The Munich Model - creating an environment for space architecture development

AIAA 2002-6122 AIAA Space Architecture Symposium 10-11 October 2002, Houston, Texas THE MUNICH MODEL: CREATING AN ENVIRONMENT FOR SPACE ARCHITECTURE DEVELOPMENT Andreas Vogler, dipl. Arch ETH University of Technology Munich The aim is the successful product. K. Ehrlenspiel (1995), p.329 ABSTRACT Looking back on 6 years teaching experience at the Institute of Architecture and Product Development at the University of Technology in Munich, many innovative, prize-winning student projects resulted from a particular way of teaching. During that time 3 years of space architecture teaching were concerned with developments for the micro gravity environment of the ISS Habitation Module and the manned Mars Mission Habitation Module. The programs included: Practicing the design process as such, defining design problems, solving them and achieving high-quality results based on technical feasibility. The paper will in retrospect analyze the achievements, the existing design environment, define the methodology and make it accessible for other programs, not only at universities, but also in industries. INTRODUCTION The Institute for Architecture and Product Development led by Prof. Richard Horden at the University of Technology Munich has been very successful integrating the building process into the education of an architect. Starting in 1996, six micro architecture student projects have been built so far (Horden 1999, Detail 1998). A special care is given to a very fine-tuned design environment. Since 1998 two programs in Space Architecture were taught. The first one studied the microgravity environment by making proposals for the ISS Habitation Module (Vogler 2000), which ended in building and testing prototypes for microgravity furniture. The other studied a surface habitat for the NASA Mars Reference Mission (Vogler 2001). The experience made with these programs will be used in a first step to define the important elements of a successful space architecture program within a standard education of an architect. This might help universities as much as outreach programs from space agencies to use the enthusiastic energy of young designers to help to improve the working and living environment on space stations and to create technically viable concepts for future living in space. Many of these elements may seem not very specifically related to Space Architecture as such, but it is our experience that especially Space Architecture doesn't allow negligence with any of the elements without potentially compromising the result. DESIGNING IN COMPLEX SYSTEMS an architect should have that perfect knowledge of each art and science which is not even acquired by the professors of any one in particular, who have had every opportunity of improving themselves in it. Pytheos, 4th century BC, (Vitruvius, 25/15BC) 1 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Copyright © 2002 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. All rights reserved. Modern architecture and product development means problem solving not only in complex technical systems but also in complex working environments. Thereby, the design process is influenced by factors from various fields, the task, the individual, the team, the context and the environment in which it takes place. This complex network of influences turns product development into a challenge with requirements for the designers aside from technical problems. Richmond (1993, p 121) writes, “doing good systems thinking means operating on at least seven thinking tracks simultaneously.” This ability is and has been absolutely necessary in the over 5000 year old profession of the architect. Dealing with complex systems on both the technical and logistic side is inherent to the profession. our normal, sound reasoning according to the circumstances of the individual situation”. Dörner reduces systems thinking to the formula: systems thinking = systemic, complex situation + situation-adequate thinking. Richmond (1993) refers to the ability to think simultaneously on multiple layers. It is an ongoing educational research to develop methods of how to train system thinking. Ossimitz (1998) outlines 4 characteristic dimensions: a. b. c. d. Thinking in models Interrelated thinking Dynamic thinking Steering systems System Thinking These could be easily taken as a skill set for an architect and is actually trained in a projectbased education and a 'learning by doing approach' most architecture faculties follow. In a highly organized culture based on a high division of labor, the question about how to steer systems becomes extremely relevant. Steering a system has to happen on all levels and by proactively interacting with one's environment. We live in a time where complexity and the amount of knowledge grows so rapidly that basic things need to be reestablished and communicated. ‘Sound reasoning’ or ‘taken-for-granted’ abilities seem to become more and more difficult to rely on. System, n. an assemblage or combination of things or parts forming a complex or unitary whole “And once lost, common sense can only be recovered, it seems, by way of science and peer-group activity.” (Economist 2001) Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary, 1989 System Thinking and Creativity Architects traditionally combined the "engineer", the “scientist” and the "artist" in one person. With the growth of knowledge and specialization, this has become more and more difficult. Nevertheless the architect is still considered to be the main professional entity to be responsible for the complete system of turning customers’ needs into a full working building. Architects developed different methods to train these abilities. System Thinking describes the ability to understand and interact with complex systems as opposed to a linear action-reaction thinking, which is closer to the way we usually experience the world. The German cognitive psychologist Dörner says at the end of his book „Die Logik des Mißlingens“ (Dörner 1989, pp. 308-): “I hope I could clarify the fact that we cannot grasp what is often generally called «systems thinking» as a simple entity, as an individual, distinguishable ability. It is a bundle of abilities, and essentially it is the ability to use Intuition, n. direct perception of truth, fact, etc., independent of any reasoning process; immediate apprehension Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary, 1989 Two kinds of thinking can be identified: Logicanalytical or 'rational' thinking and intuitiveholistic thinking (Ehrlenspiel 1995). They can be located in the left and right hemispheres of the human brain. Science and Engineering are dominated by the success of rational thinking. 2 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Artists often overemphasize pure intuitive thinking. The successful combination of both is the key to successful product development. Intuitive thinking can be extremely efficient, but it needs to be constantly controlled by rational thinking. The traditional complexity of building is forcing the architect more than any other profession to develop skills in this thinking method. The professional reality of being an architect requires covering the span from a precise, systematically thinking manager to a creative designer. The student has to develop these skills and abilities by learning and training. The statement of Dörner is very familiar to an architect. Whereas system engineering makes complex tasks manageable, it does not guarantee high engineering or design quality as such. This is often dependent on the qualification of the individuals. A good musician plays well on all instruments, whereas for an untalented and/or untrained person the instrument would not have a major impact on the quality of the music. Architects use a basic set of working methods. Sketches, drawings and models are sensual and visual abstractions of reality. Engineers reduce reality to be able to use mathematical (rational) abstractions and build a physical model at the end of the process. Architects very early start to work with physical models and do the necessary calculations later in the process. Although a mathematical model is very precise and predictable, a real model contains much more ‘intuitive’ information on much more different levels. Architects develop these ‘manual’ skills of drawing and model building in parallel to their intellectual skills. In English, as in many other languages, the verb "to grasp" is used to describe a physical as well as a mental process. (Aicher 1991a). Franz Füeg (1984), Architect and Teacher, describes why the architect is forced to rely on an intuitive working process: Two obvious and two probably surprising characteristics characterize the external conditions of the design work: 1. The framework like design brief, site and its environment are relatively easy to oversee and to control. 2. The amount of theories to consider is incalculable 3. The number of possibilities for the synthesis - the project - is infinite 4. In addition (…) on the level of synthesis theories can contradict each other and often no synthetic solution can completely dissolve these contradictions. Out of these reasons the architect is forced especially in relevant aspects to make a free choice: The architect is forced to be free. LEARNING BY DOING: A PROJECT-BASED EDUCATION Architects mainly learn from architects. Lord Norman Foster To develop the skills to deal with complex systems requires a combination of learning and practicing. Like a pilot needs to learn a lot of theory, yet will never be a pilot without flying an aircraft again and again, so architecture students need to practice design by working through several projects during their studies. Practicing means building up experience, which is a powerful source of intuitive thinking. It is one of the main tasks of the education of an architect to make him or her understand the complex interrelation of all elements, which define a building (or a project) and make it work. This has to happen on all levels: Technology, Function, Economics, Sociology, Aesthetics etc. They need to be 'grasped' and trained. Students learn about these scientific fields, while at the same time they start to design more and more complex projects to understand the interrelations between the elements. This 'Learning by Doing' approach is used highly effectively at universities, often combined with internships in architects’ practices. 3 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics SPACE ARCHITECTURE EDUCATION AT THE TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF MUNICH design environment The Design Environment Environment, n. the aggregate of surrounding things, conditions, or influences, esp. as affecting the existence or development of someone or something. Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary An environment usually is a highly complex entity, which is – astonishingly (!) – often perceived integrative. Although everybody would agree how important a good working environment is, generally most people are not very proactive creating their environment. Environment is often perceived as something given or grown, not necessarily as something that can be changed by an individual. On one hand this is increasingly bewildering, since e.g. in a modern city environment about 90 percent of the environment is man-made and thus based on planning decisions of individuals or groups. On the other hand the interdependencies of the environment can become very complex, so that the individual just does not see any immediate effect of an interaction. This short-term view of the environment as something that is given, rather than made by ourselves, has to change in dealing with complex systems. There is the need to find soft environment communication system lectures excursions video conferences round table reviews people system expert coaching teacher student strong feedback, feed forward and cross relations hard environment An outline of our teaching system is given in Fig. 1. We identified the importance of the environment as an active steering element of the production system. Often it would be more important to know in what environment something took place, than actually how it took place. The environment communicates on a subconscious level, whereas the setup of a communication system provides the platforms for exchange of knowledge and ideas. People need to be supported to act as proactively and forward orientated as possible. In an education situation they form the triangle between student, teacher and external expert. The production system contains the methods and processes, which actually create ideas and physical hardware. production system design process working method product Figure 1. Outline of the project based teaching system used at the Institute for Architecture and Product ways to pro-actively influence and change the environment to steer the system. But also the insight has to grow, that all elements of the system are actively influencing their environment and are influenced by it. The architect, who designs by profession urban, working and living environments, has usually a higher awareness of the possibility to interact and knows that interaction means to work on all elements in parallel to achieve a better system result. At our institute we have been very careful to establish and control the environment, which allows high quality design to happen. This applies to the physical environment as well as to the social one. 4 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics produce high-quality work: internally to the students and new employees and externally to other institutes and potential clients. This would not have been possible with a wooden floor, dirty walls and a complete mess, as university studios still can be found to be. A good environment can save a lot of words! Figure 2, showing design studio with full-scale mock-up of an ISS Standard Rack and students with early fullscale design mock-ups Hard (physical) Environment Often the physical environment is strongly predefined by existing spaces and missing budgets to change them. Although even small changes in the layout of the furniture, color or lighting can make big improvements. Generally the design studios at the University of Technology in Munich are in old 1950’s buildings designed for a classic use by officials: dark aisles with closed doors and invisible activities or non-activities behind them. From my experience a creative design environment is better with a high degree of transparency and spatial communication. This is even more so for a teaching environment. Design students learn the most from their colleagues and the exchange and comparison with them. (Aicher 1991b, pp. 142-147). We opened some walls and we introduced soft gray-blue carpet, white walls, small lightweight aluminum tables on wheels and light foldable chairs. The change was dramatic: a prime office-like working environment for more than 60 students with highly improved acoustics (carpet), color and light concept. A modern atmosphere is created with light furniture, no heavy and noisy chairs and tables. The design work displayed in images and models communicates unspoken the credibility to But just changing the physical environment is not enough. No, at the same time students (or employees) have to be taught or communicated that it is – at least for a limited amount of time – their environment and they have to take ongoing care of it. Some of them will only realize later the value of it, but they actually start to appreciate it. An environment which communicates quality naturally fosters people to take more active care of it, which benefits the intuitive learning process that quality is something which does not just happen by chance or talent, but needs daily attentivness. To achieve high quality, quality has to be explicitly pursued and actively taken care of. This needs to be communicated constantly: spoken or unspoken. Architects use their own office environment more or less consciously to do that. The physical environment is – although a complex system itself – an effective intuitive steering device of other systems, which are in contact with it. It communicates 'intuitively', 'at a glance', on multiple layers simultaneously or holisticly the level of quality expected to take place in it. Soft (psychological) Environment Create possibilities. The intellectual and psychological environment has to be fine-tuned as carefully as the physical environment. When we started 1996 in Munich the mindset of the students and professors was, that students don’t build and don't get money for it. Within nine months we had two projects built by student teams and financed by private industry! Since then several little projects were designed and built successfully by architecture students and most of them published in international magazines. How did that happen? We introduced non-hierarchical teamwork and take students seriously as designer ‘colleagues’. We show them how to design by using a working 5 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics method, and last but not least we opened up the possibility that already a student can achieve top quality design and building. To open possibilities in the minds of students (or anybody) and to show them how to turn possibilities into something real is the most important step to create a creative environment and probably the most rewarding for a university teacher. Students have to learn to see possibilities rather than problems. Problems want to be solved; they don't want to be studied only! Design attitude. Designing means to be able to play with the odds of complex systems, where a problem is generating a possible solution, which may change the way we looked at the problem first hand, and ask for a re-evaluation of the problem and a new solution. To keep up innovation and design quality in such a changing environment, this has to become an attitude of mind. Our design attitude is proactively modern, international, innovative, interdisciplinary and result orientated. Students are highly exposed to that attitude, which usually helps them to proceed much faster. Enthusiasm is an important element for good work, which is difficult to impose and not easy to quantify. In a student-teacher situation it works best when the teacher not only takes the critical reactive role, but also is enthusiastic and proactive about the projects himself. Teacher enthusiasm needs to be paired with a nonhierarchical work environment, where students are seen as ‘colleagues’ rather than subordinates. A design process requires a lot of hard work since often time pressure is high. Enthusiasm and having fun makes the work going easier and helps to be open and positive for changes. Implicit Innovation is a further element, which is used to challenge the students to investigate a variety of solutions. This means that we actively ask students to be innovative and direct their mind to the future rather than to the past. There is nothing as powerful as a vision followed with passion! Architecture history is full of creative visionaries, who serve as examples. Temporal Environment Stress is good, stress makes us work. Richard Horden to a student during a space architecture design studio. Time frame. A university environment is clearly structured in semesters or units wherein students have to deliver a certain package of work. The Munich Program for the ISS Habitation Module ran 12 months. During that time all knowledge about the space environment (microgravity!) was acquired, concept designs were presented to NASA, prototypes were built and successfully test flown on the KC-135. This is rather extreme and will be difficult to repeat on a planned basis. Nevertheless most universities do not allow a longer program with architecture students than 2 semesters. But within 2 semesters a valid and good design can be achieved assuming a high dedication of the students and the teachers to the subject. It is also recommended that basic knowledge about the space environment is acquired before the studio starts. Time pace A design process needs a time program with a certain rhythm. We introduced minimum weekly design sessions with the students with about 4 major critiques in a semester and a final review with guests at the end of the semester, when also grades are given. This allows us to actively control the design progress and urges the students to proceed to results and develop them. Time stress can be a worthy friend for a designer. Designs proceed when decisions are taken, and time helps in that process. I often noticed that one problem of architecture students is reluctant to take decisions early on, since they worry they might be wrong. This often results in working a whole semester on ideas, realizing at the end that there is not enough time to develop them. Students who take decisions early and test ideas come much further, even if their decisions may prove wrong in the beginning and they have to correct them. 6 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Goal Definition. Usually the outcome of a Space Architecture Studio is very dependant on the input given. Since the required input needs to be very high compared to a normal studio and very highly qualified, the outcome of such studios is often too far away from interesting proposals for the space industries. Once the track of technological feasibility is abandoned the studio is lost and the comments reduced to "It's nice, but it doesn't work". The goals should be clearly set and communicated to the students. The set of goals we used are: • • • • • • • 2. 3. 4. • To work in the field of Space Architecture a high level of understanding of science and technology is required. This is usually assumed to be the case with graduate architecture students at a university of technology. In the first two years not only basic architectural skills are trained, but students are required to prove their knowledge in structural engineering, building physics, mechanical and electrical engineering, ergonomics, sociology, art and history. The importance of the scientific and engineering focus of these base studies must not be underestimated and faculties of architecture shifting their focus from engineering requirements to art or sociology are not helping the profession in the long term. • For a space architecture class the usually high technological understanding of an architecture student has to be relied upon at an even higher level. Otherwise there is the danger that too much time is spent in studies of the space environment, which in the end do not turn out useful if they are not related to the task to discover and solve a design problem. • Architecture students need to be highly capable of thinking in systems and necessary abstraction. They also need to be able to evaluate the importance of information in a given phase of the design process. Basically, gather information and make sense out of it. This is actually one of the main problems a majority of students have. Since they do not have the experience, it is difficult for them to judge what is relevant. Some students cover themselves with information and don’t produce anything; others produce something that is not even based on common knowledge of physics. Both are unacceptable. user friendliness highest possible design quality technical feasibility functionality improvement of environment innovation prototype building whenever possible Since we have to deal with many technical restraints and problems, we have to prevent them from becoming the main problem. We are not designing a ‘machine’, but a human habitat. The human being has to be put explicitly in the center. 1. Students The human being and its well-being is the most important Human well-being is dependant on a complex system Space Architecture is not top-down, but an interaction with this complex system The elements of that system have to be understood to interact with them. PEOPLE SYSTEM Obviously people are the most important part of any product-developing system. But it is not only important that the people have the right technical qualification. They also need to be able to interact with the creative system. They need to have or be willing to develop the personal skills to be flexible, pro-active, team players, problem-aware and solution-orientated. For a space architecture curriculum, students should be graduate level, have acceptable design skills and be familiar with the design 7 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics process. They should bring a high interest in technology and a high degree of enthusiasm. If a pre-selection process is possible at the university it should be done. Although, we had never more than 10-15 students, which are 23% of all upper semester design students, which indicates, that the vast majority of students do not see a relevance of space architecture to their future professional life as an architect. Teachers Coaching.The qualification of a teacher (or a manager in private industry) is often taken for granted. This is not always the case and probably one of the main troubles in education and private industry. As modern System Engineering tries to shorten time-to-market and promotes ‘integrated problem-solving’, the role of the teacher in modern university education becomes one of an active ‘coach’. Classic unidirectional teaching roles still practiced have to change into participation. The teacher takes the role of a coach or co-pilot and is using 'push' and 'pull' inputs, but is also taking care of a friendly, open and human atmosphere, where hard work and stress is compensated by having fun and being enthusiastic. The main task of the design coach is to lead the student through the 'tunnel' of a project and encourage him or her to achieve a good result. The coach is acting as an active catalyser of the students skills. Architects use in their offices a similar concept by often consulting their colleagues and discussing their ideas. • The majority of human beings think in predefined subjects. Architects think in architecture and many would have problems to look at a car as a piece of architecture, although there are many interesting parallels which bear a lot of potential for innovation. I consider it as one of the main tasks of a teacher and a main source for innovation to enable the student to think laterally and cross-reference into other fields of technology or engineering, even into nature. • A modern design environment is not hierarchical. This change has to be introduced top down. The student cannot change it. It is the teacher’s task to create a one-level team spirit, where the teacher is not respected merely for the position, but for experience and competence. This means that teachers can deal with criticism as much as the students are expected to. • The teacher never has to pretend to know everything. Architects actually never can know everything possibly relevant to their work, so they become very trained to get know-how when they need it and manage the skills of the experts. The students learn this by seeing other architects doing this. At the TU Munich Professor Richard Horden has 4-5 Assistant Professors to support teaching. In average we spend about 1 hour a week with each design team, which is already a lot. For a Space Architecture studio this is increased to 2-3 hours due to more excursions, visits to the engineers, the need to learn with the students and to monitot their design for technical feasibility. Experts A good set of experts includes aerospace engineers, astronauts and space architects. A collaboration with an outreach program of a space agency can give access to experts. Although, the quality of the outreach programs in our experience is strongly varying and dependant on the people involved. Engineers should be asked to give an introduction in space environment, space stations, rocket systems, space construction and materials and Life Support Systems. Best is the collaboration with the engineers of one’s own university, since they are accessible. Astronauts are the people who will be the potential users of the designs and access to their opinion and experience is very important. A lot of experience can be accessed through books written by astronauts. Often Space Agencies send out Astronauts, if they are 8 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics invited. There seem to be two generations of astronauts at the time being: The "old guys", who were pioneering in space flight and mostly on short-term missions, and consider 'design' or 'space architecture' as completely superfluous, and the younger generation, who potentially face long-term missions and appreciate that somebody takes care of a better habitability of their environment. Space Architects are usually the only ones who can give the architecture students an idea, which problems are important to work on and how to tackle them as an architect. Also, they are often very practical and straightforward in their advice. The qualification of experts is not easy to control in an education environment. This does not mean that highly qualified engineers cannot be found in a university of technology, but for many of them it is strange to deal with architects and they know neither what they really want nor need, with the disadvantage that the information is often not related to the specific design task. • The experts have to be aware of their active role in creating results. They need to be honest and open. They need to react if designs go wrong as much as the design teams. • It would be of very high importance to find experts who have a background in Space Habitability. Figure 3. Videoconference from TU Munich to NASA JSC for a project presentation. On screen Space Architect Constance Adams and Engineer David Ray. COMMUNICATION SYSTEM Communication describes a wide field of human interaction that can influence a design environment. At this point more specific communication elements are meant, which control the learning and development of a design process. In our case these were: • • • • • Lectures Video Conferences Excursions Round Table Discussions Presentations Lectures At the University of Technology in Munich Prof. Igenbergs leads a very open-minded Institute of Astronautics. It has included his own lectures, the lecture series of Dr. Peter Eckert about the space environment and life support systems and last but not least of astronaut Dr. Reinold Ewald, who reported on the daily life on a space station. These lectures were part of the curriculum of aerospace engineers. If such an offer can be used at a university it is great, although we noticed, that in the design process, the need for specific and detailed information comes much earlier than what is possible to cover in a weekly curriculum. On the other hand, if the lectures are before the design process, their content might be too remote to what architecture students consider as relevant. This suggests that ‘experts’ should be available to answer specific questions at the moment they Figure 4. Astronaut Reinold Ewald explains the space shuttle to students 9 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics become important. Especially for habitability issues it is difficult to find experts with experience in that field. Video Conferences Prof. Igenbergs provided us with the possibility to meet with space architects Constance Adams, Nathan Moore and others at Johnson Space Center by video conference (Fig. 3). This was most valuable, since it gave us access to these space architecture experts. Alternatively we used telephone conferences with Kurt Micheels in the Mars program and in parallel email communication. The possibility to discuss models by video conferencing is invaluable. One should not underestimate the effect of putting ‚real’ things in front of ‚real’ people working on ‘real’ projects. Excursions Very early comes the need to see and touch space hardware. Learning by the real thing – to 'grasp' – is very important for an architect. Dimensions, materials, construction methods need to be understood physically. The Munich environment was very supportive for that. The „Deutsche Museum“ has a mock-up of the SpaceLab Module. At space company KayserThrede we were able to ‘touch’, understand and measure an ISS-Standard-Rack, which would also be used for Crew Quarters in the Habitation Module. DLR and the European Astronauts Corps EAC in Cologne have mockups of the Mir Core Module and the new ISS Columbus module. This was very important input at the beginning. It was topped by a visit at the end of the first semester to Johnson Space Center and the mock-up facilities in Building NW9. Figure 5. Round table discussion with various experts For the Mars program, there was considerably less ‘real’ hardware to be studied, but the visit to companies that fit out civil aircraft proved to be important for students to understand possible methods of interior construction. Round Table Especially at the beginning of the program we established round table discussions with experts from the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the TU Munich. This was a sort of open brain storming discussion, where possible projects and actual problems were discussed with people who had project experience. This turned out to be very efficient for team building. Special round tables were after the lecture of astronaut Reinold Ewald, who was our ‘real’ client and the only one accessible who was in space and was able to share first hand experience. Later in the process these round table discussions were integrated in the presentations and crits of the students’ work. Design Reviews During the semester a series of design reviews is established. The teaching staff sees the students and their work weekly. About 2 or 3 times a semester a design review with external guests is scheduled. Regular design reviews give students a pace to work and allow a good survey about the work in progress. They also allow the professors to intervene, if designs don't develop or go in the wrong direction. The critical character of these reviews is very typical for an architect's education and it is very important to ask critical questions and to be honest about the quality of the design work. Often non-architects are not used to this efficient straight-forward method. Figure 6. End of semester presentation. 10 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics DESIGN PROCESS AT THE INSTITUTE FOR ARCHITECTURE AND PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT become able to deal with complexity and the more they understand that there is no other 'recipe' for good design, than to actively work on problems and create a sensitivity where problems may occur. Our basic design method follows the principles of integrated product development as described by Ehrlenspiel (1995). Analysis Architects mainly learn from architects. They look at existing designs and learn from their success or failure. The critical look at the human environment and the conscientious responsibility to improve it, is a trademark of good architects. A sound analysis of existing space architecture is a very effective learning method. We studied Skylab, Mir and ISS looking at the organization and distribution of the habitability functions. Literature, drawings, illustration and especially videos were important media to learn from existing designs. The analysis also bears a big potential for new project ideas, since problematic designs can be identified and improved. The idea for the Munich Space Chair came from the dissatisfaction about foot loop restraints and the PHA Space Shower (Fig. 17, 18) from the dissatisfaction about flying towels up to orbit and down for washing again, being aware of the energy used. The design process has been described in its sequence by Daenzer (1992) and others, studying the process of problem solving. It is a very iterative process with the need for a constant feed-forward and feedback throughout. The core process has been described by Miller et al. (1960) with the TOTE (Test-Operate-TestExit) Model (Fig. 7). To understand the process is important, but there is no ‘recipe’ for good design. Design has – like music or flying – a lot to do with practicing. The abilities have to become intuitive to be able to use them in all their complexity. A design student has to design again and again to gradually establish a set of skills. A design process can be very complex and many problems have to be solved in parallel. There is a certain structure that can be taught, but a major amount of the education is practice. The more successful students have been to develop good designs the more they design process working method organised step-by-step approach defined interfaces, milestones still unused potential in feed-back and feed-forward method architects (contious) working method which incorporates intuitive and rational design methods. solution driven, rather than problem driven tote scheme test-operate-test-exit base diagram of thinking process "trial-and-error", intuitive conscious-unconscious design problem concept ? referencing sketching design feed forward drawing ? detail design solution orientated ? feed back analysis models ? prototype ? presentation design solution Figure 7. Concept model of the design process at our institute. 11 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics test exit operate Concept The concept is one of the most powerful and important elements of an architect’s work. A good convincing concept can help to assure the project quality from the beginning to the end and is an important steering element. Accordingly in architectural design and education an emphasis is put on the development of a good and convincing concept. The concept for the foldable space Table FLOW (Fig. 9-12, 15) came together through the inspiration of the Future Systems Space Table, the Munich Space Chair restraint system and the need to pack any kind of galley table structure to withstand take-off loads. The idea came very early, at a point when the students even haven’t even been aware of many other implications. But the concept was strong enough to develop up to parabolic test flights. Design The actual design work controls the concept and makes it functional. Other than the concept finding, designing is very rational work controlled by intuition. A design is developed by adding more and more information and testing on different levels. Changes have to be made constantly. A designer has to be very flexible and open for change; even the concept may be changed or extended while information comes together. At the end of it all basic principles have to work and a high quality of design has to be reached. The design phase of the space Table FLOW went right through the detail design and prototyping; also the PHA developed parallel in design as prototyping was already going on. It is very important that design control does not stop after the design work. The loss of ‘intuitive’ information from the design phase to the prototyping can be immense and a source of expensive mistakes. The design team should be involved through all phases. industry is intensified. Every screw and bolt becomes important. Engineering sketches and calculations have to be turned into working drawings for mostly different manufacturers. Many new and unforeseen technical and financial problems occur and the design and the design team have to be strong enough to withstand all of this. During detail design, we realized that the conditions and requirement for a parabolic flight were so special and different to space that we decided to make two prototypes each: test prototypes to withstand the loads of a parabolic flight, and design prototypes to show the intended design. (Fig. 15/16, 17/18) Prototyping Building a fully functional prototype is usually at the end of the design process, but different partly working prototypes should be considered as early as possible to develop the design. Usually in the prototype phase most of the money goes away and the possibility to change or correct is the lowest. Also if things go wrong it is expensive and painful. The students spent many hours in the companies helping us to build the prototypes in a very short time. This made it possible to react to problems fast. An example for a feed-forward process is that we started with full-scale models early on. Dimensional mock-ups (Fig. 2), ergonomic models (Fig. 8) and several prototypes have been made to be able to develop the first testflight prototype. Detail design In the detail design phase the collaboration of the design team with more engineers and Figure 8. Ergonomic Mock-Up of FLOW being tested by students in the Olympic Swimming Pool in Munich 12 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics WORKING METHODS References Architecture and design live to a big extent from mimesis. In architecture education this often means, when students e.g. have to design a hospital, they look at existing ones, analyze them, try to improve the design and fit it to the new demands. But looking only within their own field for references limits the potential of innovation severely. Looking at a modern airline, aircraft and even boats could inform the design of a new hospital. (Vogler, 1996) Referencing means exactly that. Be inspired by what you like, regardless from what discipline it comes. This systematic referencing is a source of inspiration for new ideas and actually nothing else than applying lateral thinking. Referencing also allows the alienated and segregated world of experts to come closer again and opens new potential. An engineer who likes nature is allowed to integrate it into his work and suddenly a new highly inventive source of new technologies is developed: Bionics. We often use simple diagrams to define a task. (Fig. 9) Also we ask students to find their own sources of inspiration. For the space table we worked with the reference to a briefcase, which allows the astronaut to take everything along he or she needs to work, including restraints. (Fig. 10) Figure 10. The astronaut's workstation FLOW uses a briefcase as a reference. Sketches The sketch is one of the most important and efficient working tools for all who are engaged in designing the 3 dimensional world. Unfortunately the sketch is too much undervalued in the education of engineers. The sketch not only helps to understand and analyze the existing world, but is as well the source of inspiration. During sketching knowledge and inspiration are coming together trying to find solutions, which are visually evaluated. Reasoning and intuition play together. A sketch is a perfect tool to simplify complexity by abstraction, without (!) limiting it. Figure 11. Sketch by Arne Laub showing handle and bungee system of astronauts table ‘FLOW’ Drawings Figure 9. This simple diagram was used to show the relation of a "house in space" and a house on earth. A good drawing is as much a presentation, planning and clarification tool for others as it is for the designer. To draw something precisely means to make it work – or at least make visible 13 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics where it doesn't work. One is forced to understand the problems, find solutions and make decisions. A drawing is a rational process. This means sketches should be developed into drawings as early as possible, also to serve as a basis for new decisions. Usually students who are drawing well proceed much faster with their designs, than students who are sloppy about their drawings. Figure 12. Axonometric drawing explains function and fitout of Astronaut’s table ‘FLOW’ Models The model is not to be considered as the end of a design process, but as much a working tool as the sketch. The model is pushing ideas into the physical and material world. Problems become apparent while building a model as much as it confirms ideas and leads to improvements. In our studio we have a high emphasis on model building. This is demanding a lot of work, but the benefit of working directly in the third dimension is very high. The model can convey, besides the 3 dimensional geometric definition of an object or space, a sense of light and shadow, surfaces, colors and atmosphere. A good model can be investigated with scale figures and photographs to simulate reality at relatively low costs. The strong emphasis we put on good quality model building is probably a main reason for the good output of our studio. Building a model is also to a certain degree a simulation of the real construction, and the technical details can be simulated. Virtual Models are very valuable to simulate processes, movements, light and time. We used them in the Mars Studio in parallel to physical models (Fig. 22, 23). Virtual models should not replace physical models, since they often cut out many aspects of reality, especially mechanics. They bear the risk that their transition to reality is not possible and this is found out too late, since it always seemed to be okay in the computer. Figure 13. Model view shows table arrangement in the galley area. The 1/6 model was used for a presentation video. Presentation All the above tools are not only working tools but also presentation tools. Actually the closer the product of these tools is to a high quality presentation standard, the better they serve as working tools as well. Once a high quality level in presentation is established, the design work becomes more efficient. This effect is still underestimated. Usually the presentation effort is made at the end of a phase. The more the quality of a public presentation can be fed forward into the design process, the more efficient it becomes. This becomes apparent with layout. If students are required to pin up every week with a laid-out presentation, they are forced to layout their ideas, with is usually forcing them to clarify their ideas and make the story clear. 14 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics CONCLUSION To educate space architects will not play a major role in the near future since the opportunities to work professionally in this field are much too limited. On the other hand these limited opportunities would require highly skilled architects with a sound technological engineering background. To integrate space architecture into the education of an architect, nevertheless can bring big advantages and learning effects for the students. It can further create an interdisciplinary work environment within the university, which otherwise is very difficult to impose. Especially the interchange of architecture and mechanical engineering offers potential new approaches in the fields of System Engineering, Vehicle design and Lightweight Construction. The importance of designing the work environment and coaching the people should not be underestimated, both in an educational and in a professional environment. Creating a controlled qualityconveying working environment and applying a disciplined working method and quality standard are the first steps to high quality results. Architects are trained intensively in intuitive thinking and rational thinking, which is a key to deal with complex systems. They develop working methods not to reduce the complexity by splitting it into elements only, but to make it accessible intuitively again by various forms of close-to-reality models early in the design process. To be able to understand and evaluate the working methods of an architect and to integrate them with engineering methods to create a holistic design environment is most valuable for space agencies and industries, to put successful design teams together and to provide the safest and best working and living environment for human beings in space. REFERENCES Aicher, O. (1991a). analog und digital, [analogous and digital], Berlin, GERMANY: Ernst&Sohn. Daenzer, W.F., Huber, F. (1992) Systems Engineering, Zurich, SWITZERLAND: Verlag Industrielle Organisation Detail (1998). Beach Point, Cliffhanger, Detail, Vol 5, p781-786, Munich, GERMANY: Institute für Internationale ArchitekturDokumentation GmbH Dörner, D. (1989). Die Logik des Misslingens Strategisches Denken in komplexen Situationen, [The Logic of Failure – Strategic Thinking in Complex Situations], Reinbek near Hamburg, GERMANY: Rowohlt. Ehrlenspiel, Klaus (1995). Integrierte Produktentwicklung, [Integrated Product Development], Munich, GERMANY: Carl Hanser. Field, T. (2002, Jan 26), Losing our Common Sense, The Economist p 78, London, UK: The Economist Newspaper Ltd. Füeg, F., Zusammenhänge zwischen Theorien und Entwurfsarbeit in der Architektur, [Relations between Theories and Design Work in Architecture], Niederteufen, SWITZERLAND: Niggli, pp 270 Horden, R. (1999), Richard Horden – Architect and Teacher, Basel, SWITZERLAND: Birkhäuser. Miller, G., Galanter, E. & Pribram, K. (1960), Plans and the structure of Behaviour,New York, USA: Henry Holt & Co. Ossimitz, G. (1998). The Development of Systems Thinking Skills. In E. CohorsFresenborg, H. Maier, K. Reiss, G. Toerner, H.-G. Weigand (Eds.), Selected Papers from the Annual Conference of Didactics of Mathematics 1996 (p. 98). Osnabrueck, 1998, GERMANY: FMD e.V. Richmond, B. (1993): Systems thinking: critical thinking skills for the 1990s and beyond. System Dynamics Review, 9, no. 2, p113133. Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons Aicher, O. (1991b). Die Welt als Entwurf, [The World as Design], Berlin, GERMANY: Ernst&Sohn. 15 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Vitruvius, M. (25/15BC), De Architectura, Vol. 1, chap. 1,No. 12, Retrieved June 21, 2002 from University of Kansas, History Departement Web site: http://www.ukans. edu/history/index/europe/ancient_rome/E/Ro man/Texts/Vitruvius/1.html Vogler, A. (1996, January), Sainsbury Wing. Bauwelt, 4, pp. 154-157, Gütersloh, GERMANY: Bertelsmann Fachzeitschriften GmbH Vogler, A. (2000, July). Micro-G-Architecture - A Transdisciplinary Education, Research and Product Development Project for Engineers and Architects, (SAE 2000-01-2328), 30th International Conference on Environmental Systems, Toulouse, FRANCE, July 10-13, 2000, Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers. Vogler, A. (2001, July). Mars Habitat Studies 2001, (SAE 2001-01-2170) , 31th International Conference on Environmental Systems, Orlando, FL, July 9-12, 2001, Warrendale, PA: Society of Automotive Engineers. APPENDIX PROJECT DESCRIPTION ISSMars Habitation Habitation Module Module Begin End Teachers (TUM) Man-hours Experts (TUM) Man-hours Experts (EAC/DLR) Man-hours Experts NASA Man-hours Experts Mars Society Man-hours 10/1998 10/1999 4 1200 4 300 1 50 3 300 – – 10/1999 01/2001 2 400 2 100 1 30 2 30 2 50 Experts Industries Man-hours Students Man-hours Total costs EUR (no man-hours) Funded costs Industry contribution EUR Final product 12 500 12 20'000 150'000 18 5'000 10'000 60'000 50'000 2'000 2'000 4 prototypes 1 model tested on proposal KC-135 Table 1: Project description of space architectute studios at the University of Technology Munich with time and costs estimates A space architecture studio can be much more time consuming than a standard studio. Table 1 gives an estimate of time an money spent and quantifies the passion and energy behind it. ISS-Habitation Module The program started with much enthusiasm and a very good constellation of people. None of the architects had experience in space design. The Professor of the Institute of Astronautics had positive experience in working with architects though, and prepared the connections to his colleagues, astronauts and – with his videoconferencing system – to NASA. The working topic was defined to be the ISS Habitation Module and the objective was to design technically viable proposals for all living functions on the ISS. Literature, Internet search and lectures at the Institute of Astronautics allowed gathering first knowledge about the problems of human space flight. Video material offered an insight into existing solutions and the way astronauts move in microgravity and handle objects. Round table meetings allowed interdisciplinary brainstorming sessions. Biweekly meeting with astronaut Reinold Ewald, helped to get a further understanding of life in microgravity and the working reality of an astronaut. Very soon the need to see and understand real hardware came. Especially to get a feeling for 16 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics the dimensions. The Munich Aerospace Company Kayser-Threde was working on ISSStandard Racks. An Aluminum workshop helped us with a dimensional mock-up (Fig. 2). Out of the need to understand the dimensions this studio went very fast into full-scale mock-up building. Without the model building skills of the students the design development would have been difficult. Videos and the full-scale models, which could be touched and tested, contributed a lot to understanding the world of micro-gravity. For larger scale objects like the whole ISSHabitation Module we worked in 1/6 scale, which allowed us to test the models with a 1/6scale toy puppet (fig. 24, 25). Ingress, egress reach etc. could be simulated very realistically that way. After a while of parallel work, the students were divided into topic groups, working on the galley area, the hygiene unit and the crew quarters. Students produced different proposals for the plan of the Habitation Module, which was an important decision to take, so everybody could work on their topics in a defined geometry. The Hygiene Unit was moved into Node 3 and reduced to one rack, by suggesting a new toilet and a diagonal arrangement. Although the crew quarters would be best at the end of the module, in terms of privacy, we decided to swap them with the galley, avoiding floating over the table, when accessing the crew quarter (Fig. 14). Students then designed their parts and built a whole 1/6aluminum model of the Habitation Module and Node 3 (Fig. 15). The work with microgravity issues produced many inventive designs and concepts for hair washing, showering, storage, oven, fridge and water storage design. After 3 months of intensive work we visited Johnson Space Center and presented the designs for the Habitation module. NASA was very impressed by the quality and the closeness to real problems of the work and offered us test flights on the KC-135 in 4 months (!), if we could manage to build prototypes of some of the ideas. Of special interest was the modular Astronaut Table ‘FLOW’ (Fig. 16,17) with integrated seat restraint and the space shower ‘PHA’ (Fig. 18,19). Furthermore, a thin storage system ‘BOCS’ and a ‘SpaceBed’ with inflatable restraints were successfully tested. Naturally this was a major challenge for the students: things needed to become real. Money had to be found, construction details developed, data packages written etc. The further design development continued in parallel with contacts to companies helping the prototypes. Ergonomic models were built and tested under water (Fig. 8); different mechanisms were tested. Naturally the stress level of this second semester was high, since the chance given by NASA was unique and time was very short. This could only be achieved by having the students already prepared for fast professional working methods and having the designs in a state that interested NASA. Figure 14, showing section through ISS Habitation module with galley area and windows on the left side and crew quarters on the right connecting to Node 3. Figure 15. 1/6 scale aluminum model of the Habitation modules showing the connected astronauts’ tables ‘FLOW’ with retractable ovens above. 17 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Figure 16. ‘FLOW’ (Flexible On-Orbit Workstation). Foldable modular Astronaut table with integrated restraint system. Designed, developed and tested in parabolic flights by architecture students Björn Bertheau, Claudia Hertrich and Arne Laub, TU Munich Figure 18. Design Prototype of the Space Shower ‘PHA’ (Personal Hygiene Assistant). Water recycling, suctionbased space shower designed, developed and tested by architecture students Bianca Artope and Brigitte Borst. Figure 19. Flight Prototype of ‘PHA’ under microgravity conditions. Superfluous water gets sucked away before it can float off. Mars Mission Habitation Module Figure 17. Astronaut Mary Ellen Weber testing the flight prototype of the ‘FLOW’ workstation. In 1999 Constance Adams, Space Architect, who gave a key input to our ISS Habitation Module studio, brought us together with Kurt Micheels, at that time the architect of the M.A.R.S (Mars Arctic Research Station) of the Mars Society, to work with our students on the Habitation Module for Mars. We were in email and telephone contact with Kurt Micheels and the German Chapter of the Mars Society, which happened to be assistants at the Institute of Astronautics at the TU Munich. We studied to a 18 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics certain extent the exterior – such as the green house, rover garage and entrance situation - of the HAB Module, based on the 'tuna-can' concept (Fig. 20). After several layout studies a proposal for a layout of the working level and the habitation level was made and the crew quarters planned in further detail (Fig. 21-22). This second program was accompanied with many more difficulties and hiccups on various levels than the first one and offers some lessons to be learnt, how well-tuned systems can perform less if the chemistry between the people doesn’t play. The Institute of Architecture and Product Development had a reduction in available teachers. At the same time the first group of 9 students, most of them neither with a high technical background nor well enough experienced in the design process, were led too much into problems of environmental conditions on Mars and engineering problems unrelated to habitability functions. Unfortunately the good contact to NASA could not be re-established and thus reliable technical problem-orientated information was missing. This led later to a focus on habitability functions, leaving some major problems like integrating the necessary lifesupport, food storage, and recycle-system not unstudied, but unresolved. Also the vertical circulation needs changing. Another strange effect hit this program. The Mars Habitat could easily be compared to a single-family house, and every architect should be capable to define and distribute the necessary functions. In addition they would have to be put in the specific relation of a longduration space flight mission. But many students couldn’t deal with the size at all. It was too big to be built and tested with no budget and too small to be understood by comparison of existing houses. As a result the design progress was relatively slow and partly off track. Also a new group of students who joined in one semester later, suffered under similar problems. They eventually started to build a dimensional mock-up of a crew quarter, just to realize that the necessary design work was not far enough yet to build. But this insight resulted then in a pretty fast development of the design with 1/20 and 1/6 models and computer simulations (Fig. 22-25). Figure 20. 1/50 scale Model of the Mars Habitation Module showing early concepts for Inflatable rover garage and staircase with platform for entrance. The main difficulty with designing the Mars Habitat is having to make design assumptions, which can only be validated by long term tests of full-size mock-ups. These tests need to be accompanied scientifically to get planning data. But until this can be achieved a lot of common sense and terrestrial experience has to be used to design the habitat for these 6 astronauts. Probably not the worst design basis. Figure 21. Plan of the upper Living Level of the Mars Module. Crew Quarters segments use the circular geometry to widen the space from the entrance. Opening the wall in-between can combine each two crew quarters. 19 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Figure 22. Light studies of a crew quarter. The bed can be folded, so it can be used as a seat during the day. Foldable tables allow a variety of uses. Figure 24 and 25. 1/6 scale model using a model figure for ‘ergonomic’ tests. Acknowledgments for ISS Habitation Module Studies Figure 23. Axonometric view of the habitat module An extraordinary program like this, naturally involves the help of many people, who all gave their important contribution. I hope nobody feels underestimated, when I personally thank Lockheed Martin Space Architect Constance Adams and NASA Mock-up facilities engineer David Ray for their incredible support and hospitality that they extended to us. They stand representative for all the hospitality and positive reactions we received at the NASA facilities at Johnson Space Center and Ellington fields. John Evanoff of Johnson Engineering provided us with an on site office and supported us in the stressful time of the flight preparations in Houston. Further I would like to thank: my colleagues Claudia Pöppel and Hans Huber for supporting me when the project came into its hottest phase 20 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics in summer 1999; the involved Institutes at the Faculty of Mechanical Engineering; German Astronaut Dr. Reinold Ewald; Dr. Winter and Dr. Zell from Dornier Friedrichshafen to get the PHA trough the Test Readiness Review with a 50 USD DIY Vacuum –Cleaner as an airsuction device, the team at Alu-Meier workshop Munich; and last but not least the students and their incredible persistence and energy! These projects were made possible by the great enthusiasm, work and support of the following people and companies: Students: Bianca Artopé Björn Bertheau Brigitte Borst Thomas Dirlich Julia Habel Claudia Hertrich Christian Hooff (1 semester only) Sandra Hoffmann (1 semester only) Arne Laub Professor: Prof. Richard Horden, Institute of Architecture and Product Development Assistant Professors: Lydia Haack, dipl. ing. AA Hans Huber, dipl. Ing. Arch (KC 135-Coordinator) Claudia Pöppel, dipl. ing. arch Andreas Vogler, dipl. arch. ETH (Teamleader) Engineers: Division of Astronautics TU Munich, Prof. Dr. ing. E. Igenbergs Departement of Light Weight Construction, Prof. Dr. ing. H. Baier, TU-München Prof. H. Bubb, TU-Munich Prof. H. Hamacher, TU-Muncih, DLR Cologne Dr. Reinhold Ewald, European Astronaut Centre, DLR Cologne Dr. E. Pfeiffer, Kayser-Threde, Munich Dipl. Ing. Herbert Ertl Dipl. Ing. Heinz Kutsch NASA Team: Constance Adams, Lockheed-Martin The Habitability Design Center at JSC Houston Tommy Capps Janis Connolly David Fitts Nathan Moore David Ray and the other employees of the Mockup facility building 9 NW Noel Skinner and others from the Reduced Gravity Office JSC John Evanoff, Johnson Engineering Support: Bayern Innovativ Bund der Freunde der TU-München DLR Cologne, Medical Department Companies: Alu-Meier, Munich, especially Peter Meier and Ralf Kichner Hans Grohe, Schiltach, especially Werner Heinzelmann and Günter Glunk Dornier Friedrichshafen, especially Dr. Martin Zell and Dr. Josef Winter Vontana Wasserbetten, Oererckenschwig, especially Tasso and Thomas Schielke Sponsors: Brück Leichtbautechnik, Nister-Möhrendorf Krauss-Maffay, München-Allach Horbach Werbetechnik, München Hoogovens Aluminum Sidal Rosner Lacke, München Odlo International, Switzerland Specken Drumag, Bad Säckingen SLV, München We apologize and thank the many others who are not named here, but nevertheless made an important contribution to the projects. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS FOR MARS STUDIES Students: Christian Brandstetter, Rocco Cerilli, Annegret Michler, Eva Rothmaier, Katrin Schumacher, Wolfgang Sirtl, David Wong Hanna Babusceac, Christian Bengl, Renate Binder, Veronika Dangl, Daniela Dinerva-Kopp, Maleen Fromm, Caroline Maier, Mathias Meess, Oliver Rob, Johannes Talhof, Kristina Vollmer TU Munich Teaching Staff: Prof. Richard Horden, Dipl. Ing. Omar Guebel, Andreas Vogler, dipl. Arch ETH, Dipl. Ing. Hans Huber, Prof. Dr. Dipl. Ing. Eduard Igenbergs and his teaching assistants (especially Thomas Dirlich), Prof. Dr. Dipl. Ing. Hans Hamacher (DLR), Prof. Dr. Dipl. Ing Bubb (Human Factor), Prof. Dr. dipl. Ing Baier (Lightweight construction), Dr. Ing. Eckehard Fozzy Moritz (Sport Faculty) and their assistants. I would like to specially thank my colleagues at the institute for supporting all the additional work necessary for such a ‘space architecture studio’: Lydia Haack, Christian Kern, Markus Meier, Claudia Pöppel, Michael Schneider, Thomas Straub, Alexandra von Petersdorff. External Coaching: Kurt Micheels, project architect of the Mars Arctic Research Station of the Mars Society, spent many hours on the telephone with us to discuss our ideas. Our work was seen and commented on by Constance Adams (Lockheed Martin), John Connolly (NASA Exploration Office), Dr. Dipl. Ing. Peter Eckart, Dr. Reinold Ewald (ESA Astronaut), Dipl. Ing. Jürgen Hartung, Kriss Kennedy (Nasa Exploration Office), Dipl. Ing. Barbara Imhoff (TU Vienna), Dr. Dipl. Ing. Lutz Richter (DLR), Dipl. Ing Hans Schartner (TU Vienna) Mars Society: Dr. R. Zubrin, and the German 21 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics chapter of the Mars Society especially: Dipl. Ing. Gerd Hofschuster, Dipl. Ing. Kristian Pauly Models: Hr. Lörzel, Schröter Modellbau, Zorneding Peter Meier, Alu-Meier, München We thank the many others, who may not be named here, but nevertheless made an important contribution to the projects. Contact Andreas Vogler, dipl. Arch ETH Technische Universität München Fakultät für Architektur Lehrstuhl für Gebäudelehre und Produktentwicklung Univ. Prof. Richard Horden Arcisstrasse 21 D-80290 München GERMANY Fon: +49 (0)89 2892 2491 Fax: +49 (0)89 2892 8408 [email protected] 22 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics