16(12):
925–36.
[106] Dong Chen, Liu Guanghui, Yuming Fu, Wang Minjuan, Xie Beizhen, Qin Youcai,
Li Bowei, Liu Hong. Twin studies in chinese closed controlled ecosystem with
humans: The effect of elevated CO2 disturbance on gas exchange characteristics.
Ecol Eng 2016;91:126–30.
[107] Ruilin Wu, Wang Ya. Psychosocial interaction during a 105-day isolated mission
in Lunar Palace 1. Acta Astronaut 2015;113:1–7.
[108] Dong Chen, Shao Lingzhi, Yuming Fu, Wang Minjuan, Xie Beizhen, Juan Yu,
Liu Hong. Evaluation of wheat growth, morphological characteristics, biomass
yield and quality in Lunar Palace-1, plant factory, green house and field systems.
Acta Astronaut 2015;111:102–9.
[109] Liu Guanghui, Dong Yingying, Xie Beizhen, Dawei Hu, Yuming Fu, Dong Chen,
Li Liang, Liu Hong. The regulation of CO2 levels in a blss by controlling the solid
waste treatment unit. Ecol Eng 2016;90:382–6.
[110] Lunar Palace 1: China’s One-Year Mock Moon Mission in Pictures. URL: https://
www.space.com/40610-china-mock-moon-mission-lunar-palace-1-photos.html
[accessed: 2018-06-01].
[111] NASA. HESTIA Facilities Capabilities. URL: https://www.nasa.gov/analogs/
hestia/facilities [accessed: 2020-02-05.
[112] Banker Brian F, Robinson Travis. Human exploration spacecraft testbed for
integration and advancement (hestia), 12–15 Sep. 2016.
[113] Marmolejo Jose, Ewert Mike. HESTIA Support of Future NASA Deep-Space
Missions, 06 May 2016.
[114] Callini Gianluca. A tale of two chambers: Iterative approaches and lessons learned
from life support systems testing in altitude chambers, 10–14 July 2016.
[115] Lane Helen W, Sauer Richard L, Feeback Daniel L, editors. Isolation: NASA
Experiments in Closed-Environment Living. Advanced Human Life Support
Enclosed System, volume 104 of American Astronautical Society, Science and
Technology Series. Univelt Inc, San Diego, California; 2002.
[116] NASA Johnson Space Center. Skylab Medical Experiments Altitude Test (SMEAT).
[117] Biosphere 2. URL: http://biosphere2.org/ [accessed: 2018-06-02].
[118] Nelson Mark, Burgess Tony L, Alling Abigail, Alvarez-Romo Norberto,
Dempster William F, Walford Roy L, Allen John P. Using a Closed Ecological
System to Study Earth’s Biosphere. BioScience 1993;43(4):225–36.
[119] Zabel Bernd, Hawes Phil, Stuart Hewitt, Marino Bruno DV. Construction and
engineering of a created environment: Overview of the Biosphere 2 closed system.
Ecol Eng 1999;13(1–4):43–63.
[120] Allen John, Nelson Mark. Biospherics and Biosphere 2, mission one (1991–1993):
Overview and Design. Ecol Eng 1999;13:15–29.
[121] Nelson Mark, Dempster William F. Living in space: Results from Biosphere 2’s
initial closure, an early testbed for closed ecological systems on Mars. In:
Stoker Carol R, Emmart Carter, editors. Strategies for Mars: A guide to human
exploration. Science and Technology Series. San Diego, California: Univelt Inc;
1996. p. 363–90.
[122] Walter Achim, Carmen Lambrecht Susanne. Biosphere 2 Center as a unique tool
for environmental studies. J Environ Monit JEM 2004;6(4):267–77.
[123] Avise John C. The Real Message from Biosphere 2: Editorial. Conserv Biol 1994;8
(2):327–9.
[124] Gitelson Iosef I, Manukovsky NS, Pankova IM, Somova LA, Tirranen LS.
Microbiological problems of closed ecological systems (in Russian). Novosibirsk,
Russia: Nauka Press; 1980.
[125] Somova LA. Effect of closure on man-microbes interaction in different types of
Earth-space missions. In 31st Scientific Assembly of the Committee on Space
Research (COSPAR), University of Birmingham, UK, 31st Scientific Assembly of
the Committee on Space Research (COSPAR), 14–21 July 1996, University of
Birmingham, UK; 1996.
[126] Xinhuanet.com. China focus: 200 days on “Moon”: China life support lab breaks
record. URL: http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-01/27/c_136927865.htm
[accessed: 2018-06-01].
[127] Florida International University - Digital Communications. Aquarius undersea
laboratory. URL: https://aquarius.fiu.edu/dive-and-train/facilities-and-assets/
aquarius-undersea-laboratory/index.html; 2018 [accessed: 2019-08-12].
[128] NASA. NEEMO. URL: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/NEEMO/index.html;
2017 [accessed: 2018-05-27].
[129] Guinovart Catherine. Aquarius reef base celebrates silver anniversary. URL:
http://casenews.fiu.edu/index.php/2018/01/08/aquarius-reef-base-celebrates-
silver-anniversary/; 2013 [accessed: 2018-05-27].
[130] Thirsk Robert, Williams David, Anvari Mehran. NEEMO 7 Undersea Mission. Acta
Astronaut 2007;60(4–7):512–7.
[131] Chappell Steven P, Abercromby Andrew F, Gernhardt Michael L. Neemo 15:
Evaluation of human exploration systems for near-earth asteroids. Acta Astronaut
2013;89:166–78.
[132] Sebens Kenneth P, Bernardi Giacomo, Patterson Mark R, Burkepile Deron.
Saturation diving and underwater laboratories: How underwater technology has
aided research on coral biology and reef ecology. In Smithsonian Contributions to
31
REACH 21–22 (2021) 100038
the Marine Sciences, volume 39, pages 39–52. Smithsonian Institution Scholarly
Press; 2013.
[133] Conshelf I, II & III. URL: https://www.cousteau.org/english/precontinent-i–ii-et-
iii.php [accessed: 27.05.2018].
[134] Diving history: Jacques Cousteau’s Conshelf missions. URL: https://
scubadiverlife.com/diving-history-jacques-cousteaus-conshelf-missions/; 2015
[accessed: 27.05.2018].
[135] Gell Charles F. Advanced biotechnology for underwater operations. J Hydronaut
1971;5(3):91–6.
[136] Ballesta Laurent. Expédition Gombessa V - Planète Méditerranée. URL: https://
www.photo-montier.org/actus-nature/expedition-gombessa-v-planete-
mediterranee/; 2019 [accessed: 2020-01-02].
[137] Ballesta Laurent. Gombessa V. URL: https://www.blancpain-ocean-commitment.
com/gombessa-v, 2019 [accessed: 2020-01-02].
[138] Ballesta Laurent. Départ d’une expédition pour explorer les richesses du fond de
la méditerranée. URL: https://www.lemonde.fr/planete/article/2019/07/01/
depart-d-une-expedition-pour-explorer-les-richesses-du-fond-de-la-mediterranee_
5483699_3244.html, 2019 [accessed: 2020-01-02].
[139] International Polar Foundation. Home - Princess Elisabeth Antarctica Research
Station. URL: http://www.antarcticstation.org/ [accessed: 2018-05-27].
[140] International Polar Foundation. Building the station - princess elisabeth antarctica
research station. URL: http://www.antarcticstation.org/station/construction
[accessed: 2018-05-27].
[141] Solaripedia. Solaripedia — green architecture & building — projects in green
architecture & building. URL: http://www.solaripedia.com/13/23/princess_
elisabeth_antarctica_polar_station.html [accessed: 2018-05-27].
[142] Rodrigo Javier Sanz, van Beeck Jeroen, Buchlin Jean-Marie. Wind engineering in
the integrated design of princess elisabeth antarctic base. Build Environ 2012;52:
1–18.
[143] ESA. URL: https://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Human_Spaceflight/Concordia
[accessed: 2018-05-27].
[144] Mekarnia Djamel, Frenot Yves. The French-Italian Concordia station. Proceedings
of the International Astronomical Union, 2012;8(S288):178–85.
[145] Tin Tina, Sovacool Benjamin K, Blake David, Magill Peter, El Naggar Saad,
Lidstrom Sven, Ishizawa Kenji, Berte Johan. Energy efficiency and renewable
energy under extreme conditions: Case studies from Antarctica. Renew Energy
2010;35(8):1715–23.
[146] ESA. Concordia — Living on White Mars; 2013. An ESA Human Spaceflight and
Operations production.
[147] NASA. International Space Station overview. URL: https://www.nasa.gov/
mission_pages/station/overview/index.html; 2016 [accessed: 27.05.2018].
[148] NASA. International Space Station facts and figures. URL: https://www.nasa.gov/
feature/facts-and-figures; 2016 [accessed: 27.05.2018].
[149] Hornyak David M. A Researcher’s Guide to International Space Station -
Technology Demonstration; 2013. NP-2013-06-008-JSC.
[150] NASA. Reference guide to the International Space Station. NASA, Washington DC;
2010. ASSEMBLY COMPLETE EDITION.
[151] NASA. Reference guide to the International Space Station. NASA, Washington DC:
Utilization Edition; 2015.
[152] Shen Yunze, Guo Shuangsheng, Zhao Pisheng, Wang Longji, Wang Xiaoxia,
Li Jian, Bian Qiang. Research on lettuce growth technology onboard Chinese
Tiangong II spacelab. Acta Astronaut 2018;144:97–102.
[153] China Space Report. Tiangong 2 – China Space Report. URL: https://www.space.
com/china-tiangong-2-space-lab-falls-to-earth.html [accessed: 2020-02-06].
[154] China Daily. Tiangong 2 – China Daily. URL: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/
china/2016-09/16/content_26806404.htm [accessed: 2020-02-06].
[155] SCIO briefing on China’s Tiangong 2 and Shenzhou 11 manned space mission.
URL: http://china.org.cn/china/2016-11/19/content_39742416.htm [accessed:
2018-05-27].
[156] News and analysis on China’s space programme. URL: https://chinaspacereport.
com/spacecraft/tiangong2/ [accessed: 2018-05-27].
[157] Cordesman Anthony H. Chinese space strategy and developments. URL: https://
csis-website-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/publication/160819_Chinese_
Space_Strategy_Developments_0.pdf.
[158] Yidong GU, Ming GAO, Guangheng ZHAO, Yingchun LIU, Zhaojun JIN. Science
researches of Chinese manned space flight. Chin J Space Sci 2014;34(5):518–24.
[159] Baker Philip. The story of manned space stations: an introduction. Springer
Science & Business Media; 2007.
[160] Siddiqi Asif A. The triumph and tragedy of Salyut I. Quest Hist Spaceflight Mag
1996;5(3):26–33.
[161] COMNAP. Antarctic Station Catalogue. Technical report, COMNAP; 2017.
[162] ESA. Spaceship Concordia. URL: https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/
Human_and_Robotic_Exploration/Concordia/Spaceship_Concordia [accessed:
2020-02-06].
[163] Ephimia Morphew M. Psychological and human factors in long duration
spaceflight. McGill J Med 2001;6(1):74–80.
[164] Cohen Marc M, Haeuplik-Meusburger Sandra. What do we give up and leave
behind?. In: 45th International Conference on Environmental Systems; 2015.
[165] Matthew Simon A, Whitmire C Otto, Neubek D. Factors impacting habitable
volume requirements: Results from the 2011 Habitable Volume Workshop.
Technical report, NASA 2011. NASA/TM-2011-217352.
[166] Mars Kelli. HESTIA Habitat. URL: https://www.nasa.gov/analogs/hestia/habitat,
2018 [accessed: 2019-01-02].
[167] Patrice Godon Polar Engineering. Concordia/ the station. URL: http://www.
patricegodonpolarengineering.eu/concordia-station-2/ [accessed: 2018-05-27].
C. Heinicke and M. Arnhof
[168] International Polar Foundation. The station: from the inside out! Teacher’s
dossier, International Polar Foundation, 2008. URL: http://www.educapoles.org/
assets/uploads/teaching_dossiers_files/pea_dossier_3_dossier_pedago_en.pdf.
[169] David Leonard. China’s Lunar Palace for space Research Tested on Earth. URL:
https://www.space.com/26267-china-lunar-palace-space-research-mission.html;
2014 [accessed: 2018-03-16].
[170] Whitmore Mihriban, Blume Jennifer. Habitability assessment: Habitat utilization
analysis from human factors perspective. NASA Life Sciences Data Archive; 2004
[accessed: 2019-03-07].
[171] Todd Bill, Reagan Marc, NEEMO Project Leads. The NEEMO Project: A Report on
how NASA Utilizes the Aquarius Undersea Habitat as an Analog for Long-
Duration Space Flight. NASA Technical Report; 2003 [accessed: 2018-10-10].
[172] Mars Society. MDRS Hab Interior Scans. URL:mdrs.marssociety.org/matterport-
scans/; 2018 [accessed: 2019–06-01].
[173] Ming DW, Hurlbert KM, Kirby G, Lewis JF, ORear P. Lunar-Mars Life Support Test
Project. phase 2; human factors and crew interactions. Technical report, NASA
JSC and Lockheed Martin 1997. NASA-TM-113031.
[174] NASA. HESTIA’s Module. URL: https://www.nasa.gov/analogs/hestia/module.
12.08.2019.
[175] Alex Mass. Quick Concordia Station Tour. URL: https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=BGiKmtDZAmw; 2013 [accessed: 2019-01-03].
[176] ESA. Our home on the ice. URL: blogs.esa.int/concordia/2018/09/07/our-home-
on-the-ice; 2018 [accessed: 2019–01-02].
[177] Irene Lia Schlacht, Ayako Ono, Scott Bates, Regina Peldszus, Melchiorre Masali,
Matthias Roetting, Franca Ligabue Stricker, Bernard Foing, Artemis Westenberg,
and Carol Stoker. Mars Habitability Project at MDRS - Sensory Experience and
Creative Performance for Manned Planetary Exploration. International
Astronautical Congress, Berlin 2010; 2010 [accessed: 2019-05-05].
[178] Northeastern University. Virtual tour. URL: http://www.northeastern.edu/
helmuthlab/Research/gigapan/USFL/USFL.html; 2013 [accessed: 2019-06-06].
[179] Dukes Alexandra. Journalist Report December 31st - MDRS Crew 202. URL: mdrs.
marssociety.org/2018/12/31; 2018 [accessed: 2019–03-03].
[180] Wolf Luzian. Mars-500: Scientific Protocols. URL: https://www.esa.int/Our_
Activities/Human_and_Robotic_Exploration/Mars500/Mars500_Scientific_
protocols3n/Mars500/Scientific_protocols; 2009 [accessed: 2019-09-09].
[181] Min Yu, Yue Shi. Volunteers in Lunar Palace 1 Complete Experiment and Set
Record of 370 Days. URL: https://ev.buaa.edu.cn/info/1081/1585.htm; 2018
[accessed: 2018-05-21].
[182] Frisch Anette. High Tech im ewigen Eis. URL: https://www.welt.de/print-wams/
article96910/High-Tech-im-ewigen-Eis.html; 2003 [accessed: 2019-03-03].
[183] International Polar Foundation. Sustainable development in the polar regions:
Princess Elisabeth Station, Antarctica. URL: http://www.educapoles.org/assets/
uploads/teaching_dossiers_files/dp_cze_06_en.pdf; 2009 [accessed: 2018-05-11].
[184] Lane Helen Woods, Sauer Richard L, Feeback Daniel L. Isolation: NASA
Experiments in Closed-environment Living: Advanced Human Life Support
Enclosed System Final Report, volume 104. American Astronautical Society;
2002.
[185] NASA. HESTIA’s Module. URL: https://www.nasa.gov/analogs/hestia/tour
[accessed: 2019-08-12].
[186] Anderson Clayton C. What is the kitchen like on the International Space Station?
URL: https://mentalfloss.com/article/583166/kitchen-on-iss-international-
space-station, 20.05.2019 [accessed: 12.08.2019].
[187] Kelly Scott. Endurance: My Year in Space, A Lifetime of Discovery. New York:
Knopf Publishing Group; 2017.
[188] Urbina Diego A, Charles Romain. Symposium keynote: Enduring the isolation of
interplanetary travel. Acta Astronaut 2014;93:374–83.
[189] ESA. Das Moskauer Mars-Habitat. URL: https://www.esa.int/ger/ESA_in_your_
country/Germany/Das_Moskauer_Mars-Habitat [accessed: 2019-08-12].
[190] Anne Borrego Melissa, Garcia Zaruba Yadira, Lee Broyan James Jr, McKinley
Melissa K, Baccus Shelley. Exploration toilet integration challenges on the
international space station; 2019. ICES-2019-154.
[191] Belgian Science Policy and The International Polar Foundation. Construction and
operation of the new belgian research station, dronning maud land, antarctica;
2007. Final Comprehensive Environmental Evaluation (CEE).
[192] Howard Robert L. Justification of crew function and function capability for long
duration deep space habitation. In: 2018 AIAA SPACE and astronautics forum and
exposition; 2018. p. 5357.
[193] Dangoisse Carole. Concordia hospital: Peak remote medicine. URL: http://blogs.
esa.int/concordia/2018/01/18/concordia-hospital-peak-remote-medicine/
[accessed: 2018-08-12].
[194] University of Hawai’i at Mānoa. HI-SEAS Mission VI cancelled. URL: https://
manoa.hawaii.edu/news/article.php?aId=9103, 2017 [accessed: 2019-08-12].
[195] ESA. Mars500 Information Kit - Scientific Protocols, May 2010.
[196] Pell Sarah Jane, Kobrick Ryan L, Trolley Zac. Technical recommendations to
improve Mars Desert Research Station safety, simulation, and science. In: 69th
International Astronautical Congress (IAC), Bremen, Germany, 2018; 2018. IAC-
18-E5.1.11.
[197] Albertsen Nadja. The art of jumping. URL: http://blogs.esa.int/concordia/2019/
02/15/the-art-of-jumping/ [accessed: 12.08.2019].
[198] Lee P, Braham S, Fong T, Glass BJ, Hoffman SJ, Hoftun C, et al. Haughton-Mars
Project Research Station (HMPRS), Devon Island, High Arctic: A Planetary
Science and Exploration Field Research Facility. In Lunar and Planetary Science
Conference, volume 47; 2016. p. 3073.
[199] International Polar Foundation, Fonds Baillet Latour. Princess Elisabeth
Antarctica Research Station. Information Leaflet.
32
REACH 21–22 (2021) 100038
[200] International Polar Foundation. Logistics and support - your safety matters. URL:
http://www.antarcticstation.org/science/logistics_support/; 2018 [accessed:
2019-08-13].
[201] Dempsey Robert, editor. The International Space Station - Operating an Outpost
in the New Frontier. Houston: NASA; 2018.
[202] Uhlig Thomas, Roshani Frank-Cyrus, Amodio Ciro, Rovera Alessandro,
Zekusic Nikola, Helmholz Hannes, Fairchild Matthew. ISS emergency scenarios
and a virtual training simulator for flight controllers. Acta Astronaut 2016;128:
513–20.
[203] Frost Robert. Is there any evacuation plan on the ISS in case of an emergency? Are
there any drills performed on the ISS for an evacuation? URL: https://www.
quora.com/Is-there-any-evacuation-plan-on-the-ISS-in-case-of-an-emergency-
Are-there-any-drills-performed-on-the-ISS-for-an-evacuation [accessed:
13.08.2019].
[204] Summers Richard L, Johnston Smith L, Marshburn Thomas H, Williams Dave R.
Emergencies in space. Ann Emerg Med 2005;46(2):177–84.
[205] One World One Ocean Campaign. What is aquarius? Mission aquarius fact sheet.
URL: http://www.oneworldoneocean.com/images/expeditions/Aquarius/
Aquarius%20Info%20Sheet%20Graphic.pdf,; 2018 [accessed: 2018-03-27].
[206] Burkpile Deron, Heithaus Michael. Living in an underwater sea lab. URL: https://
www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmSY4GECQ4I; 2013 [accessed: 2018-06-22].
[207] Schwartz Michael. HESTIA Habitation Design Scope. URL: https://pschwartz.
design/nasa/; 2016 [accessed: 2018-06-19].
[208] Tri TO, Kennedy KJ, Toups L, Gill TR, Howe AS. Planning and Logistics for the In-
Field Demonstration of NASA’s Habitat Demonstration Unit (HDU) Pressurized
Excursion Module (PEM) at Desert RATS 2010. In: 41st International conference
on environmental systems; 2011.
[209] Greene Kate. The Challenges of Climate Control in a Mars Habitat. Discover
Magazine Online, URL: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/fieldnotes/2013/07/
15/the-challenges-of-climate-control-in-a-mars-habitat/; 2013 [accessed: 2018-
02-20].
[210] Samyn Philippe, Partners. Belgian Antarctic Base: Princess Elisabeth. URL:
https://samynandpartners.com/portfolio/antarctica/; 2007 [accessed: 2018-03-
14].
[211] International Polar Foundation. The technical side of the Princess Elisabeth
Station. Energy-efficiency and wastewater treatment. URL: http://www.
educapoles.org/assets/uploads/teaching_dossiers_files/pea_energy_teachers_en.
pdf; 2008 [accessed: 2018-05-11].
[212] Space Garden. Lunar expedition blog. URL: http://lunares.space/category/lunar-
expedition-en/; 2017 [accessed: 2018-03-16].
[213] Ortiz Arturo R, de Leon Pablo, Vadim Rygalov Y. Radiation protection strategy
development for Mars surface exploration. In: 45th International Conference on
Environmental Systems - Bellevue Washington; 2015.
[214] Li Leyuan, Xie Beizhen, Dong Chen, Hu Dawei, Wang Minjuan, Liu Guanghui, Liu
Hong. Rearing Tenebrio molitor L. (Coleptera:Tenebrionidae) in the Lunar Palace
1 during a 105-day multi-crew closed integrative BLSS experiment. Life Sci Space
Res 2015;7:9–14.
[215] gbtimes.com. Lunar Palace-1: A look inside China’s self-contained Moon training
habitat. URL: https://gbtimes.com/lunar-palace-1-a-look-inside-chinas-self-
contained-moon-training-habitat; 2018 [accessed: 2018-06-16].
[216] Xie Beizhen, Zhu Guorong, Liu Bojie, Quiang Su, Deng Shengda, Yang Lige,
Liu Guanghui, Dong Chen, Wang Minjuan, Liu Hong. The water treatment and
recycling in 105-day bioregenerative life support experiment in the Lunar Palace
1. Acta Astronaut 2017;140:420–6.
[217] Jonathan Bird. Aquarius reef base - jonathan bird’s blue world. youtube; 2016.
[218] European Space Agency. Water Recycling Systems for the Antarctic Concordia
Station. ISSN: 0250-1589; 2004.
[219] ESA. ESA wastewater recovery picked as key climate technology. ESA, URL:
http://m.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Engineering_Technology/ESA_wastewater_
recovery_picked_as_key_climate_technology; 2015 [accessed: 2018-05-04].
[220] ESA. ESA’s participation in Mars-500. URL: https://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/
Human_Spaceflight/Mars500/The_isolation_facility, 2012 [accessed: 2018-06-
15].
[221] IBMP. Experiments: Life support system simulator. URL: http://mars500.imbp.
ru/en/520_sci_experiments/520_lss.html, 2011 [accessed: 2018-03-16].
[222] Stoltz M. MDRS GreenHab destroyed by fire. URL: https://web.archive.org/web/
20150206202846/http://www.marssociety.org/home/press/announcements/
mdrsgreenhabdestroyedbyfire; 2014 [accessed: 2018-03-16].
[223] Emily Lakdawalla. The devon diaries, 07 2002.
[224] Gill TR, Merbitz JC, Kennedy KJ, Toups L, Tri TO, Howe AS. Habitat
Demonstration Unit pressurized excursion module systems integration strategy.
In: 41st International conference on environmental systems; 2011.
[225] Miller Steven L, Cooper Craig. The Aquarius Underwater Laboratory: America’s
“Inner Space” Station. NOAA Ocean Explorer Technology website URL: http://
webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/virtual_disk_library/index.cgi/7295326/FID2041/
oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/technology/diving/aquarius/aquarius.html; 2004
[accessed: 2018-06-01].
[226] Horton Michael. Mars Desert Research Station Simulates Mars Like Base. URL:
https://web.archive.org/web/20100205232101/http://techfragments.com/
news/275/Science/Mars_Desert_Research_Station_Simulates_Mars_Like_Base.
html; 2009 [accessed: 2018-04-11].
[227] Barker Donald C, de Wet Andy. MDRS Hab Operations Manual – Version 6. Mars
Society, 02 2003.
[228] Hongliang Dong. Moon Palace 1 experiment succeeds. People’s Daily URL: http://
en.people.cn/n/2014/0522/c98649-8730965.html; 2014 [accessed: 2018-03-
16].
C. Heinicke and M. Arnhof
[229] Chang Kenneth. In a Dome in Hawaii, a Mission to Mars. New York Times, URL:
https://nytimes.com/2014/10/21/science/taking-minds-on-a-journey-to-mars.
html; 2014 [accessed: 2018-02-20].
[230] de Leon Pablo. Commander report. day 1. UND Human Spaceflight Laboratory
blog, URL: https://spacesuitlab.blogspot.com/2013/10/commander-report-day-
1.html; 2013 [accessed: 2018-03-16].
[231] Slonina Mariusz. Lunar expedition 1 - day 4 - modernity part one. URL: https://
lunares.space/lunar-expedition-1-day-4-modernity-part-one/; 2017 [accessed:
2018-03-16].
[232] Clancey William J. A Closed Mars Analog Simulation: The Approach of Crew 5 at
the Mars Desert Research Station. NASA Ames: Technical report; 2002.
[233] Silva-Martinez Jackelynne. HERA article for AIAA. URL: http://spacearchitect.
org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/NASA_JSC_HERA_report_Jackelynne-Silva-
Martinez.pdf; 2015 [accessed: 2020-01-24].
[234] Bengsch Danielle, Verseux Cyprien. The Martian scientist. Research Gate News
Website, URL: https://www.researchgate.net/blog/post/the-martian-scientist;
2016 [accessed: 2018-06-18].
[235] International Polar Foundation. A venue for polar science. URL: http://www.
antarcticstation.org/science/ [accessed: 2018-03-11].
[236] Goswami Nandu, Roma Peter G, De Boever Patrick, Clément Gilles, Hargens Alan
R, Loeppky Jack A, et al. Using the moon as a high-fidelity analogue environment
to study biological and behavioral effects of long-duration space exploration.
Planet Space Sci 2012;74(1):111–120.
[237] Chancellor Jeffery C, Blue Rebecca S, Cengel Keith A, Auñón-Chancellor Serena
M, Rubins Kathleen H, Katzgraber Helmut G, Kennedy Ann R. Limitations in
predicting the space radiation health risk for exploration astronauts. npj Microgr
2018;4(1):1–11.
[238] Traon Anne Pavy-Le, Heer Martina, Narici Marco V, Rittweger Joern,
Vernikos Joan. From space to Earth: advances in human physiology from 20 years
of bed rest studies (1986–2006). Eur J Appl Physiol 2007;101(2):143–94.
[239] Hargens Alan R, Vico Laurence. Long-duration bed rest as an analog to
microgravity. J Appl Physiol 2016;120(8):891–903.
[240] Frett Timo, Andrew Green David, Mulder Edwin, Noppe Alexandra, Arz Michael,
Pustowalow Willi, et al. Tolerability of daily intermittent or continuous short-arm
centrifugation during 60-day 6 degree head down AGBRESA study. PloS One
2020;15(9):e0239228.
[241] Schlabs Thomas, Rosales-Velderrain Armando, Ruckstuhl Heidi, Stahn Alexander
C, Hargens Alan R. Comparison of cardiovascular and biomechanical parameters
of supine lower body negative pressure and upright lower body positive pressure
to simulate activity in 1/6 g and 3/8 g. J Appl Physiol 2013;115(2):275–84.
[242] Kram Rodger, Domingo Antoinette, Ferris Daniel P. Effect of reduced gravity on
the preferred walk-run transition speed. J Exp Biol 1997;200(4):821–6.
[243] Ivanenko Yuri P, Sylos Labini Francesca, Cappellini Germana, Macellari Velio,
McIntyre Joseph, Lacquaniti Francesco. Gait transitions in simulated reduced
gravity. J Appl Physiol 2011;110(3):781–8.
[244] Bekdash Omar S, Valle Paul S, Kim Kyoung Jae, Jarvis Sarah L, Dunn Jocelyn T,
Norcross Jason R, Abercromby Andrew FJ. Development and evaluation of the
active response gravity offload system as a lunar and Martian EVA simulation
environment. In: 50th International conference on environmental systems; 2020.
pages ICES–2020–175.
33
REACH 21–22 (2021) 100038
[245] Casini Andrea EM, Mittler Petra, Cowley Aidan, Schlüter Lukas, Faber Marthe,
Fischer Beate, von der Wiesche Melanie, Maurer Matthias. Lunar analogue
facilities development at eac: the LINA project. J Space Saf Eng 2020;7(4):510–8.
[246] Donel Harvey Alvin. Partial gravity simulators, harness design, and an
examination of gait transitions in partial gravity. PhD thesis, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology; 2020.
[247] Evans Joyce M, Christine Ribeiro L, Moore Fritz B, Wang Siqi, Zhang Qingguang,
Kostas Vladimir, et al. Hypovolemic men and women regulate blood pressure
differently following exposure to artificial gravity. Eur J Appl Physiol 2015;115
(12):2631–40.
[248] Evans Joyce M, Knapp Charles F, Goswami Nandu. Artificial gravity as a
countermeasure to the cardiovascular deconditioning of spaceflight: gender
perspectives. Front Physiol 2018;9:716.
[249] Goswami Nandu, Evans Joyce, Schneider Stefan, von der Wiesche Melanie,
Mulder Edwin, Rössler Andreas, et al. Effects of individualized centrifugation
training on orthostatic tolerance in men and women. PLoS One 2015;10(5):
e0125780.
[250] van Loon Jack JWA. A large human centrifuge for exploration and exploitation
research. Annales Kinesiologiae 2012;3(1).
[251] van Loon JWA. Human Hypergravity Habitat,, h3. URL: http://www.h3facility.
eu/index.htm; 2014 [accessed: 2021-03-21].
[252] Goswami Nandu, Bruner Michelle, Xu Da, Bareille Marie-Pierre, Beck Arnaud,
Hinghofer-Szalkay Helmut, Blaber Andrew P. Short-arm human centrifugation
with 0.4 g at eye and 0.75 g at heart level provides similar cerebrovascular and
cardiovascular responses to standing. Eur J Appl Physiol 2015;115(7):1569–75.
[253] Laing Charles, Green David A, Mulder Edwin, Hinghofer-Szalkay Helmut,
Blaber Andrew P, Rittweger Joern, Goswami Nandu. Effect of novel short-arm
human centrifugation-induced gravitational gradients upon cardiovascular
responses, cerebral perfusion and g-tolerance. J Physiol 2020;598(19):4237–49.
[254] Smith Scott M, Davis-Street Janis E, Vernell Fesperman J, Calkins DS,
Bawa Maneesh, Macias Brandon R, Scott Meyer R, Hargens Alan R. Evaluation of
treadmill exercise in a lower body negative pressure chamber as a
countermeasure for weightlessness-induced bone loss: a bed rest study with
identical twins. J Bone Min Res 2003;18(12):2223–30.
[255] Ashari Neeki, Hargens Alan R. The mobile lower body negative pressure gravity
suit for long-duration spaceflight. Front Physiol 2020;11:977.
[256] Hargens Alan R, Bhattacharya Roshmi, Schneider Suzanne M. Space Physiology
VI: Exercise, artificial gravity, and countermeasure development for prolonged
space flight. Eur J Appl Physiol 2013;113(9):2183–92.
[257] Pattyn Nathalie, Van Puyvelde Martine, Fernandez-Tellez Helio, Roelands Bart,
Mairesse Olivier. From the midnight sun to the longest night: Sleep in Antarctica.
Sleep Med Rev 2018;37:159–72.
[258] Goswami Nandu, Batzel Jerry J, Gilles Clément T, Stein Peter, Hargens Alan R,
Keith Sharp M, Blaber Andrew P, Roma Peter G, Hinghofer-Szalkay Helmut G.
Maximizing information from space data resources: a case for expanding
integration across research disciplines. Eur J Appl Physiol 2013;113(7):1645–54.
[259] SAM Consortium. SAM at B2. URL: https://samb2.space/about/; 2021 [accessed:
2021-04-09].
[260] Heinicke Christiane, Orzechowski Leszek, Avila Marc. The MaMBA-concept for an
extraterrestrial base and its first module mock-up. Acta Astronaut 2020;173:
404–13.