A YEAR IN SPACE
REFLECTIONS ABOUT THE INTEGRATION OF A PRODUCT DESIGNER IN COLLABORATIVE SPACE PROJECTS
Candidate:
Emilia Rosselli Del Turco M.Sc. Integrated Product Design
a.a. 2018-2019
Academic Supervisor:
Prof. Annalisa Dominoni
Academic Co-Supervisors:
Prof. Benedetto Quaquaro Prof. Paolo Fino
External Co-Supervisor:
ABSTRACT
A DESIGNER IN SPACE RETROSPECTIVE
Space Design
Cross-disciplinary teams Teams for Space, and Design PROJECT EXPERIENCE My experience Premises Space4Interaction IGLUNA Spaceship EAC
A DESIGNER FOR SPACE LESSON LEARNED
Methodology
Case-study: FLEXRack Premises
Analysis and conversations Concept of use
Development Interviews
Analysis of results Respondents’ profile Perception of the designer Vision
Obstacles Strategies Summary
Limitations of the study Conclusions BIBLIOGRAPHY 12 41 13 26 26 44 87 100 27 46 90 102 31 59 92 103 35 72 98 103 43 18 44 25 87 104
ABSTRACT
Over the last few years, we could witness an increasing agitation in the Space Field, ignited by the
envisaged future missions, placing once again the desire of exploration as prior driver. With a permanent settlement on the Moon and a manned landing on Mars as objectives to lead ambition and focus, a strong effort is placed on Research, to fill the gaps which still make these perspectives impractical. Following a trend already diffused in several industries, space agencies are turning to the adoption of cross-disciplinary teams as a tool to ignite innovation. Meanwhile, a contamination between Industrial Design and Space Exploration worlds is developing, due to the increasing importance of the human element in longterm missions. The thesis aims to discuss the potential benefits unleashed by an introduction of the design discipline within these cross-disciplinary endeavours in the Space Industry. It does so through the analysis of the author’s experience as product designer in a series of collaborative initiatives on Space Exploration thematics. Specifically, a product development design, carried out during an internship in the cross-disciplinary team Spaceship EAC at the European Astronaut Centre (EAC) in Cologne, is used a discussion ground to reflect on challenges, methodologies, and assets provided by the work of a product designer in this field; finally a series of semi-structured interviews allows to compare the point of view from the industry itself and to draw up some considerations for the future. Conclusions particularly focus on the vision of ideal collaboration which aims to best exploit the different points of view involved, and on the recognised obstacles towards its achievement.
Negli ultimi anni, si è potuto assistere ad una crescente agitazione nel campo spaziale, innescata dalle future missioni previste, che propongono ancora una volta il desiderio di esplorazione come propulsore principale. Con un insediamento permanente sulla Luna e un atterraggio con equipaggio su Marte come obiettivi a guidare ambizione e sforzi, un grande slancio viene dato alla Ricerca, al fine di colmare le lacune che ancora rendono queste prospettive impraticabili. Seguendo una tendenza già diffusa in diversi settori industriali, le agenzie spaziali si stanno rivolgendo all’adozione di team cross-disciplinari come strumento per stimolare l’innovazione. Nel frattempo, si sta sviluppando una contaminazione tra il mondo del design industriale e quello dell’esplorazione spaziale, a causa della crescente importanza dell’elemento umano nelle missioni a lungo termine. La tesi si propone di discutere i potenziali benefici scatenati dall’introduzione della disciplina del design all’interno di questi sforzi cross-disciplinari del settore spaziale.
Lo fa attraverso l’analisi dell’esperienza dell’autore come product designer in una serie di iniziative di collaborazione sulle tematiche dell’Esplorazione Spaziale. In particolare, un progetto di sviluppo prodotto, realizzato durante uno stage presso il team cross-disciplinare Spaceship EAC dello European Astronaut Centre (EAC) a Colonia, viene utilizzato come terreno di discussione per riflettere sulle sfide, le metodologie e le capacità fornite dal lavoro di un product designer in questo campo; infine, una serie di interviste semi-strutturate permette di confrontare il punto di vista dell’industria stessa e di formulare alcune considerazioni per il futuro. Le conclusioni si concentrano in particolare sulla visione di una collaborazione ideale, che mira a sfruttare al meglio i diversi punti di vista coinvolti, e sugli ostacoli individuati alla sua realizzazione.
A designer
Space
A DESIGNER IN SPACE
Departing from the Shuttle program and the construction of the International Space Station (ISS) in the 80s, and with the setting of Mars as next goal in the Space Exploration roadmap, last decades saw an incremental attention to-wards manned missions and their requirements with the final aim of really enabling a perma-nent human presence in space. The need for longterm travels and, consequently, separation from Earth placed the focus on the dynamics triggered by humans’ involvement in a mission’s design to start to learn more about how these would behave and interact in such scenarios (Evan Twyford in the video “Industrial Design for the outer space”, Vice Media 2012, NASA Archives). Furthermore, the progressive enlarge-ment of the group of people having the possibil-ity to experience space to scientists, researchers and even tourists, over long-time trained astro-nauts, opens to the need of reconsidering the well-known issues related to life in space envi-ronments, not least the continuous inescapable emergency status.
In the light of the above, in the space field the necessity appeared to go be-yond the pure technical approach and slowly open to other competencies. Design, among them, represents a point of interest thanks to its experience with the integration of users’ needs with the productive and technical worlds. An important example is the Habitabil-ity Design Center (HDC), introduced at NASA around 2005, initially to solve secondary small ergonomic issues, then progressively more involved in the design of actual products destined to pressur-ised lunar rovers or the ISS itself (Taylor,
2008). The Habitability Design Center (HDC) gathers together expertises in industrial design, architecture, and system engineering, and adopts a human-centred perspective to solve the chal-lenges encountered while living and working in extreme environments. Its process entails from concept design, rendering of design concepts, to full scale and part scale mockups and mod-els, and rapid delivery of functional prototypes (NASA Human Health and Performance Center, 2013).
If HDC came from the space flight world look-ing after new competencies, another trend flows in the opposite direction. It is represented by the so-called Space Architecture, which involves both architects and designers intending to chal-lenge themselves on uncommon grounds. The idea behind is that space architecture is nothing more than an extension of terrestrial architec-ture. The goal is the same: to provide a shelter that protects and supports good quality of life for the inhabitants. And as in any architectural project, the designer needs to research and learn all about the environment in which the product is placed. What really changes are therefore the conditions and characteristics of such environ-ment. “Earth is a celestial body in space; so is
SPACE DESIGN
Mars; so is the Moon.” (SATC, 2014) Several examples established the collaboration between the Space Industry and architects/designers over the years. In the USSR, the studio of Vladimir Chelomei designed the Salyut 1 space station, launched in 1971. In the USA in 1968, the industrial designer Raymond Loewy persuaded NASA to include a window in the Skylab space station so that astronauts could see out and ob-serve the Earth (SATC, 2014). The most famous one is maybe the recent Lunar Habitation con-cept designed by Foster & Partners for ESA.
Nevertheless, in the daily work, the product designers involved in the development of space products are still few and considerable as ex-ceptions. Having to first deal with survival and extremely technical issues, the Space Industry is dominated by Natural Science professions, and objects could not go through the aesthetic and social development of the terrestrial ones, which provided the terrain for the Design profession to develop and establish. Among the exceptions, the VEST experiment by Annalisa Dominoni and Benedetto Quaquaro which was tested by
fig. 2 Skylab’s blueprint. Image Credit: NASA
astronaut Roberto Vittori during the Marco Polo mission (Dominoni & Quaquaro, 2017). Merging Fashion Design with space research, the project’s aim is to design an integrated clothing system which really responds to the conditions experienced in micro-gravity (Dominoni, 2005). An example is the adaptation to the so-called “neutral posture”, very similar to the one as-sumed under water or while snowboarding: the clothes designed for VEST attempt to respond to these modifications to assure a comfortable adherence.
More commonly, Design is called to generate ideas through external brief collaborations or university competitions, thus it is noticeable an increasing number of agreements with formative institutions arranged by space agencies and com-panies, in which the technical and experiential inputs of the industry is transformed by students in concepts and ideas. These initiatives allowed me to approach this peculiar field of research as a designer, and to start question myself about the role and contribute my figure could represent. In particular, this thesis focuses on the context of cross-disciplinary research teams, a diffus-ing practice in companies aimdiffus-ing to maximise innovation, and an interesting setting for the introduction of the diverse perspective of Design in commonly strictly engineering workplaces.
Birth of a discipline
In “Industrial Design for Space” (2002), Domi-noni introduces the concept of “Space Design”, along with a methodology for the establishment of a dialogue between Industrial Design and the space industry. She first presents the peculiar conditions which Design could offer valuable solutions to in order to reduce difficulties of working in space, such as the psychologic issues related to spend a longtime in a confined en-vironment, and the effects of microgravity on objects and posture. The lack of possibility to reference to a consolidated experience built over a number of missions, and the impossibility of assessing the true validity of the designer’s hy-potheses until it is already in orbit jeopardise the success of the project development in the aer-ospace sector. For this reason, the visualisation and analysis of all the gestures and movements possible in relationship to extraterrestrial envi-ronments shall be introduced as a determining factor during the design of the objects to popu-late them. Another important tool would then be the “spin in” (and “spin off”) of logics related
A DESIGNER IN SPACE RETROSPECTIVE
to similar set of actions on Earth in the project understanding.
The final outcome
is a “program
of use” related
to the product,
“a predefined
sequence of
actions that
enable operators
(…) to reconstruct
designated
movements
for use of new
products and
therefore to
reproduce them”
(ibid.).
The role of the industrial designer in the aero-space sector would be, eventually, to enhance the “value of the products relative to their use”, thus efficiency and efficacy, comfort and ease of use, eventually ending in the field of Human Factors. Indeed, the most interesting characteristic which
fig. 3 HDC engineers discuss their designs inside a full-sized mockup of the Space Exploration Vehicle (SEV).. Image Credit: NASA
differentiates Industrial Design from other de-signing professions is the attention towards the users, in order to create objects really “adapted” to the persons who use them, Dominoni states. Analysing the relationship between operator and instrument, a holistic wellbeing can be built through equipments that facilitate human move-ments and activities.
Another important methodology to translate in Industrial Design for Space is the feasibility assessment which is at the base of any innova-tion in the space field. It is composed of a set of phases, starting from technology exploration and initial concept, in Phase A, followed by a Defini-tion Phase (or Phase B), in which the concept is evaluated in terms of costs and feasibility. Then an integrated Phase C and D foresees the actual design of the system and subsystems: this always includes the outline of a set of design require-ments for the product and a plan for the verifi-cation of them. Phase E consists of the so-called Critical Design Review, in which the product is prepared and tested for the launch through the use of mock-ups. In order to validate a product, microgravity conditions, not reproducible com-pletely on Earth, can only be partially simulated in order to test different aspects time by time. Tests involve Dry-runs, Neutral Buoyancy Facil-ities (NBF), Parabolic Flights, and, only in the end, trials in orbit.
This overall approach was successfully applied in several Industrial Design projects, and in the teaching program carried on by Dominoni in Politecnico di Milano.
CROSS-DISCIPLINARY
TEAMS
Cross-collaboration and interdisciplinarity are becoming more and more prominent in the academic and industrial conversations (Person, 2018). As within Western societies knowledge has been subject to fragmentation, cross-discipli-narity is considered as an attempt to overcome fragmented thinking and develop holistic modes of enquiry, decision making and practice (Kline 1995). Indeed, it was broadly discussed the need to cross disciplinary boundaries in order to tackle contemporary complex problems, such as cli-mate change (Klein 1996; 2004; Barry, Born & Weszkalnys 2008; Bridle, Vrieling, Cardillo, et al. 2013; Cheruvelil, Soranno, Weathers, et al. 2014; UNESCO 2015,).
In the Space Industry, it is particularly important as every mission is inherently bonded to a variety of technical and scientific disciplines, ranging from different kinds of Engineering, Medicine to pure sciences such as Physics, Biology, Geolo-gy, and so on. Cross-disciplinary research, thus, becomes pivotal to really be able to embrace all the technologies, and risks, throughout the design of tools and operations. It is then not a surprise to find different examples of collaborative research teams in Space Agencies as well as in aerospace companies.
However, collaboration across disciplines can occur in very different settings, and a linguistic distinction is needed to evaluate these emergent endeavours. When talking about multidisciplinary collaborations, we usually refer to a project that draws on knowledge from different disciplines but stays within their boundaries, and eventually
leaves participants unchanged in their approach. Participants mainly contribute with separate pieces to the solution (Borrego & Newswander, 2008). Interdisciplinarity, instead, analyses, syn-thesises and harmonises links between disciplines into a coordinated and coherent whole (Choi and Pak, 2006). A combination from the different dis-ciplines is employed toward a solution (Borrego & Newswander, 2008; Committee on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research, 2005; Klein, 1990).
The figure shows a schematic of the two different approaches. Multidisciplinary collaborations are the most common because of a major simplic-ity in practice and management of it. Indeed, disciplines are linked to the adoption of certain behaviours or ways of thinking (Kline, 2009), and one of the most influential obstacle in true interdisciplinary collaboration is the difference in epistemologies, i.e. a person’s way of knowing and understanding the world. Epistemology dictates which research questions, methods, and purposes a person considers legitimate (Borrego &
News-fig. 6 Difference between multidisciplinary and truly interdisciplinary research collaborations, interpreted from the Committee on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research (2005). Icons from the Noun Project, by Royyan Razka and Wireform.
wander, 2008). Therefore, a mismatch in collab-orators’ epistemology can compromise the ability of them to respect each other’s expertise and really integrate their efforts in the research. The barrier is particularly high when the cross-collaboration extends beyond natural scientific disciplines (Strang, 2007; Lélé & Norgaard, 2005). Nevertheless, the competitiveness proved to be precious, especially in terms of innovation po-tential. Researches about creativity found that
the latter increases in teams thanks to the greater number of options explored, the diversity of information and, more generally, the tendency to search beyond (Kleinsmann, 2006). The Inter-national Foundation for Science (IFS) highlight some benefits of teams in particular:
• Sharing of knowledge, skills and techniques • Tacit knowledge transfer
• Learning the social and management skills needed to work as a part of a team
• Source of creativity
net-RETROSPECTIVE A DESIGNER IN SPACE
working
• Greater scientific visibility • Pooling equipment (Haylor, 2012)
Furthermore, Borrego and Newswander (2008) reported high levels of learning and satisfaction coming out of true interdisciplinary collaboration between engineers and social scientist. Over-coming the different epistemologies is therefore fundamental to unlock the potentiality of inter-disciplinarity, Without clear sharing, communica-tion, and appreciation of such differences, teams struggle to find common ground and are limited in their productivity (Cheruvelil et al., 2014).
Once this
happens, small
agile and
cross-disciplinary teams
are nowadays
recognised as the
main drivers of
innovation.
The group is, indeed, a natural amplifier and accelerator of the creative process, which serves as a “collective brain”, with much higher potential of the single individual brain (Dominoni, 2009). Among them, a category was outlined which had a role in many of the great innovations of the last decades: Skunk Works. The first time this name was used was in 1943, when US War Depart-ment asked Clarence “Kelly” Johnson a new faster aircraft. With a team of 43 engineers, the P-80
Shooting Star was designed (Brown, 2004). With this success, the team was continued with such name, referred to their way of working, sheltered from hierarchy’s or bureaucracy’s requirements, so that they were enabled to achieve innovative solu-tions in shortest time frames (Goldstein, 2007). Inspired by this first episode, many other Skunk Works were replicated in a variety of public and private companies, and universities. Yunicheva and Estévez (2012) define them as
A small isolated group of people (team), who are highly skilled, with the high level of knowledge in their own field, and who are participating in an innovation project. Skunk work focus on the process of innovation project development in short periods of time with high level of efficiency during this time. The Skunk work team is separated from the rest of the organization and are led, managed and supported by person who has an authority in the formal organization and serves as an “advocate” of the innovation, developed by the Skunk
work team (i.e. “innovation champion”).
(Yunicheva & Estévez, 2012)
Nowadays, Skunk Works similar cases are repli-cated in most of the innovating environments. Starting from the academic world, where MIT introduced iTeams, a program gathering excellent students from different schools in cross-disci-plinary teams, in order to tackle potential ap-plications of new technologies. In this case, the aim is not only technical innovation but also its possible launch on the market through a start-up, thus the disciplines involved are also marketing, finance, and business. The teams are built around MIT developed technologies and the outcome is a business recommendation about a potential product that such technology could be applied to. Expressively inspired to MIT’s program, and with a similar setting, Cambridge University developed Cambridge iTeams. Also in this case, openings address all schools, comprising of Life
Sciences, Social Sciences, and Arts & Humanities, even though applications are highly dominated by the engineering community (Moktar, 2018). Alta Scuola Politecnica (joint venture between Politecnico di Milano and Politecnico di Torino) grounds its excellence program on interdiscipli-nary projects aimed to innovate through new technology application.
In private companies, Skunk Works are a com-mon tool acom-mong the most advanced players. In Apple, Steve Jobs gathered together around 20 people to develop the first Macintosh, and nowa-days Jony Ive seems to maintain the tradition by keeping a dozen of people separated by the main campus to work on experimental projects. The most famous is maybe Google X, the Alphabet’s division started in 2010 with the precise purpose of delivering moonshots, innovations hopefully feasible in a 5-10 years span and able to radically change the world. Every moonshot is investigated by a small team applying rapid evaluation tech-niques, such as prototyping and techno-economic analysis. Similar examples are provided by Ama-zon’s Lab126 and Facebook’s Building 8.
In 2011, the British Government Digital Service (GDS) declared to have applied Skunk Works techniques to deliver innovative digital services to the population. A few years later, Singapore also announces its own GDS as unit of the bigger GovTech.
In the Space Field, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) started the initia-tive Swamp Works (clearly with a direct connec-tion with Kelly’s experiment), with the mission of providing “the government and commercial space ventures with pioneering technologies that enable working and living on the surfaces of the Moon, planets and other bodies in our solar system” (Mueller & Smith, 2019). Key words are the placement in an environment designed for innovation, lean development, rapidity, cost effec-tiveness, hands-on approach, and iteration (ibid.).
The labs involved cover a variety of disciplines. The final purpose is mainly surface exploration, therefore it disconnects with the rest of the com-pany’s efforts on the International Space Agency (ISS). Boeing’s innovative solutions are created by multidisciplinary teams of Boeing engineers who operate in small “innovation cells”, in which Vir-tual Reality is used to rapidly test ideas (Kardon, 2019). In the European Space Agency (ESA), different cross-disciplinary teams are employed in different stages and thematics. On the side of Op-erations, the Concurrent Design Facility (CDF) is now a renowned source of innovation. Extremely structured as roles organisation, it gathers experts from all the perspectives associated to a space mission and performs so-called “pre-phase A” studies of future missions, in order to predict their technical, programmatic and economic feasibility (ESA, 2019). Another well-established team is the Advanced Concepts Team (ACT), with skillsets ranging from Neuroscience and Biology, through Physics and Artificial Intelligence, until Space Architecture, which is here largely represented. It serves the function of a think tank providing decision makers the support of a highly multi-disciplinary research group (ESA,2019). Finally, bridging the gap between corporate and academic collaborative teams, Spaceship EAC (SSEAC) is the cross-disciplinary team situated in Cologne (DE), grounding on a six-months internship pro-gram with students coming from a variety of aca-demic backgrounds. The work focuses on a range of low technology readiness level (TRL) projects in order to get a preliminary idea about their feasibility and potential. It will be described more deeply in the next chapters.
The different Skunk Works examples vary in several details, especially moving from academia to private, and public companies. Nevertheless, some characteristics are recurrent. First of all, the cross-disciplinarity: even though we will not analyse whether it tends more towards a multi- or
fig. 8 The Swamp Works lab at Kennedy has large open areas to encourage engineers to work together informally and to help spur creativity. Credits: NASA
RETROSPECTIVE A DESIGNER IN SPACE
interdisciplinary approach, the purpose is always to benefit from a variety of points of view, also in order to speed up the development of ideas. They are separated (often even physically) from the main systems and goals of the company/insti-tution, in order to focus on the problem/project at need and not to get slowed down by corporate bureaucracy. Usually, they even keep a sort of secrecy of the on-going work, until it is done and ready to be proposed to the world. Especially in the Space Industry, they are responsible for the test of potential technologies very in advance with the current activities. They apply “hands on” approaches to quickly test intuitions, instead of going through step-by-step but less risky process-es. Their output can be start-ups or conceptual articles.
However, they
are characterised
by openness,
co-creation,
out-of-box thinking,
great visions,
and horizontal
perspective:
all notions
deeply rooted
in a designer’s
mindset.
fig. 10 Concurrent Design Facility (CDF) in ESA. Credits: ESA–G. Porter, CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO
TEAMS FOR
SPACE, AND
DESIGN
The context of cross-disciplinary innovation teams is particularly interesting as a slightly more open door for designers to step in the Space Industry. Design is, indeed, synonymous of innovation focused on the human needs, and by time it developed including knowledge from engineering, innovation economics, and tech-nology, in order to better interface with science as the basis for novel applications (Dominoni, 2009). If the need for a major understanding of the human factor is growing, the contribution of experts of it cannot be limited anymore to occasional conceptual projects. In “Comparison Between Industrial Design and Aerospace Ap-proach in Interdisciplinary Projects for Human Exploration Mission”, Aguzzi (2005) highlights the need to involve a variety of disciplines in the project of human spaceflight missions, such as architects and industrial designers.
This statement
rests on a more
integrated and
broad definition
of habitat “not
as a union
of different
engineering-driven subsystems
but as the result
of requirements
coming from
human needs and
their interaction
with the
environment”.
However, if on the one hand, the Space Industry has to open to disciplines outside the Natural Sciences, on the other one, these have to accept collaboration to enter a strongly specialised world. Aiming at such an advanced and complex endeavour, Space exploration and technology are not possible without a continuous dialogue with scientists and engineers, able to contextualise any concept in a framework of feasibility which goes beyond the experiential one familiar to designers and architects. When projects are not placed in the set of “simple” physical and technical rules which we are accustomed to experience every day, we need help. Therefore the potential for designers to be involved in these fields necessar-ily goes through a collaboration between disci-plines.
Although such collaboration is foreseen and experimented, its integration in the profession-al reprofession-ality of the industry is still far from being established.
MY EXPERIENCE
During the last one year and a half I got more and more passionate about the idea of designing for Space-related purposes and needs. This could occur thanks to a series of experiences that I have been involved in, all in direct or indirect collab-oration with the European Space Agency. All of them are programs aiming to gather students in order to explore preliminary research topics and generate ideas less constrained by the perspective of a 10-years worker in the industry. All of them involve teamwork across different disciplines. Indeed, as the idea of gathering different per-spectives and backgrounds in a flexible collective skillset, able to respond the different questions of a complex product, is nowadays a hot topic within any industry which intends to achieve innovation, different opportunities are opening, willing to broadly explore also in the direction of more creative mindsets. Thus all my experiences involved, to a greater or lesser extent, the issue and potential of an interdisciplinary teamwork.
Premises
How the interaction between different disciplines actually occurred, and the prevailing approach, characterised the three projects. Starting from Space4Inspiraction, where diversity mostly re-mained in the realm of Design allowing to reflect over the tasks and issues a designer can handle in the context of Space. Then, IGLUNA offered the challenge of a common goal inherently requiring the work of different professionals: it developed in a multidisciplinary manner, with different teams working separately but with the need to deal with each other for a final integration of their works. In this case, the focus was on what designers could add to a global and complex project, and how they should interface with the rest of the work endeavours. Finally, Spaceship EAC introduced an actual interdisciplinary attempt, foreseeing a design figure personally integrated in the system, with the question of how they should adapt in order to successfully become part of the team and enrich it.
The following paragraphs describe more in de-tails the activities, collaboration, and approach I encountered and applied in order to open to fur-ther discussions about how the role of designers in the Space industry is transforming and where it could take.
S4I
interdisciplinary team from March to July 2018IGLUNA
multidisciplinary /interdisciplinary team from September 2018 to June 2019 Space4Inspiraction (S4I) is the first course of Space De-sign at Politecnico di Milano, taught by Annalisa Dominoni and Benedetto Quaquaro, and supported by ESA, in which the themes recognised as relevant to the current research of space flights are proposed to students from the Master’s Degree in Integrated Product Design and Interaction Design. It was launched in 2016 and, since the second edition of a.y. 2017-18, has involved Thales Alenia Space (TAS), a joint venture between Thales 67% and Leonardo 33%, world leader in the construction of space habitats. The course aims to create the conditions to compare design visions and real needs, thanks to the continuous dialogue with ESA, but also teaches students how to achieve potential improvements in life on Earth. This is achieved through a spin-in and spin-off transfer system, in which technologies and scenarios developed for space can be reformulated to improve our daily lives. The other purpose of the course is to introduce Design students to anet-Space4Inspiraction
work of people and institutions relevant to space exploration, in order to facilitate contamination between these two very different worlds.Activities
The course foresaw the design in interdiscipli-nary teams of Interaction, Product designers, and Mechanical engineers, of an innovative interior concept for a module destined to the future Gateway. The brief required to produce outcomes throughout Idea Generation, Concept Elaboration, Product Development, Costs and Benefits Evaluation, and Vision Representation, involving the creation of visuals, renderings, and a videoclip resuming the overall project. It also involved lectures from different experts from the ESA network, regarding systems, problematics, and technologies considered in the International Space Station (ISS) experience. Among them, a class about “Human Spaceflight & Exploration: from ISS to Deep Space” by Franco Fenoglio (Human Spaceflight & Transportation Unit, DESI), and one in “Human spaceflight and In-ternational Space Station” by Emilio Della Sala (Space Operation Engineer, ALTRAN).
Collaboration
The course aimed to foster a collaboration not only between different design backgrounds, but also with the department of Mechanical Engi-neering, by inserting several Bachelor students in the teams. Unfortunately, probably also because of the different level of experience, as well as different weight in the group composition, the design perspective sharply prevailed, voiding the potential breadth. This jeopardised the possibili-ty to reach a good level of development and fea-sibility assessment of products. Another reason may be the need for the course to focus on Con-cept Design, based on academic requirements, which meant that the time dedicated to product engineering was short and close to the delivery.
SSEAC
multidisciplinary /interdisciplinary team from May to October 2019A DESIGNER IN SPACE PROJECT EXPERIENCE
However, the integration between Interaction and Product was already quite distant to create an interesting mix of experiences. The whole group of designers worked together in any aspect of the Concept Definition, while the outcome production was divided based on individual expertise. Finally, mechanical engineers reviewed the feasibility and helped designing products and functioning.
Approach
The vision behind the course is the creation of a designer as key figure in the innovative path of space exploration. Thanks to their multidis-ciplinary perspective, in fact, designers are able to speak the different languages involved in the design of space missions and thus allow collabo-ration between a variety of skills. Moreover, they act as observers: a designer knows very well that a project needs a vision as its foundation. No product, however technical it may be, can escape its contextualisation in a future scenario. The role of designers is to design it so that everyone can see and evaluate this scenario. Vision and visualisation are two important design tools and cannot be ignored in a field like space explo-ration, where visibility is extended to a wide audience and with a strong impact in shaping people’s imagination about what is going to happen. As vision-keepers and binders, designers could intervene in the role of project managers, to remind the scientific world that it can never disconnect from the human aspect but rather should live with it and benefit from it. To ensure this, the human centred approach must be ap-plied at every stage. Design’s innate focus on the user is therefore essential to support longer mis-sions where the human factor becomes crucial to their success (Dominoni, 2002).
“There is no such thing as an unmanned system. Designing equipment, interfaces, devices and inte-grating human users into a system from the concept
to operations improves total system performance and reduces risk to the operators.”
NASA
Human Health and Performance Center, 2013 Likewise, in such a human-centred vision, de-signers are also those responsible to continuously reframe the obtained innovations to turn back benefits towards the terrestrial life and assure the so-called spin-offs to nearer issues.
fig. 11 Picture from the final project presentation of the course Space4Inspiraction, the sleep configuration. Project Deep Alien.
The course is now known and recog-nised within the space community. Thanks to this, and to the mediation of Saman-tha Cristoforetti who collaborated with the class activities before, the course S4I, School of Design, was invited by the Swiss Space Centre to participate with a team in IGLUNA. The ESA_Lab pilot project coordinat-ed by the Swiss institute aims to build a network of students and universities around the theme of space exploration. Teams of students from all over Europe, supervised and supported by their academic institutions, are called upon to develop a series of modular demonstrators inspired by the context of a lunar habitat. Creating a permanent habitat on the Moon is a challenging project. The first edition brought together 19 teams from 13 universities in 9 different European countries. There are three values that support this project. First, to improve cooperation across Europe by building an international platform and collabora-tion between different disciplinary perspectives; to create an educational environment that is also able to inspire a potential future generation of space experts; to analyse the future development of technologies being tested in order to discover possible new perspectives for space exploration.
Activities
The IGLUNA roadmap started in September 2018 and continued until June 2019, when the project culminated in the Field Campaign, an exhibition of two weeks, which took place at the Klein Matterhorn in Zermatt, Switzerland. Such an extreme environment was the site for the demonstrator to be built, in order to test the challenge of designing with high constraints.
Giv-IGLUNA
fig. 15 The IGLUNA team during the Mid-term Review at CERN. Image Credit: Swiss Space Center
fig. 16 My teammate, Irene Zaccara, and I during the installation of the exhibition in Zermatt. Image Credit: Swiss Space Center
fig. 13, 14 The project’s storyboards, showing configuration and usage. Image Credit: Ding Yangyi
en the nature of ESA_Lab, the unusual situation arises that the top level design, e.g. the architectur-al structure, were developed simultaneously to the subsystems. This required an even more pro-active and intensive exchange of information and track-ing of interfaces. In addition, the cavity imposed constraints: water (100.- CHF/m^3, only canis-ters), power and space are limited and the elevator to the cavity reduces the maximal size and weight of an indivisibly transportable piece (similar to the payload limitations of a launch vehicle). The habitat which was built inside the glacier cave in Zermatt was also accessible by tourists and me-dia. The event was split in two areas, one in the
Project
As mentioned, the objective of the course was a Concept Design, able to stretch the limits of existing technologies to revolutionary, and hopefully inspiring, visions. Our project aimed to respond to a series of discomforts currently recognised in the International Space Station, such as the continuous noise, the difficulty in movement and retention, and the chaotic look, which exposes a large part of hardware in the inhabited area. Our concept would concern the overall configuration of the module. Specifically, this is divided in modular panels which allow the access to two layers of complexity at different times: the individual payload, and the internal systems. This offers a clean surface which still considers the need for maintenance and mod-ifications. Then, a material is ideated based on existing technologies: a sound-absorbing fabric, also matching with VELCRO. Largely used on the ISS, VELCRO is an established technolo-gy which allows to solve many practical issues nowadays. A planned enlarged use of it on the Gateway would offer also advantages in terms of physical retention and support to movements,
dramatically changing the way astronauts move in microgravity. The sound-absorbing properties, based on the technology of the Italian company CAIMA (which was contacted in that occasion), would also reduce the overwhelming sound of working systems. For the sleep, a recofiguration of the whole module allowed maximum space dedicated in the same volume. Creativity was ignited by the parallel between ocean and mi-crogravity, and the inspiration coming from the octopus structure, features and behaviour.
PROJECT EXPERIENCE A DESIGNER FOR SPACE
glacier, with the actual demonstrator and a cinema lounge, available for the projection of videos, and the second one in the town, at “Vernissage”’ art gallery, with an exhibition collecting visuals and explanations from some of the projects, not involved in any experimentation.
Collaboration
Teams were either mono-disciplinary or cross-dis-ciplinary but they worked in the context of a multi-disciplinary project where different contri-butions required to be integrated. Expertises in-volved ranged from different kind of Engineering (Aerospace, Robotics, Electronic, Bio…), to Com-puter Science, Geology, Design, and Architecture. Success in such an multi-disciplinary, inter-uni-versity and inter-cultural project can only be achieved when each team takes ownership on the overall outcome and takes maximum responsi-bility for its module, the interfaces of its module and coordination with all teams. As such, the organisational structure was kept flat and direct communication between teams was preferred over a strict hierarchical organisation. With such purpose, regular meetings and status updates are arranged, as well as a networking communica-tion system based on the app Slack. Events were usually meant to gather together all the teams and facilitate the information exchange and coordi-nation of different projects. We participated in three events within the network, plus a series of digital contacts with coaches and external experts (provided by the IGLUNA network itself). The first meeting took place at ETH Zurich on 12-14 September 2018, and represented the Kick-off of the project. The second, in CERN, Geneva, aimed instead to assure a conversation among the teams in correspondence of the freezing all the de-signs before the start of the manufacturing phase. Furthermore, it was compelled to the delivery of the Critical Design Review’s report, which allowed to obtain useful feedbacks for the next stages.
Another useful tool was the Group Discussion, consisting in a virtual meeting on Webex involv-ing all the teams. It proved to be pivotal in order to have an overview about the projects, focused on specific topics, like the Exhibition Hall setting, or more generic on the whole development, without the need of all moving to a common place.
Approach
University students gain access to three main benefits. First of all, it is an important oppor-tunity within a professional perspective: the possibility to experience and report on a curric-ulum the participation in a project for space is intended to boost the future career in this field. Although, even outside the space exploration pathway, IGLUNA represents an important training in terms of project management, being compelled to the accommodation in a network of many different teams and contrasting aims. Moreover, the network itself is an extremely valuable asset, which gathers together not only students and professors from important foreign Universities but also experts of different kinds and institutions like the Swiss Space Center and ESA itself. In this context they need to behave professionally, learning how to work in a com-plex system, even exiting their comfort zone at need, but respecting each other skillset.
From a more technical point of view, the ap-proach required is generally a pragmatic mind-set, aiming first of all to successfully implement the technology developed in the context of the Glacier. On the other side, the projects exhibited in “Vernissage” were inherently more conceptual and focused on the actual lunar environment. Although, they had to keep a scientific approach characterising the overall network. Particularly, our project, being a link between the actually built habitat and its vision on the Moon, tried to picture a habitat and mission development that could appeal imagination but restraining
tivity to plausible technologies and operations, based on solid case-studies.
Project
Our work started with a broad research about existing case-studies of habitat in extreme con-ditions, and the related technologies. We also had the opportunity to pose some questions to experts about lavatubes and space architecture. This led us to the construction of a database of potential technologies and operations with could use. Then we applied a decision making process to make all the “bricks” fit within a scenario, starting from the logistics of bringing the components on the Moon, passing through the construction of the habitat, its protection in emergency situation, and finally the actual life inside it. In the first phase, our tradeoff verged on the need to reduce volume and weight, while enhancing habitability and protection. We opted for technologies such as inflatable hubs and ISRU based 3D printing. Secondly, we focused on the need for automation of the construction and how
The European Space Agency (ESA) is an intergovernmental or-ganisation of 22 mem-ber States dedicated to the common administration of activities and resources aimed to the exploration of space. The Agency was established in 1975 and is headquar-tered in Paris, France.
The European Astronaut Centre (EAC), in Co-logne, Germany, is a reference point for astro-nauts’ training, operations, and space medicine. It offers technological, organisational, medical, psychological and scientific support to the Eu-ropean activities and staff on the International Space Station (ISS) as well as preparing for the future expeditions beyond low Earth orbit. It is also home to the European Astronaut Corps. It was established in 1990 and focuses mainly on ISS operations related to communication and support for astronauts on board, astronauts training along the different phases (as it is an
Spaceship EAC
(SSEAC)
obligated step in the Basic ESA astronaut train-ing, as well as part of the Pre-assignment phase for both ESA and international astronauts, and of assigned crew training about Columbus mod-ule’s systems), and space medicine, including annual checks and selection. A particular focus in the training infrastructure is dedicated to Extra-Vehicular Activity (EVA) Training, occur-ring in respectively artificial and natural ana-logues, specifically the Neutral Buoyancy Facility (NBF), integrated in the EAC building, and the programs CAVES and PANGAEA.
In 2012, a further initiative started targeting the future of space exploration, with a focus on the Moon: SpaceShip EAC (SSEAC), a 6 months internship program gathering students from European universities in order to tackle experi-mental topics.
Activities
During my internship I underwent a variety of tasks, consisting of individual projects and sup-porting work for other interns’ projects.
I worked in order to design a 3D-printable Public Relations object reproducing the digital model of
fig. 19 Visualisation of FLEXHab created for the IAC paper “Lunar analogue facilities development at EAC: status of the LUNA and FLEXHab projects”.
Image Credit: Emilia Rosselli Del Turco fig. 18 Internal layout of the habitat. Image Credit: Irene Zaccara
to simplify at best the process to avoid unexpect-ed behaviours during the assembly. We designunexpect-ed the process step by step and added expedients to overcome potential risks, for example a track to guide the inflation. In order to be able to respond to potential emergencies (i.e. cave’s collapses), we designed a shell printable through ISRU tech-nologies offered by the company d-shape, which had already collaborated with ESA for the Moon Outpost. The use of an organic design assures structural performance within lightness and speed of installation. Moreover, the parametric design can be adjusted based on the currently unknown requirements. Finally, we studied the psychology related to isolation, confinement, and cohabitation in order to be able to suggest solu-tions able to ease the astronauts pressure about them. This involves a core role of vegetation in the habitat, a reconfigurable structure, which lets the astronauts be in control of the space division, and the design of spaces which exploit a wide space without constraining the individual to con-tinuous interactions with the rest of the crew.
PROJECT EXPERIENCE A DESIGNER FOR SPACE
the Foster+Partners Lunar Outpost mock-up. It required to replicate volumes and details extracted from the physical model (currently exhibited in the cafeteria, at EAC), and adapt them to meet 3D printing requirements. An additional pillar was added in order to be able to print the whole main structure in one piece without supports, thus facilitating production.
3D modelling, as well as graphic skills, came to be useful in a variety of on-going projects, both within Spaceship and other internship programs occurring in the Centre. Visualisation covered different roles, either as a support for explana-tions in scientific publicaexplana-tions, poster sessions, and presentations, and as a design-aid tool dur-ing development, to concretise ideas, test dimen-sions, and imagine joints/connections.
Another project I individually covered was the design of a proposal for a display case destined to a lunar rock sample from the Apollo missions. EAC filed a request to NASA for a longterm lend-out which would allow to exhibit the speci-men in the future LUNA Analog facility, enrich-ing the foreseen visitors area. The paperwork re-quired an original idea, assuring at the same time the secureness of the sample, and the educational scope of its showcasing. Further constraints were the respect of a budget, the feasibility in a short time, and possibility to include it temporarily in the current exhibition in the EAC foyer. With this display, I worked towards establishing a human-object connection.The concept foresees a light source behind the moon rock, which will create a shadow from the closed display. The projected shadow can be a means of interaction for the viewer as well as allow for a reproduction of the peculiar lunar light. Through a smart board and a projector, the shadow is projected with the educational information and the viewer can move through different topics.
Furthermore, I was asked to collaborate in the User Experience (UX) / User Interface (UI)
sign of an Augmented Reality (AR) application aimed at providing feedback to the astronaut during Extra-Vehicular Activities (EVA) involv-ing the use of a rover. The brief required to per-manently show some key information without obtruding their view on the surroundings, and while allowing the easy access to deeper informa-tion in case of need. The soluinforma-tion integrated an animated cursor, divided in quadrant to convey four groups of info and exploiting colours and symbols to speed up the understanding, and a gaze-navigable menu, placed either in corre-spondence of a visual track or on top of the user (so that it is sufficient to lift the eyes to see it). Finally, my main project was the advancement in the product development of the FLEXRack pro-ject, a mobile system of shelves, reflecting on the enhancement of the number and variety of activi-ties which can be carried out in a reduced volume (such as that of potential extraterrestrial habitats, constrained by exploitable weight and resources). It will better discussed in the Chapter 2.
Collaboration
The SSEAC team is hosted by a dedicated open office in EAC, called Agora. A large room equipped with a number of desks facing and flanking each other. A central common area, resembling indeed a greek amphitheatre, fosters meetings and discussions. The philosophy be-hind is indeed that of spontaneous and informal collaboration between the different skillsets concomitantly present in the program. During my internship I had the possibility to be part of and witness several examples.
First of all, the opportunity to exchange thoughts and advices with a mechanical engi-neer, Gregor Gojkošek, and a civil and space engineer, Aris Golemis, was certainly key in my work about FLEXRack as it enabled me to make predictions and evaluations about load carriage and dynamics deeply involved in the product.
They completed my skillset with dramatically different approaches from mine, although we could discuss with no friction.
Having diverse
priorities fostered
a bigger view on
the project and a
quicker problem
solving.
Collaboration occurred through informal dis-cussions in front of the prototype, sketches and schematics.
Other teamwork was for me especially in terms of support to other projects, with ideas, usability advices, and visualisations. Some examples are: the selection of intuition-supportive colours and icons in the interfaces for the smart habitat in FLEXHab and the UI for the Electronic Field Book (EFB) map, the creation of figures for a number of documentations involved in med-ical, engineering, and other fields, the model of an Electrophoresis device aimed to help the understanding before prototyping it, the idea generation for casting products to test an In Situ Resource Utilisation (ISRU) technology, and for a sliding system of a 3D printed tool.
Besides my direct experience, interdisciplinary collaboration is a frequent event in the program, for example between a nuclear engineer and a medic in order to optimise the code used to analyse medical data. The greatest opportunity, though, comes from being surrounded by ESA staff involved in a variety of manned-missions topics, and often incredibly open to chat and
share their expertise with interns. It allows to quickly get a broad, pragmatic and professional overview of any space-related issue, as well as to confront with important experts every project in development. This was pivotal for me to dip in the topic without getting lost and to have a realistic list of requirements and priorities while working.
Approach
The general approach in Spaceship aims to pragmatically tackle innovative and uncertain solutions, and to test technologies and ideas in a concrete manner, through rapid prototyping. Therefore, a high simplification ability is also needed in order to draft simulation models and quickly build complex products. Finally, being immersed in the focus-centre for astronauts, humans are inevitably an inescapable factor to put in considerations. In most of projects, the
interaction with users is a prominent topic. Fur-thermore, safety becomes an even more impor-tant requirement.
More generally, SSEAC necessarily foresees an autonomous work, in which, after an initial brief, the student has to manage themselves to develop the project over the six months and finally deliver what requested. The methods and directions applied though are left to their initia-tive, although a support can always be demand-ed (and receivdemand-ed). Therefore, proactivity and a problem-solving attitude is not only appreciated but strictly connected to the success of the in-ternship, and project. The environment tends to follow an academic mindset, in which the focus is to write publications, and to build innovation through incremental advancements. While there, a student learns to build professional relation-ships with the internal staff, and sometimes to handle interactions with external stakeholders.
A designer
Space
Chapter 1 argues the emergent potential for a role of Design in the Space Industry, specifically in the context of cross-disciplinary research. Also, a liter-ature review investigates the ways through which Space Design is developing and the characteristics of cross-collaboration.
Through the analysis of the author’s experiences and the direct conversation with people internal to this industry, this thesis seeks to understand the benefits and complications facing this integration. In particular, it aspires to answer the following research questions:
What is the perception of (Product) Design in the Space Industry?
What kind of tasks and contributions can be offered by a product designer in the context of the Space
Industry?
How shall the product designer evolve in order to better approach this field and its necessities?
In order to analyse the above-mentioned issues, a qualitative approach was applied.
Firstly, a single-case study is presented, coming from the author’s work on a space-related project and in the context of the cross-disciplinary team SSEAC. It was chosen as a method to bring a ma-terial example of application of a Design skillset to a Space-related product. Furthermore, it is at the core of answering the research questions, as it responds to the lack of concrete examples of inte-grated collaboration of a designer within the Space industry, as most of other recent cases involve collaborations as external partners. Moreover, case studies are considered ideal for research studies to focus on the process of understanding the under-lying dynamics of a phenomenon. Despite the
single and subjective point of view, it is thought to be a satisfying discussion ground to build further reflection on.
Secondly, a series of semi-structured interviews allowed to gain deeper understanding and knowl-edge through exploring personal accounts and people’s experiences (Petty et al., 2012a, 2012b) (Stenfors-Hayes et al., 2013), particularly provid-ing further perspectives other than the one of the author. Participants were selected among direct collaborators, supervisors, ESA staff who had the opportunity to observe the author in different occasions throughout her work. They provide the perspective “on the other side”, of the people called to open to collaboration with designers. Grounding on the review of Chapter 1, an anal-ysis of the overall author’s personal experience is carried out, aiming at extracting recurrent patterns in activities, collaboration forms, and approach-es undertaken during the different teamworks. The insights so derived provided a base for the construction of the questions’ guide. Semi-struc-tured interviews involve a series of open-ended questions based on the topic areas the researcher wants to cover (Mathers, Fox & Hunn, 2002). A guide is followed but there should be opportu-nities to discuss some topics in more detail, and to better understand the interviewee’s thoughts. Therefore, through the interviews, the guide undertook further evolution and adaptation to become more pertinent with the research purpose and the respondents’ general idea. The interviews were performed one-to-one in either English or Italian depending on the preference of the inter-viewee, they were audio recorded and transcribed in text through manual transcription in the case of Italian speakers, or digital transcription, manually corrected, in the case of English speaker. Finally, a conclusion about current status of the relationship between Design and Space Industry, and on its future potential, is drawn up based on the author’s and respondents’ considerations.
LESSON LEARNED A DESIGNER FOR SPACE
As international attention focuses on the Moon as the next strategic target for human exploration, there are increasing efforts across multiple agencies to prepare for future human spaceflight missions to the lunar orbit and surface. At EAC, day to day activities predominately focus on supporting ISS operations, via crew selection/training, medical support and payload instruction. With increasing attention now being given to post-ISS human spaceflight and potential lunar exploration missions, teams at EAC and the broader ESA are collaborating on projects that will leverage the capabilities and experience available at EAC to further these exploration objectives (Cowley at al., 2017). Pivotal in this sense are Analogues. Analogues missions consists of “multi-disciplinary activities that test multiple features of future spaceflight missions in an integrated fashion to gain a deeper understanding of system-level interactions and integrated operations” (Reagan, 2012). They take place in natural or artificial environments which somehow reproduce conditions and constraints related to spaceflight missions. In 2017, ESA has requested a GSP funded study aimed to identify the needs for Artificial Lunar Analogues, to analyse whether existing and planned ones in Europe and worldwide are sufficient to meet those needs, or whether there are gaps in analogue capacity, and to conceive new Artificial Lunar Analogues as a response to the identified gaps (Hoppenbrouwers et
CASE STUDY:
FLEXRACK
Premises
al., 2017). As an outcome of this study, it was recommended that EAC establishes an artificial lunar analogue facility to augment its operational capability for the future, specifically consisting of two assets: LUNA and FLEXHab. While LUNA is designed to replicate a lunar surface environment, FLEXHab is the habitation module where different scientific activities would be performed. This combination will provide the possibility to carry out integrated surface operations simulating a human presence on the Moon (Cowley et al., 2019). The habitat, designed by Thales Alenia Space Italy (TAS-I) based on EAC inputs in terms of requirements and overall functions (Nash, 2017), consists of an airlock, an engineering compartment and an operations compartment. Not involving any habitation or food production modules (which may be integrated in future developments), FLEXHab is expected to host single-day simulations, although the nearby :envihab facilities can be used in combination with FLEXHab and LUNA for multi-day mission scenarios.
Both projects saw important changes in their definition over time, based on the need to handle unexpected technical issues, agreements with stakeholders, and new-coming requirements. FLEXHab, specifically, was initially supposed to be purchased as an externally designed and manufactured standard habitat. Being it not required to fulfil the usual technical features necessary for space applications, a previous intern, Thomas Dijkinshoorn, suggested to design it based on naval technologies in order to reduce complexity and costs usually involved in space-addressing structures. In summer 2016 the decision was taken to explore the possibilities of a new analog concept, designed and built to meet the centre’s specific user requirements. Dijkinshoorn took the lead of the project in its initial definition
arriving to propose, with the architectural support of another intern, Orla Punch, a first concept of structure, which remained fairly stable over the time. As, at the current date, no lunar mission has been defined, FLEXHab’s internal architectural design is based on achieving maximum flexibility in order to prepare for any potential configurations that will be required (Foing at al., 2016). With such intent,
FLEXRack
concept was
also developed,
an evolvable
and flexible rack
system, moving
on rails along the
wall to alternate
access to a variety
of appliances.
In such way, it is possible to perform and test different scenarios by containing them all in the FLEXHab and reducing the occupied volume of those racks that are not simultaneously required.
fig. 22 Figure produced for the publication in the article “Lunar analogue facilities development at EAC: status of the LUNA project” (2019) for the International Astronautical Congress (IAC).
When I overtook the project, a whole year had passed since the last interventions on the project. LUNA’s construction had encountered some delays and FLEXHab’s final design was outsourced to TAS-I and still under development. The ideas around FLEXHab outcomes and actual usage were banking on a concept of complete flexibility, thus they had never got defined. The need was felt to draft some plausible usage scenarios to guide further design interventions as well as to support a collective vision about the project among stakeholders and EAC staff.
Analogs
I proceeded in two different directions. On one side, I have started researching on other existing and successful analogs in order to understand the overall organisation, the facilities included and activities that are carried out inside them. There are two macro-groups of analogs, specifically natural and artificial analogs. The first ones are provided by places on Earth which, for some reasons, replicate characteristics of a space mission, such as isolation, danger, extreme conditions, etc. The second ones are, instead, facilities built by humans in order to reproduce specific situations to focus the research on. All of them are fundamental to test behaviours, operations and technologies before the launch.
There are many
available but my
main references
were the following
ones:
Research and conversations
fig. 23 NEEMO 21 aquanauts, clockwise from top: Matthias Maurer (ESA), Marc O Griofa (Teloregen/VEGA/AirDocs), NASA astronaut Megan McArthur, NASA astronaut Reid Wiseman, Dawn Kernagis (Institute for Human & Machine Cognition), and Noel Du Toit (Naval Postgraduate School). Inside the Aquarius habitat are Florida International University Habitat Technicians Hank Stark (left) and Sean Moore (right). Image Credit: NASA/Karl Shreeves
NASA Extreme Environment Mission Opera-tions (NEEMO) is an undersea analog which was born on the idea of three main potentials:
• it provides an extreme environment where immediate return was not possible
• it offers the possibility to modulate within 0-g, lunar, martian and other destinations’ gravitational forces
• it integrates a full crewed mission scenario, offering a great environment to test technolo-gies and operational concepts
NASA, ???
It takes place in the Aquarius Reef Base, an ocean science and diving facility located 5.6 kilometres off Key Largo, Florida, in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Aquarius, the habitat facility, sits 19 metres under the sea level. At such depth, the so-called aquanauts quickly
Human Exploration Research Analog (HERA) Habitat is a housing unit located at the NASA Johnson Space Center. The main body is a cylin-der with vertical axis and connects with a simu-lated airlock and a hygiene module. The entire unit occupies 148.1 m3, distributed as follows: central body 56.0 m3, loft 69.9 m3 and hy-giene 14.1 m3. Currently HERA is an isolation, confinement and remote conditions simulator for exploratory mission scenarios, in which it is possible to carry out studies about behavioural health and performance assessments, communi-cation and autonomy, human factors evaluations, and medical capabilities assessments (NASA, 2019). Studies can last up to 45 days, involving 4 subjects participating in mission activities: • Up to 16 days of pre-confinement activities
(i.e. baseline data collection (BDC), training,
are exposed to an excessive quantity of nitrogen requiring for them to undergo a period of decom-pression while returning the surface. This diving technique is known as “saturation” diving (NASA, ???). This phenomenon makes their permanence under-water extremely dangerous unless they attentively follow safety precautions. Nevertheless, this is exactly what makes Aquarius an excellent analog. Long-duration missions, lasting up to three weeks, provide astronauts the opportunity to simulate living on a spacecraft and execute undersea extravehicular activities. During these activities they are able to test advanced navigation and communication equipment and future explo-ration vehicles. These tests cultivate an astronaut’s understanding of daily mission operations, and create realistic scenarios for crews in close quarters to make real-time decisions (NASA, ???).
informed consent);
• 45 days in-mission confinement activities (i.e. operational activities expected for an exploration mission along with research activ-ities) depending on campaign requirements. • Up to 7 days of post-confinement activities (i.e. post-mission data collection, debriefing). The crew mission schedule is modelled after the ISS crew schedule, and modified to reflect explo-ration mission activities and events related to the specific research (ROI, 2019). The contained fa-cilities include a Mission Control Centre (MCC) assuring interactions with the current HERA crew members, workstations for data collection, virtual reality simulation for simulated EVA tasks, medical workstations, exercise equipment, simulated stowage module, modifiable virtual window views and others (ibid.).
LESSON LEARNED A DESIGNER FOR SPACE
Cooperative Adventure for Valuing and Ex-ercising human behaviour and performance Skills (CAVES) is an extreme natural space ana-logue experience, in which an international crew of astronauts is taken to mission underground in order to develop skills and attitudes useful in real exploration conditions. The objective is to train the astronauts to fundamental components of space flight, such as working safely and collaborat-ing in a team. It takes place inside the “Sa Grutta” cave, in the Lanaitho Valley, within the Supra-monte cave system of the Gennargentu National Park, a Karst area in the middle of Sardinia. Such location provides a good isolation from populated areas although still in safe conditions to eventually get rescue. The environment of caves offers many similar stressors with that of space exploration: confinement, minimal privacy, isolation, as well
as the need to cope with limited resources, lack of hygiene and comfort, and environmental harness-es (reduced light, irregular surfacharness-es, disrupted cir-cadian rhythm…). Furthermore, it is important
fig. 25 Picture from a “cavewalk” featuring NASA astronaut Jeanette Epps hanging over 200 m of void and closely monitored by certified speleology instructor Marco Vattano during her descent. Image Credit: ESA–A. Romeo
PANGAEA, on the other hand, focuses more on the training of European astronauts about introductory and practical knowledge of Earth and planetary geology. It prepares them to become effective partners of planetary scientists and engineers in designing the next exploration missions. The course also aims to give astronauts a solid knowledge in the geology of the Solar System from leading European scientists (ESA, 2019). The course takes place in different loca-tions, in order to have experience of different geologic landscapes and skills:
• Earth and lunar geology at the Nördlinger Ries crater, Germany,
• Martian sedimentary geology and surface processes in Bletterbach canyon, Italy, • Geological field training and astrobiology in
Lanzarote, Spain.
to never disregard safety and strictly follow proto-cols and procedures, even when it complicates the task. Finally, operations’ structure is defined in the same manner.
fig. 26 ESA astronaut Matthias Maurer and ESA spacewalk instructor Hervé Stevenin collecting rock samples with new tool prototypes. Credits: ESA–A. Romeo
fig. 27 Matteo Massironi, geology professor of structural and planetary geology and ESA research fellow Samuel Payler interacting with the crew in On the other side, PANGAEA X focuses less on
the geology teaching in order to bring together space exploration, high-tech survey equipment and geology in an integrated test campaign. The new operational concepts and equipment pro-totypes, being tested in actual geologic research settings, take into account the limited movement allowed from wearing spacesuits (ESA, 2019).
