At the Future of Space Exploration panel at this years Canadian Lunar Workshop, a variety of presenters both from the Canadian Space Agency (CSA) and companies came together to present potential ways that Canada could contribute to the infrastructure of a future lunar colony. Everything from new rovers, lunar greenhouses and nuclear power was discussed.
Lunar Utilization
The first presentation was from the CSA’s Matt Bamsey, Senior Manager of Advanced Concepts and Future Missions, on their lunar plans going forward.
After mentioning some of the things that the CSA is doing in space right now, like involvement with the Webb telescope and the ISS, Bamsey said that the “real jumping off point” for lunar exploration was the 2019 space strategy. This wasn’t just due to the announcement of Canadarm3 and Canada’s involvement in the Lunar Gateway; it was also due to the announced funding for LEAP tie-ins like deep-space healthcare and food production, all of it leading to Canada’s role in Artemis II and future involvement with Lunar Gateway. He discussed their strategy, and how it focuses on remaining a “leading spacefaring nation” while harnessing space to solve terrestrial challenges and aid in commercialization and scientific research. He pointed to the Budget 2023 announcements (like the $1.2b for lunar rover development and the $1.1b for the ISS) as positive news as well.
Bamsey discussed the Lunar Surface Exploration Initiative, which “started under LEAP,” where the CSA put funds aside for “the next major contributions Canada could make.” It’s focused on infrastructure contributions between 2030 and 2045. They initiated a multi-year mission contribution study, led by Euroconsult, which would select potential contribution areas. After a process of winnowing, the leading candidates were lunar rovers, lunar agriculture, in-situ resource utilization (ISRU), remote sensing, and technology that would be “setting the groundwork for comms and power.”
He said that while these were government focuses, that they’re equally intent on government-enabled opportunities as well, where the Government of Canada helps with the commercialization of space technology, including both spin-off technologies and ISRU. He said they’re also in the ideation stage of related prize challenges.
After the CSA presentation was finished, the floor was given over to some of their commercial partners, focused on everything from food, to rovers, communications, and even nuclear power on the Moon.
Nuclear Power Systems
Two organizations were focused on the nuclear power question: Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) and MDA. CNL’s Justin Spencer said that there was a real opportunity for a “Canadarm-scale effort to provide a small reactor to a lunar or Mars colony.” He explained that this could leverage Canada’s existing work on developing small modular reactors for remote communities. They’re already in the process of winnowing down potential designs for a lunar reactor, to find one that’s as small as possible, has operation as simple as possible, and has a lot of redundancy. They’re expecting to have completed the target in March of 2024.
MDA, meanwhile, had a more specific design in mind, which presenter Devan Wagner said they call the “Moon Operational Outpost for Sustainable Energy,” or MOOSE.
They, like CNL, want a made-in-Canada solution for lunar fission power; and like CNL, they hope to leverage terrestrial research for lunar power and vice-versa. Wagner explained that while solar panels are the common source of power in space right now, as you go out to Mars—or, presumably, as you start working in the Lunar night—solar power becomes less and less effective. While solar will always be a part of space energy solutions, a reactor like MOOSE can also play a vital role.
Wagner also explained how the approach differs for space-based nuclear power. Terrestrial reactors are generally built to provide megawatts or gigawatts of power, and to last for decades and decades; whereas space reactors will likely only provide kilowatts of power and “need only last for ten to twenty years.” Maintenance is unlikely, so they need to be reliable, but because space is at a premium they need to rely on “very few, very high-reliability systems like control drums as opposed to the control rods you’d see in terrestrial reactors;” and because it’s space, they’re likely to use heat engines or thermoelectric generators instead of turbines. Wagner showed three different designs for MOOSE: a single medium-sized reactor, an array of three smaller reactors, and a larger and more permanent design. Development is ongoing.
Lunar Rover Presentations
MDA and Canadensys gave two presentations on lunar rover designs. As discussed in previous SpaceQ coverage, both companies received CSA contracts to develop lunar rover designs, and so both companies were presenting on their work.
Peter Visscher, director of Canadensys West, spoke on “scalable mobility architecture for rover technology.” His presentation was focused on “what the different sizes of rovers and different classes of rovers could contribute to a human presence on the Moon,” with a specific focus on issues like modularity and repairability.
The presentation mostly focused on these different classes of rovers. Micro- and small-sized rovers are similar in design, differing in size but similar in their relatively short lifespan and limited capabilities. Medium-sized rovers (around 2m by 2m) had much greater capability, traction and lifespan (of about 5 years.) Visscher said that “there’s lots of activity in this class” owing to the greater capability of the rovers. As to larger rovers (large and very large), they come in two types: unpressurized and pressurized, with an intended lifespan of 10 years. They’re intended to carry astronauts, so they’re built to be faster and more reliable than the smaller rovers. The very large ones, he said, may also go beyond battery power to other solutions like radioisotope-generated power. These larger ones are still mostly in the prototyping stage, and are a focus of Canadensys’ efforts.
MDA Mission Architect Faizan Rehmautullah talked about their lunar rover program. He explained that they intended to create a solution that is “driven by the commercial needs of Canadian companies,” as well as “affordable, highly visible, and versatile.” He mentioned the different rover classes they were looking at, much as Visscher did, and said that “the important consideration for us…was to look at the technological capabilities in Canada, the strategic environment, and predicted mobility demands on the lunar surface.
Rehmautullah said that “we see that the greatest potential is in medium/large class, with ‘Ultra’ being closely behind, [and] we see strong demand in the large-class rover.” He said that they would meet “the timeline and the budget requirements” and that the rover would “create a lot of HTP jobs and will be a high-profile contribution.”
Communications
There were also two presentations on communications systems: one from Dr. Roman Kruzelecky, Senior Scientist at MBP Communications, and another from Warren Soh at Honeywell.
Kruzelecky presented on a potential “hybrid optical/RF lunar communications network.” He noted that existing RF-based communications would be limited on the lunar surface, and said that his research suggests the use of a laser-based communications network could be used to supplement it. He envisions a pair of fixed ground stations with optical links to serve as the main links between the Moon and Earth, supplemented by a local WiFi and optical network between the lunar installations, the rovers, and a constellation of relay microsatellites. He believes this would not only dramatically improve data transfer speeds on the Moon, but will “engage a large number of Canadian companies and stakeholders.
Soh, meanwhile, described a “Canadian Avionics and Lunar Communications (CALC) architecture” and presented it as a potential solution. While the presentation couldn’t go into detail for the most part, he broke it down into four parts: lunar orbit communication, lunar surface communications, lunar position, navigation and timing (PNT), and a Lunar Internet of Things. Like Kruzelecky’s network, this would rely on an extensive lunar satellite network that mixes together optical and RF links, including optical links to both geosynchronous Earth satellites and terrestrial ground stations.
Mining and Food
Another presentation was more speculative; from Daniel Sax of the Canadian Space Mining Corporation (CSMC) about space mining. While not yet as developed as the power and rover presentations, it reflects the strong influence on ISRU on the modern lunar effort.
Sax pointed out that, in Canada, “we have the most mining knowledge in the world, the strongest mining industry on the planet, [and] we can build off our existing capabilities” in everything from aerospace to building remote infrastructure. Canada also has strong capital markets for mining, and Sax believes that one major way for Canada to ensure its strength in the mining sector going forward is to take a lead role in lunar ISRU.
He talked about CSMC’s study for the CSA on how Canada could develop ISRU capability through four key focuses: orbital prospecting, surface prospecting, mining construction, and processing. He also mentioned CSMC’s recent STDP award from the CSA to study lunar fission power, though didn’t have time to get into details regarding their approach.
The final presentation was from Canadensys’ Perry Edmondson, and was focused on a study they’re doing on lunar food production. He said that a certain level of food autonomy was going to be necessary for lunar settlements, and so they were working on a lunar greenhouse experimental plant production lab to be placed in the south polar region.
Edmondson showed a timeline of the various tech demos and prototypes that they’d worked on regarding the food question. He said that at the moment, they’re considering two different designs. One of the designs is smaller, and purely experimental; it would not feed the crew but simply supplement their diets when completed, but could be completed more quickly. Another, larger design could cover 10-20% of the nutritional needs of the lunar crew, but would likely not be deployable until the late 2030s.
He also pointed out that despite the smaller size, the mass of the two greenhouses would be similar, as the larger one is designed to be part of a larger lunar habitat, while the smaller one would be built to be comparatively autonomous. Managing heat, radiation, and other potential hazards in the autonomous greenhouse would have a strong impact on its mass.