Next Article in Journal
Dynamic Strategy for Effective Current Reduction in Brushless DC Synchronous Motors Fault Tolerant Operation
Previous Article in Journal
Single-Phase Five-Level Multilevel Inverter Based on a Transistors Six-Pack Module
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Energies
Volume 15
Issue 24
10.3390/en15249322
energies-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

An Overview for Modern Energy-Efficient Solutions for Lunar and Martian Habitats Made Based on Geopolymers Composites and 3D Printing Technology

by
Kinga Korniejenko
*,
Kinga Pławecka
and
Barbara Kozub
Faculty of Material Engineering and Physics, Cracow University of Technology, Jana Pawła II 37, 31-864 Cracow, Poland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Energies 2022, 15(24), 9322; https://doi.org/10.3390/en15249322
Submission received: 21 September 2022 / Revised: 23 November 2022 / Accepted: 7 December 2022 / Published: 9 December 2022
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Space missions will require the capability to build structures on site using local resources. Before 2040, NASA and the European Space Agency want to ensure the possibility of a permanent human residence in shelters on the Moon or Mars. The article analyzed the state of the art in this area based on the literature research. It shows innovative and energy efficient solutions for manufacturing the lunar and Martian shelters based on geopolymer composites. Firstly, the possible materials solutions, with particular attention to the geopolymer composites, are discussed. Next, the previous research is presented, including work based on different kinds of simulants of lunar and Martian regolith. Then, a different approach for manufacturing technologies is presented and the advantages of 3D printing technology are clarified. Eventually, the challenges for further projects are discussed, including energy and cost efficiency problems.

1. Introduction

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the European Space Agency (ESA) announced that they wanted to ensure the possibility of permanent human residence in so-called habitats on the Moon or Mars before 2040 [1,2]. The first manned mission after Apollo 17, Artemis III, is scheduled to take place by 2024 to help implement sustainable lunar exploration [3]. Human in-space missions (the Moon, Mars, etc.) will require the capability to build structures on site using the local (planet) resources as a potentially more energy-efficient and economically viable alternative to transporting all materials needed for the construction of an outpost from Earth (The Space Launch System, NASA’s new heavy-lift vehicle, delivering more than 25 tons of cargo to the moon is estimated to cost more than USD 2 billion to launch [4]). Nowadays, one of the most promising materials for that purpose are geopolymer composites [5].
The geopolymer cement/geopolymer concrete seems to be a reasonable solution for in-space constructions, especially lunar and Martian habitats, because of its advantages, such as [6,7] attractive mechanical properties (compressive strength: up to 90 MPa, flexural strength: 10–15 MPa at 28 days); high early strength formulation (compressive strength: 20 MPa, flexural strength: 10 MPa after 24 h); fire- and heat-resistant possibilities to applications in different conditions because of their chemical resistance to atmospheric conditions and a variety of acids and salts; simplicity of the application; low shrinkage (<0.05%); and good adherence to such materials as concrete, steel, glass, ceramics, the effectiveness of the manufacturing process, and environmental benefits (low CO2 emission and energy efficiency during the production process).
Additionally, the advantage is the possibility of using local materials instead of transportation; exemplary lunar regolith is made up of large parts of silicon and aluminum oxides, as shown in Table 1 (geopolymer cement consisting of up to 98% by weight of in situ regolith could be produced on the lunar surface [8,9]). A similar situation is in the case of Martial regolith (Table 2); however, the number of data, in this case, are significantly lower [10,11].
The other critical point for in-space application is proper technology. In this case, the most promising solutions seem to be 3D printing technologies [5,13]. In this type of application, this kind of technology has a lot of advantages, such as energy efficiency, possibility of automation, design freedom, and reduced manufacturing time [14,15,16,17]. It seems to be the best option for lunar and Martian habitats production [18,19].
The main aim of this article is to show innovative and energy-efficient solutions for manufacturing lunar and Martian shelters based on geopolymer composites. The article discusses possible materials for in-space applications with particular attention to the geopolymers materials as an energy-efficient solution. Next, based on the literature, the previous research is presented, including work based on different kind of simulants. The different approach for manufacturing technologies is presented and the advantages of 3D printing technology are clarified. Eventually, the challenges for further projects are discussed, including the energy and cost-efficiency problems.

2. Methodology

The main research method used in the work is an analysis of literature sources. The starting point for the search was the Scopus literature database, where the keywords connected with the research topic were defined. The main keyword ‘geopolymer’ was used together with the following keywords: ‘Martian’, ‘Mars’, ‘Lunar’, ‘Luna’, and ‘Moon’. The results given by combination geopolymer with ‘Luna’ and ‘Moon’ were the same. The search with words ‘Martian’ or ‘Lunar’ gave limited results, compared to keywords ‘Mars’ or ‘Luna’. Based on the above, the two searched phrases were used: ‘(TITLE-ABS-KEY (geopolymer)) AND (luna)’, which allowed us to obtain 385 results, and ‘(TITLE-ABS-KEY (geopolymer)) AND (mars)’, which allowed us to obtain 42 results. The results include mainly scientific articles, conference papers, and chapters in monographs (Figure 1). The number of publications shows the development potential of the thematic scope, especially during the last 5 years (Figure 1a,b). It shows the great potential of this topic for future research. The analysis of documents by type of publication showed that most of these items are mainly original research. There is a small amount of overview and summary publications (Figure 1c,d).
Not all articles indicated by the Scopus database were useful for the purpose of the work. Some of them presented only overall information about the analyzed topic or gave only outer space shelter applications as an example of potential geopolymer usage based on other articles. However, they constituted the basis for further analysis and searching for information about the activities carried out in this area. As an auxiliary for the analysis, the Google Scholar database was also used.

3. Materials Possible to Usage for Lunar and Martian Shelters

Building infrastructure on the Moon or Mars is an engineering challenge, but it is a necessary step to develop further space projects. Human in-space missions (the Moon, Mars, etc.) will require the capability to build structures on site using local (planet) resources (so-called INRU) as a potentially more economically viable alternative to transporting all materials needed for the construction of an outpost from Earth [20]. The cost of transportation of 1 kg of material to the Moon is more than EUR 20,000 [21,22]. Transportation to other planets is even more expensive, and when scaling to account for the infrastructure needed to sustain a lunar or Martian presence the cost becomes ‘astronomical’, not to mention the space required when packing the shuttle [8,23].
The main challenge in building on the Moon or Mars is the different conditions than in the case of Earth. There are limitations with the use of traditional terrestrial methods used for construction [8,24]. The basic differences are: the lack of atmosphere that results in pressures near vacuum, low gravity (the Moon at about 1.6 m/s2 and Mars at 3.721 m/s2, respectively), high level of galactic cosmic radiation (GCR) and infrequent but very intense solar particle events (SPEs), limitation to access to liquid water, extreme thermal cycling (the Moon from −173 °C to +117 °C and Mars from −140 °C to +21 °C), higher seismic activity for both planets than for Earth, and micrometeoroids [7,8,24,25]. The potential building materials should match these difficult conditions.
In order to explore extraterrestrial bodies, it will be necessary to develop a cement-like binder. However, the phenomenon of cement solidification in a microgravity (μg) environment is not yet well understood. Several years ago, as part of the Microgravity Investigation of Cement Solidification (MICS) project on the International Space Station (ISS), scientists conducted research on cement solidification in microgravity. During this research, for the first time in space, scientists mixed tricalcium silicate (C3S) with water, and then made comparisons between cement samples processed on the ground and in microgravity. In their work, the researchers hypothesized that the minimization of transport phenomena (i.e., buoyancy, sedimentation, and thermosolutal convection) caused by gravity would ensure diffusion-controlled crystal growth, resulting in unique microstructures. As a result of their research, the scientists showed that the main differences in μg of hydrated C3S paste included reduced aspect ratio of portlandite crystals and increased porosity [26].
Currently, several attempts have been made to construct a technical infrastructure for this kind of facility, especially in the context of lunar shelters [20,25,27]. These include traditional ordinary Portland cement (OPC)-based concrete with lunar regolith as aggregate, sulfur cement, solar-sintered regolith (basalt), Sorel cement (magnesium chloride-based binder), phosphoric acid binder types of cement, epoxy/polymer-based cement and alkali-activated regolith or ‘geopolymer’ type binders—Table 3.
Concrete-like materials have the highest potential for use in extra-terrestrial construction due to their inherent mechanical properties, resilience, and durability. Therefore, construction materials that use little of those resources, such as geopolymers, while providing sufficient protection against the harsh lunar environment are of interest. Geopolymer cement should provide better radiation protection levels and stability and require significantly less resources in the production process than traditional concrete and other materials presented above [8,34,35]. Moreover, previous works showed that a shielding thickness of 50 cm (99 g/cm2) with geopolymer cement should be sufficient for a prolonged crewed lunar mission, with the absorbed dose for a 12-month stay being similar to the annual whole-body radiation worker limit—5 cSv, 5 rem [36,37]. The same amount of material is sufficient according to the strength and durability requirements for the shielding properties of the geopolymer cement. In general, the geopolymer binder has the following advantages over other concreate-like materials [8,34,35,38]:
  • Availability of proper raw material: The regolith is rich in aluminosilicate minerals but poor in calcium; its chemical and mineral characteristics match better with geopolymerization technology than traditional OPC-based concrete. Additionally, while geopolymers may require some solution to dissolve and activate the regolith, the water demand is much lower compared to OPC [34], and water must be harvested from the polar ice caps for other human sustainability purposes.
  • Geopolymers can be prepared under ambient conditions, which reduces energy consumption during the construction process. Curing at elevated temperatures is relevant to daytime lunar surface temperatures.
  • For the geopolymer system where the bulk of the binder is the regolith itself, it allows for the limited usage of terrestrial materials. The use of lunar regolith and alkali metals as components of geopolymer composites can thereby facilitate lunar construction without the need to bring materials in from the Earth at an extreme cost [35,39]. Using in situ resource utilization (ISRU) technology allows one to limit the cost of construction [40].
  • The presence of alkali metals on the moon might be used as a source of the alkaline solution for geopolymerization [35]. Geopolymerization based on different solutions is a relatively well-known technology.
  • The phosphate-based geopolymers can be developed as a material applicable to Martian inhabitants. Raw materials, such as phosphoric acid and water, are available in the Martian soil, which means it can be even more effective than in the case of lunar settlers where an activator must be delivered from Earth [34].
It is also worth noticing that the geopolymerization process should be planned by two different methods using alkali and phosphatic acids. The alkali substances are available on the Moon [35], whereas phosphoric acid and water are available on Mars [34,39].

4. Raw Materials Used for Manufacturing Lunar and Martian Habitats

It is rather obvious that it is impossible to have access to the proper amount of materials to prepare samples and building elements from the testing lunar and Martian constructions. Because of that, the preparation of the lunar and Martian regolith simulant is an important part of each piece of research [1]. The preparation of the simulant is not a trivial task, due not only to the possible changes in the material in different areas of the moon or Mars and limited access to this data but also because a large number of features have to be considered in this characteristic [10,22]. The most important are: chemical and mineralogical composition (Table 4), physical properties, mechanical properties, and morphology. However, there is a possibility to find simulants ready for lunar and Martian soil, but they do not always fulfill all requirements and have a very high price. Because of that, many authors decided to design their own compositions [1].
To achieve the proper composition, authors present different approaches. The most popular is using the ready base, such as fly ash or volcanic tuff or other raw materials, and supplementing it with proper metal oxides [10,39,44]. Currently, the main problem with the chemical composition of regolith simulants is iron. For example, in JSC-1A the total iron content is reported as being made up of 76% Fe2O3 (i.e., 9.8% of the total JSC-1A mass); however, in practice, on the extraterrestrial system post this element is expected to be in the form of FeO (the iron on the moon surface is considered to be at the lower oxidation state, since oxidation takes place in the presence of moisture and oxygen, both being scarce on the moon) [20,45].
It is worth noting that some previous investigations show that a small amount of additives can significantly improve material properties, for example, supplementing the simulant with aluminum sources could improve compressive strength by 100.8% and reduce alkali content, resulting in significantly reducing the mass of materials transported from the earth for the construction of lunar infrastructure and saving space transportation costs [7,10].
A second important element is the mineralogical composition. The major components of lunar regolith are glasses; fragments of rocks and minerals, mainly consisting of silicates, such as olivine, pyroxene, and plagioclase; and non-silicates, such as ilmenite [42,46,47]. This composition is also quite similar to many terrestrial volcanic ashes [48,49]. The expected minerals in the planned composition are plagioclase and pyroxene and a small amount of ilmenite and olivine. The other research suggests that the following minerals could also appear in regolith simulants: anorthite, albite, enstatite, feldspar potassian, alkali basalt, orthopyroxene, orthoclase, wollastonite, estatite, ferrosilite magnesian, fayalite, titanomagnetite, and forsterite [36,48,49]. In the case of the Martian regolith, the olivine and pyroxene and secondary alteration minerals are mainly expected [43]. Moreover, a certain amount of plagioclase and minor Ti magnetite, Carich pyroxene, olivine, glassy, and ferric oxide particles can be present [43].
The physical composition of materials will include properties, such as density, particle size, and particle size distribution. This distribution is not always relevant in commercially available simulants to previous research of lunar and Martian soils. The analysis of samples that came from the moon shows that the particle size distribution generally follows the log–normal curve with mean values in the range of 45–100 µm [50]. The ‘Dust’ fraction of lunar regolith includes particles smaller than 10 µm, of which approximately 90% (by weight) are particles smaller than 1 µm, although some particles can even be as small as 10 nm [50,51]. Particles with dimensions larger than 0.25 mm (250 µm) constitute only 10% (by weight) of a regolith. Meanwhile, lunar regolith simulant—JSC-1A—is a basaltic powder, JSC-1A has particles <1 mm and ranges in sizes from approximately 10 to 50 µm [52].
The next important issue is the particle’s morphology. The lunar and Martian regolith contains morphological forms that do not exist on Earth; these are spherical lunar chondrules (with dimensions from a few microns to 0.5 mm) formed as a result of meteorite falls and the sudden melting of lunar rocks. The particles are predominantly angular with smooth facets [1,51]. The fragmentation of the lunar regolith is the result of mechanical impacts but also thermal stress caused by high daily temperature differences and erosion caused, among others, by ionizing radiation of the solar wind and galactic cosmic radiation [1,53]. Meanwhile, the commercially available regolith simulants have sharp shapes because they are received by crushing and milling [1]. The granulometric composition of most simulants differs from that of the lunar regolith. They mainly correspond to coarser fractions, since obtaining very fine particles is associated with difficult and expensive technology [1].
The design of the regolith and other features should be taken into consideration. One of them is adhesion. There is proof that lunar regolith is characterized by very strong adhesion to various surfaces. This is a negative property in the context of functioning on the surface of the Moon and can cause (together with combination with the high abrasiveness) damages to machinery mechanisms and research equipment, including optics. However, in the context of adhesion of the binder to aggregate in cementitious materials, this feature seems to be very important and desirable [1]. Another important element to design a regolith’s simulant is a method of production that could have a significant influence on the material’s properties [54,55,56].
Another challenge is to find more effective technologies for production in extraterrestrial conditions. Some investigations show the possibility of obtaining oxygen by reduction techniques from the regolith [57]. The by-product of this process could be used as a raw material for shelters; however, it has been not taken into account in the current investigation, nor has composition for the regolith’s simulants.

5. Properties of the Materials Manufactured in Different Methods

The other challenging area in designing lunar and Martian habitats is technology. The most promising solution seems to be the usage of additive manufacturing techniques, due to their advantages, such as saving resources and requiring minimal human involvement, among others [14,15,16]. However, the investigation shows the possibility of using different techniques for the production and construction from lunar and Martian regoliths (Table 5).
NASA experiments confirm that it is possible to use additive manufacturing technology in low gravity, but the tests were performed using plastic materials [61]. Other tests have been performed for cementitious materials (concretes) by using two methods of additive manufacturing: extrusion deposition and powder bed. The advantage of the first method is the lack of demand on formwork or shuttering. On the Moon and Mars, this technology was investigated by using the technique of contour crafting. This test employing a lunar rover (ATHLETE). This vehicle was equipped with a special robot for concrete extrusion using a nozzle and was designed for the fabrication of infrastructural elements, including blast walls, landing pads, etc. [62]. The second method was developed by ESA. This technology, based on a large-scale 3D printer, is called D-shape [61]. The layer-by-layer printing process with a ‘chlorate-based, low viscosity, high superficial tension liquid with extraordinary reticulate properties if added to metallic oxides used as a catalyzer’ was a background technique for this technology. This liquid was used as an ‘ink’ to bind lunar dust and following that to create solid objects [61,62]. Both described technologies have been positively validated. Additionally, some other trials for 3D printing technologies have been performed, including planetary regolith-based materials, such as sorel-type cement (MgO-based), polymers/trash composites, sulfur cement, and Portland cement. All of them confirm the efficiency of this technology in extraterrestrial applications. Despite the existing research, the additive technologies still require improvements, including to their efficiency [5,63,64].
In the literature, there were some trials for the improvement of additive technologies, e.g., by using biomimetic inspiration [5], applying some reinforcement [24,25], or development of other kinds of additives. One of the most interesting is the development of new additives for processes, such as urea as a superplasticizer. The use of urea as a viscosity modifier for lunar geopolymer mixtures was also evaluated and showed promising results [52]. The results show that urea, which is readily available anywhere there are humans, could break hydrogen bonds and, therefore, reduce the viscosities of mixtures, resulting in an increase in workability with utilizing less water. Additionally, the increase in compressive strength after the lunar cycle was much higher under ambient conditions, while the addition of urea decreased compressive strength at both vacuum and ambient pressure [7,39].

6. Energy Efficiency and Other Challenges for Lunar and Martian Habitats

Some challenges for lunar and Martian shelters are identified in the literature. They are mainly connected with harsh extraterrestrial conditions and costs. Moon On-Orbit Nexus Providing Orbital Rendezvous and Transportation (MOONPORT) is a transportation system that will support cislunar operations by providing a low-cost alternative to heavy lift rockets or other towing solutions. The solution given by the researchers assumes an average cost of transporting 1 kg of material at EUR 8054, whereas the current price fluctuates around 9591 EUR/kg [65]. This is not the only challenge related to material facilities and the construction of lunar and Martian shelters. One of the basic problems for this kind of structure is energy, in terms of energy sources and energy efficiency [2]. Ellery’s proposed solar power generation system using lunar resources is a very promising in situ energy alternative that can give high conversion efficiency—solar Fresnel lens-thermion conversion [66].
Another important aspect is material efficiency, which is also linked to anticipated costs [5,8]. The main challenge is to select the proper composites for extreme conditions and further use for additive manufacturing technologies [67]. The Moon’s temperature during a lunar day (a period equivalent to about two Earth weeks) can reach up to 120 °C (at the Moon’s equator). A lunar night (which lasts the same amount of time as a lunar day) is when the Moon’s temperature decreases to −130 °C. In some places near the poles of the Moon, the temperature can drop even further, reaching −250 °C [68]. Many studies on the temperature resistance of geopolymer materials can be retrieved from the literature [69,70,71].
The used materials should have reasonable properties, exemplary mechanical properties (compressive and flexural strength), and technological/processing properties, such as fluidity, rheology, shrinkage, adhesion, etc., that are required for typical building materials applied in 3D printing technology [64,72,73]. Particular attention should also be paid to the properties necessary for 3D printing technology, such as miscibility, liquidity, and rheology [13,72]. At the same time, it is required that these materials have a multi-functional character, including proper construction parameters, isolation properties (i.e., against changeable temperatures), and protection against solar radiation. Compared to the traditional cast concrete construction method, the main advantages of 3D-printed structures are the conserving of materials, the absence of additional formwork, and the possibility of completing complex structures in a relatively short time [74,75].
There are other challenges connected with the 3D printing process. They include vacuums and exposure to subzero temperatures [8]. However, the possibility of obtaining geopolymers in lunar and Martian conditions has been proven before [21,22]. The geopolymer with 8 mol/L sodium hydroxide (NaOH) was prepared and generated a high strength and dense structure. It was prepared in a period of 420–492 h of a lunar day, corresponding to a temperature variation from 84.5 to 33.5 °C in 72 h, which was suitable for preparation. The materials obtained 5.7 MPa and 31.2 MPa 72 h flexural and compressive strength, respectively [21,22]. However, despite this trial succeeding, the whole technology still needs to be developed. The main point of development of these materials will be production efficiency according to the required resources, such as water. The moisture content in the lunar regolith is estimated to be between 0.3% and 1% [40]. This kind of optimization is possible and some trials were performed, for example, that proved that geopolymer sourced from local moon materials with excellent durability and minimal water requirement could be a potential building material for in situ lunar-based construction [10,76,77].
Another challenge in this area is the selection of proper additives that could significantly improve materials properties that are available in each place [52] or can be applied in a small amounts. The materials that could be available in each place are mentioned before, including urea and, in the case of the Moon, basalt fibers. Previous research shows the possibility of their manufacturing from in situ lunar materials [59,78,79,80].
In the second option—materials delivered from Earth—the promising solutions could be phase changes materials, porous materials, and nanocomponents. The phase-changed materials help with reasonable energy management and can protect the interior of the shelter against changeable temperatures. The additives as phase changes seem to be a promising solution; however, commercially available phase change materials have too narrow temperature ranges for this type of application [81,82]. The other possibility is to use porous materials. They may have an isolation function, as well as a filtration one. Porous materials obtained from a regolith have been considered before [54]. Additionally, geopolymers were investigated as an isolation material with porosity [83]. Previous research shows that porous materials can work as a filter for PM and other pollution removals [84,85,86]. This property has the potential to use its internal layer for the purification process of air. However, this technology was tested only in terrestrial condition as a solution for pollution existing in the cities; it can be a valuable supportive system in the case of any human activities [86]. Of course such layer could only be an internal one because isolation from the external environment is required. An interesting possibility in the case of energy efficiency seems to be the topic of energy storage in building materials [87,88]. Energy storage is a challenging topic because of the low amount of research on this type. However, some of the existing ones show that the geopolymeric cementitious composite exhibited a good room temperature ionic conductivity in the range of 12 (10−2 S/m, where S is Siemens) and activation energy as high as 0.97 eV, which is a rather low value; the large size of a wall can accumulate quite a reasonable amount of energy. The maximum power density of the KGP capacitors is about 0.33 kW/m2 with a discharge life of about 2 h. The KGP stress sensors showed high sensitivity to compressive stress: 11 Ω/MPa based on impedance measurement and 0.55 deg/MPa based on phase measurement [89]. Conductive fillers, such as carbon fibers (CFs), carbon nanotubes (CNTs/CNFs), and graphene, could be employed to induce the piezoresistive effect in cement-based materials [89,90,91]. Other work shows that structural materials can take on additional functions, such as collection and storing power from solar and wind renewable energy sources. This function could be used in power auxiliary systems for in-space applications [87,89].
The nanocomponents could significantly improve the material properties. Previous research shows that even a small amount of nanofibers can significantly improve mechanical properties [21,92,93]. It could have significant meaning in the case of meteoroids. That is, with it being a safety challenge in both the cases of lunar and Martian conditions. Micrometeoroids, with a mass of approximately milligrams mass, are expected to hit lunar installations and equipment almost every year. Meteorites with a mass of 10−6 G can form impact craters on the Moon with a diameter of up to 500 µm [10,94]. The additions of nanoparticles, such as carbon nanotubes (CNFs). CNFs acted as nucleation, fillers, and bridges in the nanocomposites, leading to lower porosity, higher energy requirements for failure, and higher mechanical properties, which are considerable for lunar-based construction [21,22] CNFs and that the optimal content was 0.3% by weight [21,22]. Other challenges for extraterrestrial application include resistance against radiation. In this case, additions of nanocarbon in a different form can be useful [94]. However, it is worth noting that the space radiation environment is extremely difficult to replicate experimentally [36].
An important element of the investigation will be laboratory tests under extreme temperatures, including freeze-throw tests [7,10]. Furthermore, the effect of vacuum on the efflorescence of geopolymer specimens will be studied [94].

7. Conclusions

The design, production, and testing of lunar and Martian soil simulants are an important steps on the way to solving both scientific, technical, and engineering problems that are barriers to the development of space missions. It should be emphasized that it is not possible to produce lunar or Martian regolith simulants that perfectly reflect the composition and properties of materials found on the lunar and Martian surfaces. Of great importance here is the fact that lunar and Martian soils show significant differences in composition depending on where they were collected. Moreover, there is still a great need to develop simulants that could be produced cheaply on an industrial scale. Additionally, the technology for the production of lunar and Martian concretes requires further work that can be implemented during planned space exploration missions. After analyzing the available literature, it can be concluded that geopolymer materials have great potential for extraterrestrial applications. Additionally, when considering various manufacturing technologies, 3D printing seems, for the moment, to be the technology that will make it possible to build safe places to live and work on the moon or Mars.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, B.K. and K.K.; methodology, K.K.; formal analysis, K.P.; investigation, K.P., B.K. and K.K.; writing—original draft preparation, K.P., B.K. and K.K.; writing—review and editing, K.P., B.K. and K.K.; supervision, B.K.; project administration, B.K.; funding acquisition, B.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Polish National Science Centre research project no. DEC-2021/05/X/ST5/00903.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Sokołowska, J.J.; Woyciechowski, P.; Kalinowski, M. Rheological Properties of Lunar Mortars. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 6961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Spedding, C.P.; Lim, S.; Nuttall, W.J. ISRU technology deployment at a lunar outpost in 2040: A Delphi survey. Acta Astronaut. 2021, 181, 316–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. NASA ARTEMIS. Available online: https://www.nasa.gov/specials/artemis/ (accessed on 17 September 2022).
  4. Berger, E. The White House Puts a Price on the SLS Rocket—And It’s a Lot Again, Congress Is Urged to Allow a Commercial Launch of the Europa Clipper. Arstechnica. 6 November 2019. Available online: https://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/books/lunar_bases/LSBchapter02.pdf#pagemode=bookmarks&page=15 (accessed on 17 September 2022).
  5. Ma, S.; Fu, S.; Wang, O.; Xu, L.; He, P.; Sun, C.; Duan, X.; Zhang, Z.; Jia, D.; Zhou, Y. 3D Printing of Damage-tolerant Martian Regolith Simulant-based Geopolymer Composites. Addit. Manuf. 2022, 58, 103025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Korniejenko, K.; Łach, M.; Hebdowska-Krupa, M.; Mikuła, J. Impact of flax fiber reinforcement on mechanical properties of solid and foamed geopolymer concrete. Adv. Technol. Innov. 2021, 6, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Xiong, G.; Guo, X.; Yuan, S.; Xia, M.; Wang, Z. The mechanical and structural properties of lunar regolith simulant based geopolymer under extreme temperature environment on the moon through experimental and simulation methods. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022, 325, 126679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Mills, J.N.; Katzarova, M.; Wagner, N.J. Comparison of lunar and Martian regolith simulant-based geopolymer cements formed by alkali-activation for in-situ resource utilization. Adv. Space Res. 2022, 69, 761–777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Zarzycki, P.K.; Katzer, J. Multivariate comparison of lunar soil simulants. J. Aerosp. Eng. 2019, 32, 06019005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Zhou, S.; Lu, C.; Zhu, X.; Li, F. Preparation and characterization of high-strength geopolymer based on BH-1 lunar soil simulant with low alkali content. Engineering 2021, 7, 1631–1645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Just, G.H.; Smith, K.; Joy, K.H.; Roy, M.J. Parametric review of existing regolith excavation techniques for lunar In Situ Resource Utilisation (ISRU) and recommendations for future excavation experiments. Planet. Space Sci. 2020, 180, 104746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Rieder, R.; Economou, T.; Wänke, H.; Turkevich, A.; Crisp, J.; Brückner, J.; Dreibus, G.; McSween, H.Y., Jr. The chemical composition of Martian soil and rocks returned by the mobile alpha Pproton X-ray spectrometer: Preliminary results from the X-ray mode. Science 1997, 278, 1771–1774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Korniejenko, K.; Kejzlar, P.; Louda, P. The Influence of the Material Structure on the Mechanical Properties of Geopolymer Composites Reinforced with Short Fibers Obtained with Additive Technologies. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Lazorenko, G.; Kasprzhitskii, A. Geopolymer additive manufacturing: A review. Addit. Manuf. 2022, 55, 102782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Shakor, P.; Chu, S.H.; Puzatova, A.; Dini, E. Review of binder jetting 3D printing in the construction industry. Prog. Addit. Manuf. 2022, 7, 643–669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Korniejenko, K.; Łach, M. Geopolymers reinforced by short and long fibres—Innovative materials for additive manufacturing. Curr. Opin. Chem. Eng. 2020, 28, 167–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Raza, M.H.; Zhong, R.Y. A sustainable roadmap for additive manufacturing using geopolymers in construction industry. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2022, 186, 106592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Zhong, H.; Zhang, M. 3D printing geopolymers: A review. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2022, 128, 104455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Raza, M.H.; Zhong, R.Y.; Khan, M. Recent advances and productivity analysis of 3D printed geopolymers. Addit. Manuf. 2022, 52, 102685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ferrone, K.L.; Taylor, A.B.; Helvajian, H. In situ resource utilization of structural material from planetary regolith. Adv. Space Res. 2022, 69, 2268–2282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Zhang, R.; Zhou, S.; Li, F.; Bi, T.; Zhu, X. Mechanical and Microstructural Characterization of Carbon Nanofiber–Reinforced Geopolymer Nanocomposite Based on Lunar Regolith Simulant. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2022, 34, 04021387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Zhang, R.; Zhou, S.; Li, F. Preparation of geopolymer based on lunar regolith simulant at in-situ lunar temperature and its durability under lunar high and cryogenic temperature. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022, 318, 126033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Taylor, L.A.; Pieters, C.M.; Britt, D. Evaluations of lunar regolith simulants. Planet. Space Sci. 2016, 126, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Hu, Z.; Shi, T.; Cen, M.; Wang, J.; Zhao, X.; Zeng, C.; Zhou, Y.; Fan, Y.; Liu, Y.; Zhao, Z. Research progress on lunar and Martian concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022, 343, 128117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Lee, S.; van Riessen, A. A Review on Geopolymer Technology for Lunar Base Construction. Materials 2022, 15, 4516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Neves, J.M.; Collins, P.J.; Wilkerson, R.P.; Grugel, R.N.; Radlińska, A. Microgravity Effect on Microstructural Development of Tri-calcium Silicate (C3S) Paste. Front. Mater. 2019, 6, 83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Collins, P.J.; Edmunson, J.; Fiske, M.; Radlińska, A. Materials characterization of various lunar regolith simulants for use in geopolymer lunar concrete. Adv. Space Res. 2022, 69, 3941–3951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Grugel, R.N.; Toutanji, H.A. Sulfur “concrete” for lunar applications—Sublimation concerns. Adv. Space Res. 2008, 41, 103–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Toutanji, H.A.; Evans, S.; Grugel, R.N. Performance of lunar sulfur concrete in lunar environments. Construct. Build. Mater. 2012, 29, 444–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Buchner, C.; Pawelke, R.H.; Schlauf, T.; Reissner, A.; Makaya, A. A new planetary structure fabrication process using phosphoric acid. Acta Astronaut. 2018, 143, 272–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Cowley, A.; Haefner, T.; Beltzung, J.C.; Meurisse, A. Spaceship EAC—Fostering Activities Relevant to Lunar Exploration and ISRU. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Lunar Exploration Analysis Group, Columbia, MD, USA, 20–22 October 2015; p. 2037. [Google Scholar]
  32. Meurisse, A.; Makaya, A.; Wilsch, C.; Sperl, M. Solar 3D printing of Lunar Regolith. Acta Astronaut. 2018, 152, 800–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Cesaretti, G.; Dini, E.; De Kestelier, X.; Colla, V.; Pambaguian, L. Building components for an outpost on the Lunar soil by means of a novel 3D printing technology. Acta Astronaut. 2014, 93, 430–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Wang, Y.S.; Dai, J.-G.; Ding, Z.; Xu, W.T. Phosphate-based geopolymer: Formation mechanism and thermal stability. Mater. Lett. 2017, 190, 209–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Matta, M.; Smith, S.; Baumgardner, J.; Wilson, J.; Martinis, C.; Mendillo, M. The sodium tail of the Moon. Icarus 2009, 204, 409–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Montes, C.; Broussard, K.; Gongre, M.; Simicevic, N.; Mejia, J.; Tham, J.; Allouche, E.; Davis, G. Evaluation of lunar regolith geopolymer binder as a radioactive shielding material for space exploration applications. Adv. Space Res. 2015, 56, 1212–1221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Davis, G.; Montes, C.; Eklund, S. Preparation of lunar regolith based geopolymer cement under heat and vacuum. Adv. Space Res. 2017, 59, 1872–1885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Amin, M.; Zeyad, A.M.; Tayeh, B.A.; Agwa, S.A. Effect of high temperatures on mechanical, radiation attenuation and microstructure properties of heavyweight geopolymer concrete. Struct. Eng. Mech. 2021, 80, 181–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Pilehvar, S.; Arnhof, M.; Pamies, R.; Valentini, L.; Kjøniksen, A.L. Utilization of urea as an accessible superplasticizer on the moon for lunar geopolymer mixtures. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 247, 119177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Pilehvar, S.; Arnhof, M.; Erichsen, A.; Valentini, L.; Kjøniksen, A.L. Investigation of severe lunar environmental conditions on the physical and mechanical properties of lunar regolith geopolymers. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 2021, 11, 1506–1516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Haskin, L.A.; Warren, P.H. Lunar Chemistry. In Lunar Sourcebook; Heiken, G.H., Vaniman, D.T., French, B.M., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1991; pp. 367–474. [Google Scholar]
  42. Ray, C.S.; Reis, S.T.; Sen, S.; O’Dell, J.S. JSC-1A lunar soil simulant: Characterization, glass formation, and selected glass properties. J. Non. Cryst. Solids 2010, 356, 2369–2374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Zeng, X.; Li, X.; Wang, S.; Li, S.; Spring, N.; Tang, H.; Li, Y.; Feng, J. JMSS-1: A new martian soil simulant. Earth Planets Space 2015, 67, 72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Toklu, Y.C.; Akpinar, P. Lunar soils, simulants and lunar construction materials: An overview. Adv. Space Res. 2022, 70, 762–779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Peys, A.; Douvalis, A.P.; Hallet, V.; Rahier, H.; Blanpain, B.; Pontikes, Y. Inorganic Polymers From CaO-FeOx-SiO2 Slag: The Start of Oxidation of Fe and the Formation of a Mixed Valence Binder. Front. Mater. 2019, 6, 212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Alexiadis, A.; Alberini, F.; Meyer, M.E. Geopolymers from lunar and Martian soil simulants. Adv. Space Res. 2017, 59, 490–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Ma, Q.; Wang, H. Analysis of the Direct Shear Test and Microstructure of the Lunar Soil Simulant Solidified by Sodium Silicate. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2022, 2022, 7654781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Lemougna, P.N.; Wang, K.T.; Tang, Q.; Nzeukou, A.N.; Billong Melo, U.C.; Cui, X.M. Review on the use of volcanic ashes for engineering applications. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 137, 177–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Farries, K.W.; Visintin, P.; Smith, S.T.; van Eyk, P. Sintered or melted regolith for lunar construction: State-of-the-art review and future research directions. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 296, 123627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Greenberg, P.S.; Chen, D.; Smith, S.A. Aerosol Measurements of the Fine and Ultrafine Particle Content of Lunar Regolith; NASA/TM—2007-214956; National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Glenn Research Center: Cleveland, OH, USA, 2007.
  51. Naser, M.Z. Extraterrestrial construction materials. Prog. Mater. Sci. 2019, 105, 100577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Neves, J.M.; Ramanathan, S.; Suraneni, P.; Grugel, R.; Radlińska, A. Characterization, mechanical properties, and microstructural development of lunar regolith simulant-portland cement blended mixtures. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 258, 120315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Wilson, J.W.; Kim, M.; Schimmerling, W.; Badavi, F.F.; Thibeault, S.A.; Cucinotta, F.A. Issues in space radiation protection: Galactic cosmic rays. Health Phys. 1995, 68, 50–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Gualtieri, T.; Bandyopadhyay, A. Compressive deformation of porous lunar regolith. Mater. Lett. 2015, 143, 276–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Lim, S.; Reeve, S.; Lekuona, E.; Garbayo, A.; Le Toux, T.; Morse, A.; Bowen, J.; Anand, M. Challenges in the microwave heating of lunar regolith—Analysis through the design of a microwave heating Demonstrator (MHD) payload. Adv. Space Res. 2022, 69, 751–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Liao, H.; Zhu, J.; Chang, S.; Xue, G.; Pang, J.; Zhu, H. Lunar regolith—AlSi10Mg composite fabricated by selective laser melting. Vacuum 2021, 187, 110122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Rasera, J.N.; Cilliers, J.J.; Lamamy, J.A.; Hadler, K. The beneficiation of lunar regolith for space resource utilisation: A review. Planet. Space Sci. 2020, 186, 104879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Altun, A.A.; Ertl, F.; Marechal, M.; Makaya, A.; Sgambati, A.; Schwentenwein, M. Additive manufacturing of lunar regolith structures. Open Ceram. 2021, 5, 100058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Goulas, A.; Binner, J.G.; Engstrøm, D.S.; Harris, R.A.; Friel, R.J. Mechanical behaviour of additively manufactured lunar regolith simulant components. Proc. IME J. Mater. Des. Appl. 2019, 233, 1629–1644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Faierson, E.J.; Logan, K.V.; Stewart, B.K.; Hunt, M.P. Demonstration of concept for fabrication of lunar physical assets utilizing lunar regolith simulant and a geothermite reaction. Acta Astronaut. 2010, 67, 38–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Leach, N.; Khoshnevis, B.; Thangavelu, M.; Carlson, A. Robotic Construction by Contour Crafting: The Case of Lunar Construction. Int. J. Archit. Comput. 2012, 10, 423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Dini, E. Printing Architecture. In Fabricating the Future; Yuan, P., Leach, N., Eds.; Tongji University Press: Shanghai, China, 2012; Volume 114. [Google Scholar]
  63. Yuan, Q.; Gao, C.; Huang, T.; Zuo, S.; Yao, H.; Zhang, K.; Huang, Y.; Liu, J. Factors Influencing the Properties of Extrusion-Based 3D-Printed Alkali-Activated Fly Ash-Slag Mortar. Materials 2022, 15, 1969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Doğan-Sağlamtimur, N.; Bilgil, A.; Ertürk, S.; Bozkurt, V.; Süzgeç, E.; Akan, A.G.; Nas, P.; Çetin, H.; Szechyńska-Hebda, M.; Hebda, M. Eco-Geopolymers: Physico-Mechanical Features, Radiation Absorption Properties, and Mathematical Model. Polymers 2022, 14, 262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Bergamasco, F.; Bérubé, P.; Breda, P.; Covasan, V.; Deleye, P.; Karrim, N.; Kendall-Bell, G.; Lhabitant, C.; Patel, S.; Pigassou, M.; et al. MOONPORT: A cost-effective transport solution for cislunar space. In Proceedings of the 72nd International Astronautical Congress, Dubai, UAE, 25–29 October 2021; Volume D3, p. 177593. [Google Scholar]
  66. Ellery, A. Generating and storing power on the moon using in situ resources. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part G J. Aerosp. Eng. 2022, 236, 1045–1063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Archez, J.; Texier-Mandoki, N.; Bourbon, X.; Caron, J.F.; Rossignol, S. Shaping of geopolymer composites by 3D printing. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 34, 101894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Williams, J.P.; Greenhagen, B.T.; Paige, D.A.; Schorghofer, N.; Sefton-Nash, E.; Hayne, P.O.; Lucey, P.G.; Siegler, M.A.; Michael Aye, K. Seasonal Polar Temperatures on the Moon. J. Geophys. Res. Planets 2019, 124, 2505–2521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Yang, H.; Zhu, M.; Fang, C. Review of research on high-temperature behavior of geopolymer paste. E3S Web Conf. 2021, 237, 01017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Łach, M.; Fryda, P.; Pławecka, K.; Korniejenko, K. Behavior of geopolymers under changing curing conditions and cyclic temperature changes. In Proceedings of the M2D2022: 9th International Conference on Mechanics and Materials in Design, Funchal, Portugal, 26–30 June 2022; Volume 19171, pp. 143–152. Available online: https://paginas.fe.up.pt/~m2d/proceedings_m2d2022/ (accessed on 17 September 2022).
  71. Cheng-Yong, H.; Yun-Ming, L.; Abdullah, M.M.; Hussin, K. Thermal Resistance Variations of Fly Ash Geopolymers: Foaming Responses. Sci Rep. 2017, 27, 45355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  72. Marczyk, J.; Ziejewska, C.; Pławecka, K.; Bąk, A.; Łach, M.; Korniejenko, K.; Hager, I.; Mikuła, J.; Lin, W.-T.; Hebda, M. Optimizing the L/S Ratio in Geopolymers for the Production of Large-Size Elements with 3D Printing Technology. Materials 2022, 15, 3362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Panda, B.; Unluer, C.; Tan, M.J. Investigation of the rheology and strength of geopolymer mixtures for extrusion-based 3D printing. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2018, 94, 307–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Han, Y.; Yang, Z.; Ding, T.; Xiao, J. Environmental and economic assessment on 3D printed buildings with recycled concrete. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 278, 123884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Gebhard, L.; Burger, J.; Mata-Falcón, J.; Lloret Fritschi, E.; Gramazio, F.; Kohler, M.; Kaufmann, W. Towards efficient concrete structures with ultra-thin 3D printed formwork: Exploring reinforcement strategies and optimisation. Virtual Phys. Prototyp. 2022, 17, 599–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Wang, K.; Tang, Q.; Cui, X.; He, Y.; Liu, L. Development of near-zero water consumption cement materials via the geopolymerization of tektites and its implication for lunar construction. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 29659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Wang, K.T.; Lemougna, P.N.; Tang, Q.; Li, W.; Cui, X.M. Lunar regolith can allow the synthesis of cement materials with near-zero water consumption. Gondwana Res. 2017, 44, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Goulas, A.; Friel, R.J. 3D printing with moondust. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2016, 22, 864–870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Schleppi, J.; Gibbons, J.; Groetsch, A.; Buckman, J.; Cowley, A.; Bennett, N. Manufacture of glass and mirrors from lunar regolith simulant. J. Mater. Sci. 2019, 54, 3726–3747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Arnhof, M.; Pilehvar, S.; Kjøniksen, A.-L.; Cheibas, I. Basalt Fibre Reinforced Geopolymer Made from Lunar Regolith Simulant. In Proceedings of the 8th European Conference for Aeronautics and Space Sciences, EUCASS, Madrid, Spain, 1–4 July 2019; Available online: https://www.esa.int/gsp/ACT/doc/HAB/ACT-RPR-HAB-2019-EUCASS-Geopolymer.pdf (accessed on 17 September 2022).
  81. Łach, M.; Pławecka, K.; Bąk, A.; Adamczyk, M.; Bazan, P.; Kozub, B.; Korniejenko, K.; Lin, W.-T. Review of Solutions for the Use of Phase Change Materials in Geopolymers. Materials 2021, 14, 6044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Danish, A.; Ozbakkaloglu, T.; Mosaberpanah, M.A.; Salim, M.U.; Bayram, M.; Yeon, J.H.; Jafar, K. Sustainability benefits and commercialization challenges and strategies of geopolymer concrete: A review. J. Build. Eng. 2022, 58, 105005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Łach, M. Geopolymer Foams—Will They Ever Become a Viable Alternative to Popular Insulation Materials?—A Critical Opinion. Materials 2021, 14, 3568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Li, X.; Bai, C.; Qiao, Y.; Wang, X.; Yang, K.; Colombo, P. Preparation, properties and applications of fly ash-based porous geopolymers: A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 359, 132043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Wang, J.T.; Ge, Y.Y.; He, Y.; Xu, M.X.; Cui, X.M. A porous gradient geopolymer-based tube membrane with high PM removal rate for air pollution. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 217, 335–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Zhang, E.Q.; Tang, L. Rechargeable Concrete Battery. Buildings 2021, 11, 103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Basha, S.I.; Shah, S.S.; Ahmad, S.; Maslehuddin, M.; Al-Zahrani, M.M.; Aziz, M.A. Construction Building Materials as a Potential for Structural Supercapacitor Applications. Chem. Rec. 2022, 2022, e202200134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Saafi, M.; Gullane, A.; Huang, B.; Sadeghi, H.; Ye, J.; Sadeghi, F. Inherently multifunctional geopolymeric cementitious composite as electrical energy storage and self-sensing structural material. Compos. Struct. 2018, 201, 766–778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  89. Krishna, R.S.; Mishra, L.; Nanda, B.; Patro, S.K.; Adetayo, A.; Qureshi, T.S. The role of graphene and its derivatives in modifying different phases of geopolymer composites: A review. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 306, 124774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Huang, T.; Sun, Z. Advances in multifunctional graphene-geopolymer composites. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 272, 121619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Tay, C.H.; Norkhairunnisa, M. Mechanical Strength of Graphene Reinforced Geopolymer Nanocomposites: A Review. Front. Mater. 2021, 8, 661013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Yan, S.; Zhang, F.; Kong, J.; Wang, B.; Li, H.; Yang, Y.; Xing, P. Mechanical properties of geopolymer composite foams reinforced with carbon nanofibers via modified hydrogen peroxide method. Mater. Chem. Phys. 2020, 253, 123258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Zhou, S.; Yang, Z.; Zhang, R.; Zhu, X.; Li, F. Preparation and evaluation of geopolymer based on BH-2 lunar regolith simulant under lunar surface temperature and vacuum condition. Acta Astronaut. 2021, 189, 90–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Bai, B.; Zhu, Y.; Niu, M.; Ding, E.; Bi, S.; Yin, M.; Liu, W.; Sun, L.; Zhang, L. Modulation of electromagnetic absorption and shielding properties of geopolymer nanocomposites by designing core–shell structure of carbon nanotubes. Ceram. Int. 2022, 48, 26098–26106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Energies 15 09322 g001 550
Figure 1. Search results in the Scopus database regarding the topic of usage of geopolymers in lunar and Martian conditions: (a) The number of publications in subsequent years related to the keywords ‘geopolymer’ and ‘Luna’; (b) The number of publications in subsequent years related to the keywords ‘geopolymer’ and ‘Mars’; (c) Presentation documents by type related to the keywords ‘geopolymer’ and ‘Luna’; (d) Presentation documents by type related to the keywords ‘geopolymer’ and ‘Mars’. Source: Scopus search results.
Figure 1. Search results in the Scopus database regarding the topic of usage of geopolymers in lunar and Martian conditions: (a) The number of publications in subsequent years related to the keywords ‘geopolymer’ and ‘Luna’; (b) The number of publications in subsequent years related to the keywords ‘geopolymer’ and ‘Mars’; (c) Presentation documents by type related to the keywords ‘geopolymer’ and ‘Luna’; (d) Presentation documents by type related to the keywords ‘geopolymer’ and ‘Mars’. Source: Scopus search results.
Energies 15 09322 g001
Table
Table 1. Average chemical compositions of Apollo regolith samples (LOI—Loss in ignition) [9].
Table 1. Average chemical compositions of Apollo regolith samples (LOI—Loss in ignition) [9].
Chemical Compositions of Lunar Soils (Weight%)Apollo 11Apollo 12Apollo 14Apollo 15Apollo 16Apollo 17
Landing Area: MareLanding Area: Mare AreaLanding Area: HighlandLanding Area: HighlandLanding Area: Highland—Mare Contact AreaLanding Area: Highland—Mare Contact Area
SiO242.1546.3048.1046.9545.2640.95
TiO27.803.201.701.600.667.61
Al2O313.6513.3517.4012.7025.4812.78
Cr2O30.300.38-0.470.250.46
Fe2O3------
FeO15.5516.3010.4016.296.5815.76
MnO0.200.220.140.220.340.21
MgO7.859.709.4010.756.199.99
CaO11.9510.6510.7010.4915.1711.03
Na2O0.490.460.700.330.450.32
K2O0.130.240.550.090.130.08
P2O50.08-0.510.160.110.06
S---0.070.070.12
LOI0.12---0.07-
Table
Table 2. Chemical composition of martial soil at the Ares Vallis Pathfinder landing site (Org. sum is the original sum of the oxides before normalization) [12].
Table 2. Chemical composition of martial soil at the Ares Vallis Pathfinder landing site (Org. sum is the original sum of the oxides before normalization) [12].
Chemical Compositions of Martial Soils (Weight %)A-2A-4A-5A-8A-10A-15
Target Site: After DeployTarget Site: Next to YogiTarget Site: Dark Next to YogiTarget Site: Scooby DooTarget Site: Next to LambTarget Site: Mermaid Dune
Na2O2.3 ± 0.93. 8 ± 1.52.8 ± 1.12.0 ± 0.81.5 ± 0.61.3 ± 0.7
MgO7.9 ± 1.28.3 ± 1.27.5 ± 1.17.1 ± 1.1 7.96 ± 1.27.3 ± 1.1
Al2O37.4 ± 0.79.1 ± 0.98.7 ± 0.99.1 ± 0.98.3 ± 0.88.4 ± 08
SiO251.0 ± 2.548.0 ± 2.447.9 ± 2.451.6 ± 2.648.2 ± 2.450.2 ± 2.5
SO34.0 ± 0.86.5 ± 1.35.6 ± 1.15.3 ± 1.16.2 ± 1.25.2 ± 1.0
Cl0.5 ± 0.10.6 ± 0.20.6 ± 0.20.7 ± 0.20.7 ± 0.20.6 ± 0.2
K2O0.2 ± 0.10.2 ± 0.10.3 ± 0.10.5 ± 0.10.2 ± 0.1 0.5 ± 0.1
CaO6.9 ± 1.05.6 ± 0.86.5 ± 1.07.3 ± 1.16.4 ± 1.06.0 ± 0.9
TiO21.2 ± 0.21.4 ± 0.2 0.9 ± 0.11.1 ± 0.21.1 ± 0.21.3 ± 0.2
FeO16.6 ± 1.714.4 ± 1.417.3 ± 1.713.4 ± 1.317.4 ± 1.717.1 ± 1.7
Org. Sum68.678.289.199.292.998.9
Table
Table 3. Types of material possible to use for lunar and Martian shelters.
Table 3. Types of material possible to use for lunar and Martian shelters.
MaterialAdvantagesDisadvantagesSource of Information
1Traditional OPC-based concrete with lunar regolith as aggregate
-
Well-known technology under Earth conditions.
-
Good protection against solar wind, radiation, and micrometeorites.
-
Chemical and mineral characteristic are not consistent with lunar and Mars regolith, especially lack of calcium.
-
The water for the production process is required in a huge amount, which is a significant problem, especially in the context of lunar applications.
[8]
2Sulfur concrete
-
Sulfur can be found on the lunar surface in the form of the mineral troilite (FeS). It can be extracted from lunar regolith by heating.
-
To produce sulfur “concrete”, water is not required.
-
Sulfur is abundant on the Martian surface.
-
The concrete composition (approximately 20% sulfur and 80% aggregate) has to be prepared and heated between 130–140 °C.
-
The compression strength of sulfur concrete suffers significantly from temperature cycling. On average, it loses 80% of its strength due to cracking.
-
Producing sulfur concrete would require a power source to bake sulfur out of the lunar soil and melt the concrete mixture, which requires an uncertain amount of energy and equipment.
-
The material has radiation shielding properties worse than that of plain regolith simulant.
-
It requires a large amount of consumables and sulfur is not abundant on the lunar surface.
[8,28,29,30]
3Sintered basalt/regolith
-
Microwave or solar power could be used to create the heat necessary to sinter the regolith in bricks or other building elements.
-
Sintered fine regolith is characterized by good thermal insulation, including the possibility of thermal and dust control and micrometeorite protection.
-
Sintered fine regolith has low density, is brittle, has very low resistance to tensile stresses, and the material typically shrinks considerably.
-
Due to the low density of the material, it would require substantial thicknesses to be used as radiation protection for human habitation.
-
Low-stress resistance might be an issue for its use for the construction of protective walls or shells for habitats on the surface.
[31,32]
4Magnesium chloride-based binder (Sorel cement)—33% magnesium chloride and 66% water
-
Solution tested by ESA.
-
It is a very fast-setting technology with high early compressive strength is around 70 MPa after a few hours.
-
Technology tested in terrestrial environment shows good results at ambient temperatures. The materials have a better compressive strength (69–83 MPa) than Portland cement (45–55 MPa).
-
Due to the low density (about 1.7 t/m3) and high porosity the minimum thickness, 1500 mm is required for extraterrestrial application to protect human habitation against radiation.
-
For the binder manufacturing in this process, it is necessary a substantial amount of consumables, including chemicals and water. The magnesium-chloride cement requires a huge amount of water in the binder (30%), which must be delivered from Earth. Even if the construction will be optimized, as for example a honeycomb, supplying previously mentioned materials will be expensive.
[33]
5Phosphate-based binder
-
Phosphate-based binders are considered a promising material for use on the Martian surface because of availability in phosphoric acid and water in Martial soil.
-
To create adequate strengths of the ratio of the acid-to-regolith in the resulting material would have minimum 0.6:1 by weight, which requires a significant amount of materials (water and phosphoric acid).
-
Gaining the basic feedstocks, including water, that could be required for additional technologies for Martian applications or it could be transported from Earth for lunar applications.
[30]
6Epoxy/polymer-based cement
-
Possibility of producing relatively light structures.
-
Epoxy/polymer-based systems that require additional terrestrial resources to produce the bulk of the binder.
[8]
Table
Table 4. Comparison of chemical and mineralogical composition for the most popular simulants for lunar and Martian regolith.
Table 4. Comparison of chemical and mineralogical composition for the most popular simulants for lunar and Martian regolith.
Oxides (%wt)DNA-1JSC-1A (2015)JSC-1A (2010)Martian Soil PathfinderMartian Soil Simulant JSC Mars-1
Unit(wt%)(wt%)(wt%)(wt%)(wt%)
SiO241.9042.9545.7042.0043.48
TiO21.311.571.900.803.62
Al2O316.0214.5316.2010.3022.09
Fe2O314.6011.5012.4021.7016.08
FeO0.007.520.000.000.00
MgO6.348.648.707.304.22
CaO12.909.1110.06.106.05
Na2O2.662.603.202.802.34
K2O2.530.710.710.600.70
P2O50.000.650.650.700.78
MnO0.000.170.170.300.26
Source[41][36][42][43][43]
Table
Table 5. Comparison overview of the composite strength of lunar regolith simulants manufactured via different methods (behind: [58]).
Table 5. Comparison overview of the composite strength of lunar regolith simulants manufactured via different methods (behind: [58]).
MethodMaterialCompressive StrengthReference
Binder jettingRegolith, solar cement, binder liquid20 MPa[33]
ExtrusionRegolith (72 wt%), urea, alkaline solution13 MPa[39]
Selective laser meltingRegolith4 MPa[59]
Solar sinteringRegolith2 MPa[32]
Casting: geopolymerRegolith (76 wt%), liquid silicate, alkaline solution16 MPa[36]
Casting: Sulfur concreteRegolith (65 wt%), sulfur31 MPa[29]
Casting: Thermite reactionRegolith (67 wt%), aluminum powder18 MPa[60]
Vat polymerizationRegolith (69 wt%)5 MPa[58]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Korniejenko, K.; Pławecka, K.; Kozub, B. An Overview for Modern Energy-Efficient Solutions for Lunar and Martian Habitats Made Based on Geopolymers Composites and 3D Printing Technology. Energies 2022, 15, 9322. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15249322

AMA Style

Korniejenko K, Pławecka K, Kozub B. An Overview for Modern Energy-Efficient Solutions for Lunar and Martian Habitats Made Based on Geopolymers Composites and 3D Printing Technology. Energies. 2022; 15(24):9322. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15249322

Chicago/Turabian Style

Korniejenko, Kinga, Kinga Pławecka, and Barbara Kozub. 2022. "An Overview for Modern Energy-Efficient Solutions for Lunar and Martian Habitats Made Based on Geopolymers Composites and 3D Printing Technology" Energies 15, no. 24: 9322. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15249322

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop