SPACE. OUTER SPACE SPATIAL PERCEPTION EVOLUTION IN

MICROGRAVITY HABITAT DESIGN

SPACE. OUTER SPACE.

SPATIAL PERCEPTION EVOLUTION IN MICROGRAVITY HABITAT DESIGN

Author: Shai Gerner

Space and Society Department ISU SSP 2012

A. INTRODUCTION:

People’s perception and understanding of the space they live in (e.g. offices, homes, recreational places etc.) is based on historical, cultural, psychological and physical aspects. If we take, for example, the basic dwelling unit- a room- we KNOW how it should look like: 4 walls, floor, ceiling, and utilities like furniture, decoration and support systems (electricity, water etc.). We can assess what is a big room, what it a tall room, and whether it is convenient or not. Yet, there’s another element, which normally we tend to ignore due to its intangibility, which is consisted of all mentioned above, and affects us mostly- SPACE. It is everything that is not tangible. It is everything that is in between the room boundaries, and isn’t some kind of a tangible utility.

All of this takes a very different twist, when detaching our feet from the ground, going into microgravity conditions, or even lower gravity terrestrial bodies (e.g. Moon, NAE, Mars). If referring to the room case study, then we discover that in a microgravity habitat room, its basic elements’ roles tend to change, vanish or reemerge as totally new functions.

Due to all these dramatic alterations, our conception of the space we live in is about to completely redefine itself. Aspects like functionality, environmental conditions and internal unique conditions, which were commonly neglected throughout the history of architecture, would play a major role in designing our life in non-Earth destinations. But does that necessarily mean that we would ENJOY living in such spaces? Would we

alter our concepts and perception such as comfortable and beautiful, or is it something so deeply inherent to us as Earthlings?

This project’s goal is to investigate the possible alterations of our spatial perceptions, and to try to come up with certain milestones needed to be approached, when coming to design a non-Earth based Habitation.

B. ANALYSING SPACE PERCEPTION ORIGINS:

Physical Spatial Perception:

We perceive the space that surrounds us using our senses. A quick review, then, on how exactly do perceive it:

• Vestibular Organs & Hearing: these organs, connected to our ears (and located behind them), are Gravity and stability sensors (images 1-3). These are transmitting the brain our orientation in space, when acceleration is felt. When going into Microgravity (MG), some acceleration (mostly vertical) vectors are not noticed (image 4). In general, and quite surprisingly, we also use our ears and hearing sense in order to evaluate volume and medium (sonar-like method).

• Peripheral Vision: Our eyes supply an important (yet sometimes deceiving) input for our space perception. 3D perception is critical for recognition and spatial orientation. But in MG environment, sometimes this input may be causing “space sickness”, or may be indeed deceiving, since in outer space there’s no “Sfumato”- that blurriness of farther objects, or sizes speculation may be incorrect due to unfamiliar objects, or unordinary vision angles (image 5). in accordance with this phenomena we’re also accustomed to look at other people from a certain orientation (image 6)

The Terrestrial Concept of Space:

As exemplified and shortly discussed, our perception of the space we live in derives from a wide range of physical criteria that dictate mostly our orientation capabilities of ourselves and the objects around us. Given these physical properties, the foundations for the cultural aspects are laid. It is well known that different cultures refer differently to

space and volume as medium between one and his environment and community, e.g.: personal space. Based on personal experience, if you come closer than 1m from a person walking towards you in an aisle at an American grocery store, he will normally apologize. On the other hand, while sitting at a bus station in India, it is not uncommon that you will be scrutinized from a breath-away distance.

Another cultural aspect to consider is the convention for living space that differ between various locations, i.e.: cities, towns, villages, elevator, aircraft, boat etc.. We accept different spatial factors coming in accordance with the various locations: A living room in NYC is nowhere near a one on the countryside.

An important human property that is imperative to take into consideration when discussing spatial perception is adaptation. Adaptation is also a factor of duration. We can ‘get used’ to a place, which would make it easier for us to like, but the opposite can be an option as well. ‘Getting used’ to new environments and new conditions, is a part of our nature, and without this property, we would have never left this planet…

The final aspect is the personal spatial factor. Each one of us has different spatial needs. That can be affected by culture, by physics, but mostly by your own complex psychological compound.

It can possibly be described in this formula:

0 < (C +L +A +P)/4 < 1

When 0= uncomfortable, 1= very comfortable,

C= Culture factor

L= Location factor

A= Adaptation factor

P= Personal factor

Basic Terrestrial Contemporary Spatial Elements:

Due the spatial perception analysis mentioned above, there have been several researches and attempts to create unified measurements map throughout the years there has been. Some very known and commonly used (in fields like Argonomy, Product Design and Architecture) examples goes back to Vitruvius “Vitruvian Man” (image 7), Le Corbusier “Modulor” (image 8) and Neufert’s guidebook (images 9-12). Reasons for such a unification of measurements are obvious, and can teach us of human nature and needs. Based on common activities and human needs, measurement were taken in order to determine what are the preferred height & distance measurements for object that are present in our everyday life environment.

These definitions are well embedded in average modern living style and convention. The common apartments/ offices/residential edifices are based on modern concept of comfortness, efficiency and functionality (aesthetics are spread on a wider perspective, thus not mentioned here…).

The habitat unit elements:

• Fundamental elements: in order for the basic habitat unit (commonly referred as room) to exist it must be consisted of these 3 functions:

o Floor o Ceiling o 3 or more lateral borders (walls).

• Basic habitation elements:

Elements such as windows, doors, separations and elementary furniture (table, chairs, bed etc.). Without these elements, our spatial unit will not be habitable (or will mainly function as a warehouse…)

• Utilitarian elements: Storage facilities, electrical devices, illumination, extra furniture, ornaments and aesthetic elements. These make our stay and use of the spatial unit more functional and enjoyable (which could arguably be considered functional as well).

This decomposition method analysis is required in order to understand the influence of each part in our habitable space, and for better understanding of the future changes occurring in microgravity environment.

These elements are being observed and translated in our mind, and assist us in determining our relation to the habitat’s environment.

The following table displays Habitation Functions Variation, and their influence:

Element Type Element Variation Caused Effect on Viewer

Example For Similar Habitat

Fundamental Ceiling grows higher/ Walls widening

More spacious feeling. Amazement to littleness

Christian cathedrals

Ceiling grows lower/ Walls narrowing

Suffocation. uneasiness

Atomic shelters, maintenance rooms

Basic habitation Small window-wall ratio

Suffocation, shelter, privacy

basements

Large window-wall ratio

Openness, exposure

Offices, penthouses

Utilitarian very decorative Warmth, homey atmosphere, (when too much) overload

Grandma’s living room

Non decorated Emptiness, Alienation

dormitories

All of the above are arguable examples, but used in order to exemplify the big picture.

C. MICROGRAVITY HABITATS:

When trying to analyze what differences in space perception will have occurred in microgravity habitat, we need to address two approaches:

1. The “Tabula Rassa” (clean table) Approach: Ignoring existing projects experience, in order to establish an unbiased design approach.

2. The Empiric Approach: Reviewing existing projects experience and lessons, in order to see what’s possible to alternate or contribute for future design. The goal, of course, is to integrate them.

1. The “Tabula Rassa” is how one should address architecture design in microgravity conditions, if it had to be done for the first time. This is merely a personal exercise, since there’s a lot of experience and research that had already been done in this field. The modus operandi I have chosen to take in this

research, is establishing basic fundamental microgravity design criteria, and then referring them to empiric experience based knowledge. Due to the (very) short time given to this project, elaboration and comparison will be relatively superficial, but if more time were allowed, detailing this topic would definitely be my major focus (i.e. revising space design standards, measurements, geometry, scale etc.). When addressing basic fundamental microgravity spaces design, we need to overlook the assumptions made earlier in this research project, i.e.: looking at the known physical and psychological phenomena expected to occur in microgravity, and translating that using the spatial decomposition system.

a. The G Factor Absence: at the very first thing- we are losing orientation of where’s up & down. It is a burden as much as an opportunity. Orientation in the habitat will be dictated by fixed objects and reference nodes. Unless creating an Earthlike habitat, i.e. intentionally design floor, ceiling etc., there is an opportunity to establish new spatial concept- man concentric space design (MCSD)- in contrast with gravitation-man concept. In MCSD the “floor” and “wall” are merging into one entity, which is actually all the boundary skin of structure that surrounds you. As much as there’s nothing floating in our normal living room (if there is, I’d be happy know!), and basic habitable & utilitarian elements are mostly attached to floor and walls, so will be all these elements in a MG habitat- attached to the inner skin of structure. But the order of these elements can get mixed up: what prevents a decorative painting from being situated next, adjacent or opposed to a kitchen cupboard? Or even shattering the concept of specific functional separation (living room, restroom etc.)- perhaps an field-of-view based separation should be offered, i.e. given a polar sphere shaped MG habitat, if you are facing one pole you are “in” the kitchen, and when facing the other you are “in” the living room. The answer is function, and needs. therefore, the bottom line of this aspect- since we have in MG environment 6 Degrees Of Freedom (DOF), we can Reduce the volume of consumed space due to utilizing more of the intangible space we normally use in terrestrial habitats, and by this leveraging our efficiency and minimize space use. This may become a VERY significant criterion when it comes to design costs.

b. Geometry of the Structure: many forms and geometrical shapes are being used in terrestrial structures. Analyzing how the geometry relates to structure’s functions and properties may be sufficient to become a theme for a whole Ph.D. dissertation, but I believe that when it comes to MG MCSD, a 3D geometry must play a major preliminary role in defining the fundamental elements- our segregated spaces inside the habitat. Using a regular polygon geometry, for example, may cause a certain unity (similar to terrestrial structures, but to a greater extent), which may be used for a single function space (e.g. control room, dormitory etc.), while an uneven polygon geometry may start creating different spatial segregation- different function spaces.

c. Order, Hierarchy and Connections: The way we arrange the different spaces in the MG habitat and the connections between them has a great significance on the functionality of the habitat. As in terrestrial habitats, the level of privacy of a segment within the habitat is defined by the amount of nodes connected to the segment. But these connections, regarding a MG habitat segment, play a more significant role in the architecture of the segment, i.e. there are more possible connections in a MG segment, due to its 3D property. The 3 major basic structures are:

i. Concentric sphere structure- one core, many hubs (image 13) ii. Linear core (bus), many hubs (image 14) iii. Network of different nodes (image 15)

All mentioned so far could be further elaboration and expansion, which would have taken place given longer research.

2. The Empiric Approach: reviewing existing empiric experience and researches would put some of the visionary assumptions I have taken into brighter light, and would offer interesting analysis of the spatial perception we might have in MG environment habitat, from various points of view. There are many examples from different existing or former MG habitats, but in this project the main case study will be the International Space Station (ISS), which some other examples will be used for comparison.

i. Function Based Design: Maybe the most important aspect of all in spacecraft design (mentioned slightly in 1. Visionary Approach), imbedded in Architecture since Vitruvius till probably eternity, is functionality. So was the ISS design. Looking for the perfect most efficient space use, the basic structure is tubular, with rectangular inner infrastructure (as shown in images 16, 17). This immediately refers to the geometry observation made before. ii. Activity-Space Ratio Analysis:

Demonstrated in “Architecture for Astronauts” (see references), in order to explain different approaches to MG habitat design, yet proving some very similar aspects: common for all the orbiting habitats was the fact that the predominant volume was submitted to work (experiments, spacecraft operating system etc.). This type of space usually doesn’t leave any room for minimal space required for performing the requirements needed. Apart from that there are basic life support necessities like hygiene, sports, sleep and food. Last, and by all extents least- leisure (images 18-29).

The differences between the different type of habitats (e.g.: MIR, Skylab etc.) is the volumetric ratio between the activities. As foresaw, Russian’s volumetric budget for (allegedly) nonfunctional space is scarce in comparison to the American one (Culture factor!). iii. Mission Duration- Space Ratio: A very important factor that was recognized by Howe & Sherwood (see references) was that the way the MG habitat space should be Assigned is due to the duration of the mission, i.e., the longer the mission gets, more space should be assigned for leisure and human social and psychological needs. This is a very important concept, noting that the allegedly “wasted” space is imperative for a human mission to succeed (Adaptation factor!). iv. The Personal Point of View: I had the privilege to interview a former Astronaut, Dr. Garret Reisman (image 30), that flew 3 missions to space, within which on one of them he stayed 3 months up on ISS. His experience and insights may be the most significant, due to the fact that he actually inhabited the ISS long enough to have a firm opinion regarding spatial aspect (though he was quite astounded for that bizarre topic…). Some interesting insights:

1. ISS didn’t look small, especially after arriving in a very small and “cramped” shuttle. Some segments were spread-arms wide, and it felt completely comfortable (adaptation).

a. The best places to stay in were the places with the windows (personal). 2. They also liked the kitchen very much, even though it was relatively a small

space, because they always eventually met there, and of course ate together. 3. Regarding functions like ceiling and floor, or orientation- when first arriving at

the ISS, there was no real “up” or “down”, but the longer they stayed, they developed their own “ceiling” & “floor” due to interesting figures like placards writing direction and location of devices, and a lot due to the fact that the ISS was built under gravity, hence it affects some of the design figures in it (opposite adaptation).

4. There is no ultimate unified “ceiling” & “floor” for the whole ISS, but subjected to habitat’s segments. E.g., “floor” of the kitchen segment is at the opposite direction of the gym segment, and it seemed very normal to the inhabitants.

5. Nevertheless, in a microgravity environment habitat such as ISS, one develops a 3D perspective of space, since all of a sudden hurdles and obstacles can be overtaken easily via many possible ways. This may take time to adapt, but would definitely assist with quickening the adaptation to the new microgravity environment.

6. When encountering other ISS inhabitants, one would normally immediately align himself exactly to his colleague, as human are accustomed to do back on Earth- face to face alignment- due to physiological psychological way we interpret facial expressions.

D. CONCLUSIONS:

There’s a lot further more to discuss, revise and examine through this fascinating new unknown field in Architecture. But after a first interaction with trying to analyze new perceptions of space in MG habitats, some insights are more emphasized than others, such as:

• It can definitely be said that adding another dimension into our future (and current) life in such a MG environment can assist us in better understanding space in terrestrial habitats as well. As been said more than once- sometimes you need to look for other new places only to discover your own home…

• Learning from the lessons of terrestrial inhabitation and it’s implication on MG habitat design will assist us also in better preparing for future inhabitation on

other celestial bodies, submarine inhabitation and other extreme environments.

• Up to this moment, in which Astronauts are still earthlings, who leave it at a very late stage of their life, they tend to stick to Earth-based Conventions even when inhabiting MG.

• Space in outer space can be a smaller volume than the space we consume on Earth.

• It seems that outer space enables a new variety of endless innovative perceptions of the way we live today. Designing such a habitat can suggest new era in architecture, and of course, to whole mankind.

E. REFERENCES:

• Huplik-Meusburger- Architecture for Astronauts- an activity based Approach/ SpringerWienNewYork (2011)

• Howe, A.Scott and Sherwood, Brent-“Out Of This World-The New Field of Space Architecture”/Ned Allen (2009)

• Clement, Gille- Brain in Space/ Lecture at SSP12, ISU- Melbourne, FL, USA (2012)

• Doule, Andrej, Ph.D.- Introduction to Space Architecture /Lecture at SSP12, ISU- Melbourne, FL, USA (2012)

• Slavid, Ruth- Extreme Architecture- Building for Challenging Environments/ Laurence King Publishers (2009)

• Reisman, Garrett, Dr.- personal interview/ held at SSP12, ISU- Melbourne, FL, USA (2012)

Appendix- images

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.

9.

10. 11. 12.

13. 14. 15.

16. 17.

18.

19. 20.

21.

22.

23. 24.

25. 26.

27. 28.

29.

30.