NASA targets 2040 for 3D-printed moon homes for astronauts, civilians

midian182

Posts: 9,745   +121
Staff member
Forward-looking: Sci-fi movies, shows, and books have long been filled with tales of humanity living in homes on the moon. It sounds like something most of us won't see, but NASA is planning for 3D-printed houses, occupied by both astronauts and civilians, to be in place by 2040.

In a report by the New York Times that interviewed seven NASA scientists, all said that the space agency's ambitious timeline of 2040 for lunar structures was achievable if it continued to hit its benchmarks.

"We're at a pivotal moment, and in some ways it feels like a dream sequence. In other ways, it feels like it was inevitable that we would get here," said Niki Werkheiser, NASA's director of technology maturation.

The plan involves sending a 3D printer to build the structures using lunar concrete from the rock chips, mineral fragments, and dust that sits on the top layer of the moon's surface.

NASA has partnered with ICON, an Austin, Texas-based construction company that uses a 3D printer to create homes, for the project. It has already created hundreds of structures using this method for the homeless in Austin, as well as hurricane-resistant houses in Mexico. The printer can build homes in as little as 48 hours.

ICON has been working with NASA since 2020, and it received $57 million in funding to build space-based construction systems in 2022.

3D-printing homes on the moon, and later on Mars, is obviously much more challenging than on Earth. The vacuum conditions and radiation levels are just two issues, but Fortune writes that ICON's system will be tested to see how it handles these in NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center next February. The structures will also need to protect against micrometeorites and extreme temperature.

NASA is also working to perfect a simulation of lunar concrete for testing on Earth, which can withstand temperatures of up to 3,400 degrees Fahrenheit.

"To change the space exploration paradigm from 'there and back again' to 'there to stay,' we're going to need robust, resilient, and broadly capable systems that can use the local resources of the moon and other planetary bodies," said ICON co-founder and CEO Jason Ballard.

For general household items such as doors, tiles, and furniture, NASA is working with universities and private companies.

NASA will also need to construct landing pads on the lunar surface for rockets carrying the 3D printer. These pads will help mitigate the dust that's kicked up upon landing.

"We've got all the right people together at the right time with a common goal, which is why I think we'll get there," Werkheiser said.

"Everyone is ready to take this step together, so if we get our core capabilities developed, there's no reason it's not possible," she added.

NASA added that it was too early to consider how much the lunar homes for civilians would cost or their ownership structure. The 1967 Outer Space Treaty declares that no one can own the moon.

The first step is the Artemis 2 mission, which will send astronauts into the moon's orbit next year. Humans will return to the lunar surface in 2025 or 2026 during the Artemis 3 mission. It will land on the lunar South Pole with the help of SpaceX's Starship.

Permalink to story.

 
It would be very difficult to colonize the moon, but a lot less difficult to colonize than Mars. At least it wouldn't be a suicide mission, it would be possible to return to Earth. However, the effects of such low gravity and the loss of the radiation shield from our atmosphere would still have profound effects on the human body after some time there. Personally, I think I'll stay here on Earth.
 
You shouldn't spend too much time there, because the moon has no magnetic field. The radiation from the Sun and the cosmic rays would cause cancers to inhabitants in just a few weeks.
And at anytime a micro meteorite could hit the homes.
It's probably the same for Mars that has an atmosphere density of 1% that of Earth.
 
I am still puzzled about the need to colonize the moon (well, aside from bragging rights and the need for some venture capitalists to get minerals...at a huge cost). Or are we running out of room to live here and nobody bothered to tell us?

If NASA / Russia / China, etc are hell bent on colonizing such environments, we have lots of similar ones at a fraction of the cost: The Gobi desert, the Sahara deserts (Africa / Saudi Arabia / Atacama, etc). Heck, even the Arctics! T
hey are as empty as the moon but unlike the moon, they are quite livable.

At least the air is breathable and they can leave for their cooler / warmer homes in a few hours!
 
Last edited:
What happened to going underground or using caves for habitats? Helps take care of both the radiation and micrometeorite issues.

The fact is there are lava tubes in many locations on the moon that would perfect for this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_lava_tube

But that's not to say that 3D printed structures wouldn't still play a role. Print the surface structures such as storage or the entrances to the tubes, and then use 3D printing (either full structures and/or parts) in the tubes to make them more habitable.
 
The fact is there are lava tubes in many locations on the moon that would perfect for this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_lava_tube

But that's not to say that 3D printed structures wouldn't still play a role. Print the surface structures such as storage or the entrances to the tubes, and then use 3D printing (either full structures and/or parts) in the tubes to make them more habitable.
Makes little sense. We should be endeavouring to make the planet more habitable.
 
This money would be better spent on stopping climate change. Seems completely insane and futile. I'm starting to be a NASA hater.

You can't change the climate unless you launch a few nukes. Nothing NASA does will make one bit of difference. The climate will change and we will change with it.
 
"but NASA is planning for 3D-printed houses, occupied by both astronauts and civilians"
so, astronauts are military by default
were are the civilians fit there?
laundry care?
 
I am still puzzled about the need to colonize the moon (well, aside from bragging rights and the need for some venture capitalists to get minerals...at a huge cost). Or are we running out of room to live here and nobody bothered to tell us?

Pretty much Earth is not infinite. We will run out of resources in a matter of hundreds of years at this rate.

If you think of it - what's human mankind real or true purpose?

Colonize, expand, explore and go beyond.

The concept of a 3D printer that operates on whatever stuff is on the moon - it will be brilliant.
 
Pretty much Earth is not infinite. We will run out of resources in a matter of hundreds of years at this rate.

If you think of it - what's human mankind real or true purpose?

Colonize, expand, explore and go beyond.

The concept of a 3D printer that operates on whatever stuff is on the moon - it will be brilliant.
What "resources" do you think the moon has to offer that could provide anything we have on Earth?

Plants? No
Animals? No
Oxygen? No
Water? No
Livable outdoor temps? No
Adequate gravity? No
A natural shield from space radiation? No

The Human race will drive itself to extinction long before the Earth fully runs out of resources.
 
Makes little sense. We should be endeavouring to make the planet more habitable.
Okay I hear you, but there's a few things I don't think you've considered.

First off, the planet will survive whatever we throw at it. So will the environment, and the animal kingdom. There have been major extinction events in the past and all three have bounced back. What most likely won't survive is us, the human race. We could debate back and forth on if it's a good thing or a bad thing, but considering we're most likely the source of the problem/s, it will solve it...

Secondly, have you ever wondered why it's almost always either youth still in school and/or living at home or retired people no longer in the labour force that are the loudest about things that need to change? Because they can afford to take a stand. Have you also wondered why people in an industry that might be the source of the problem drag their heels on being part of the solution? Because it means they have to make the big sacrifice.

Go ask someone working in the coal mines, oil patch, or harvesting lumber, raising cattle in the Amazon, making plastic items, etc, etc, to please stop because they're destroying the environment. Tell them you have a nice IT job for them. I bet 50-75% of them will tell you to take a hike. The only way we could even hope to make the drastic changes that we need to make is if we decouple survival from labour. Like having a global UBI. Then no one would be forced to only think about short term survival.

Think it will ever happen? Of course not. After a point wealth is no longer a vehicle for survival, it instead is a source of power and influence. The wealthy would never give up the power their wealth gives them over the wage slaves. Capitalism thrives on placing the work force in a take it or leave it position. In fact most economists say it needs around a 5% unemployment rate to work correctly. Due to that there's always going to be someone willing to look the other way, or do something shady because it ensures their ability to survive, even thrive.

Ultimately the money spent on any government programs isn't the problem. In fact many of the technologies they produce trickle down into our day to day lives. Even end up being part of the solution to current pressing problems. Instead it's the very system we all live under. It de-incentivizes making the right choice in favour of making the expedient one. It forces us to be selfish or suffer if we aren't. IMHO until that changes we might as well be pissing in the wind for all the good it'll do us.
 
It would be much better to live there 10 feet or more underground. That would shield the people from the micro meteorites and from a good percentage of the radiations.
Helium 3 prospecting could be the key to achieve nuclear fusion in a near future. The action of solar wind has released high-energy particles, including helium‑3, which has accumulated on the Moon in the absence of an atmosphere.
 
Back