Geotechnical Properties of BP-1 Lunar Regolith Simulant

Suescun-Florez, Eduardo; Roslyakov, S.; Iskander, Magued; Baamer, Mohammed

doi:10.1061/(asce)as.1943-5525.0000462

Cited by 35 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The C c value of KLS-1 (0.29) was similar to the suggested C c of 0.3 for loose lunar soil (Heiken et al 1991). The recompression index (C r ) values were 0.0043 (KLS-1), 0.0045 (JSC-1), and 0.0050 (FJS-1), which are consistent with the known C r value (0.0042) of initially compressed (dense) lunar simulants (Suescun-Florez et al 2015).…”

Section: Stress-strain (Compressibility) Characteristicssupporting

confidence: 69%

“…Compressibility parameters (compression index, C c ; swelling or recompression index, C s or C r ) of lunar simulants are also important considerations for lunar vehicle and surface construction designs. The typical C c value of loose lunar soil is recommended to be 0.05-0.3 depending on the density conditions (Suescun-Florez et al 2015). In this study, a typical one-dimensional oedometer test (ASTM 2011b) was performed to evaluate compressibility parameters of JSC-1, FJS-1, and KLS-1 lunar simulants.…”

Section: Stress-strain (Compressibility) Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, JSC-1 or Johnson Space Center Number One A (JSC-1A) simulants are insufficient for large-scale simulation programs due to their scarce quantities. New lunar regolith simulants with large procurement, such as NASA/USGS-Lunar Highlands Type-2 Medium regolith simulant (NU-LHT-2M) (Stoeser et al 2010;Zeng et al 2010), are thus currently being actively used in large-scale lunar programs (e.g., ESA PROSPECT).…”

Section: Scanning Electron Microscope Analysis Of Particle Characterimentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Development and Geotechnical Engineering Properties of KLS-1 Lunar Simulant

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lunar exploration, which slowed in the 21st century after the Apollo program, has seen more activity recently with the participation of Asian countries such as Japan, China, and India. Because lunar modules and rovers cannot be tested directly on lunar soil, these countries have developed lunar simulants. Simulating lunar soil is difficult and expensive because its formation mechanism and geotechnical behavior are comprehensively different from those of the terrestrial soil. Johnson Space Center Number One (JSC-1) and Johnson Space Center Number One A (JSC-1A), developed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, are the most widely used simulants. Korea has yet to succeed in developing a lunar simulant that meets international standards. The authors perform basic research on lunar simulant development based on basalt samples having similar chemical and mechanical properties to those of lunar soil, with reference to lunar soil data reported under the Apollo program. The resulting prototype is named Korea Lunar Stimulant-Type 1 (KLS-1). Compared with other lunar simulants [JSC-1 and Fuji Japanese Simulant 1 (FJS-1)], KLS-1 shows promise in terms of affordability and similarity to real lunar soil. As such, it is expected to find a wide variety of applications not only in space development projects but also in international research.

show abstract

Section: Stress-strain (Compressibility) Characteristicssupporting

confidence: 69%

Section: Stress-strain (Compressibility) Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Scanning Electron Microscope Analysis Of Particle Characterimentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Development and Geotechnical Engineering Properties of KLS-1 Lunar Simulant

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In general, due to the absence of atmosphere on the Moon, the iron is present in the form of Fe 2 and FeO (Markandeya Raju & Pranathi, ) on the real lunar regolith. However, for the regolith simulants low content of Fe 2 O 3 has been observed, in specific 14.60% for DNA‐1, 8% for DNA‐1A (this study), 6% for BP‐1 (Black Point‐1), and 3.41% for JSC‐1A (after Cesaretti et al, ; Rickman et al, ; Suescun‐Florez et al, ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 46%

“…In general, a good resemblance observed between DNA-1A particles and images of JSC-1A regolith (Alshibli & Hasan, 2009) and lunar regolith (Carrier, 2003) in terms of angular shape with sharp corners and crevices on the surface. One major difference between the lunar regolith and its simulant is the presence of interparticle adhesion in the original Moon material (Costes & Mitchell, 1970;Suescun-Florez et al, 2014), which might be due to the different specific surfaces of the particles formed in different environmental conditions (Marzulli & Cafaro, 2019).…”

Section: General Description and Origin Of Dna-1a And Ottawa Sandmentioning

confidence: 99%

Micromechanical Behavior of DNA‐1A Lunar Regolith Simulant in Comparison to Ottawa Sand

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study, the micromechanical interparticle contact behavior of “De NoArtri” (DNA‐1A) grains is investigated, which is a lunar regolith simulant, using a custom‐built micromechanical loading apparatus, and the results on the DNA‐1A are compared with Ottawa sand which is a standard quartz soil. Material characterization is performed through several techniques. Based on microhardness intender and surface profiler analyses, it was found that the DNA‐1A grains had lower values of hardness and higher values of surface roughness compared to Ottawa sand grains. In normal contact micromechanical tests, the results showed that the DNA‐1A had softer behavior compared with Ottawa sand grains and that cumulative plastic displacements were observed for the DNA‐1A simulant during cyclic compression, whereas for Ottawa sand grains elastic displacements were dominant in the cyclic sequences. In tangential contact micromechanical tests, it was shown that the interparticle friction values of DNA‐1A were much greater than that of Ottawa sand grains, which was attributed to the softer contact response and greater roughness of the DNA‐1A grains. Widely used theoretical models both in normal and tangential directions were fitted to the experimental data to obtain representative parameters, which can be useful as input in numerical analyses which use the discrete element method.

show abstract

Understanding and Managing the Hazards and Opportunities of Lunar Regolith in Greenhouse Agriculture

Braddock¹

2021

Space and Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Geotechnical Properties of BP-1 Lunar Regolith Simulant

Cited by 35 publications

References 21 publications

Development and Geotechnical Engineering Properties of KLS-1 Lunar Simulant

Development and Geotechnical Engineering Properties of KLS-1 Lunar Simulant

Micromechanical Behavior of DNA‐1A Lunar Regolith Simulant in Comparison to Ottawa Sand

Understanding and Managing the Hazards and Opportunities of Lunar Regolith in Greenhouse Agriculture

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About