Next Article in Journal
The Birth of Black Modernism: Building Community Capacity Through Intentional Design
Previous Article in Journal
SeismicV: A Mobile Tool for Assessing the Seismic Vulnerability of Buildings
Previous Article in Special Issue
Experimental Investigation of Vibration Control in Timber–Concrete Composite (TCC) Floors Using Tuned Mass Damper
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Buildings
Volume 15
Issue 14
10.3390/buildings15142543
buildings-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

Advances in Solidification Technologies of Lunar Regolith-Based Building Materials Under Extreme Lunar Environments

by
Jun Chen
1 and
Ruilin Li
2,*
1
Institute of Mine Safety, China Academy of Safety Science and Technology, Beijing 100012, China
2
State Key Laboratory of Intelligent Construction and Healthy Operation and Maintenance of Deep Underground Engineering, China University of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou 221116, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Buildings 2025, 15(14), 2543; https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15142543
Submission received: 18 June 2025 / Revised: 11 July 2025 / Accepted: 11 July 2025 / Published: 19 July 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Research on Sustainable Materials in Building and Construction)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

With the launch of the Artemis program and the International Lunar Research Station project, the construction of lunar bases has emerged as a global research focus. In situ manufacturing technologies for robust lunar regolith-based building materials are critical to ensuring building safety under the Moon’s extreme environmental conditions. This paper reviews the relevant advancements in two areas: solidification technologies for lunar regolith-based construction materials and simulation techniques of extreme lunar environments. This review reveals that, although significant advancements have been made in solidification technologies, the development of lunar environment simulation technologies, particularly for 1/6 g gravity, has lagged, thereby hindering the assessment of the in situ applicability of these solidification methods. To address these limitations, this paper introduces a newly developed comprehensive lunar extreme environment simulation system based on superconducting magnetic suspension technology and its potential applications in lunar regolith-based construction material solidification. This review highlights the current progress and challenges in solidification techniques for lunar regolith-based building materials, aiming to enhance researchers’ attention to the extreme environmental conditions on the lunar surface.

1. Introduction

As Earth’s closest natural satellite, the Moon is abundant in helium-3 and various rare metal resources [1,2,3,4], with potential for water ice in its polar regions [5,6,7]. These factors make the Moon an ideal testing ground for space exploration. The development and utilization of the Moon have now become a global consensus. Many countries, e.g., the United States [8], China [9], the European Union [10], Russia [11], Japan [12], the United Kingdom [13], India [14], and Israel [15], along with commercial entities like Intuitive Machines, Moon Express, and SpaceX, are all entering the field of lunar development. Among these initiatives, both America’s Artemis program [16] and China’s International Lunar Research Station (ILRS) project [17] plan to implement in situ resource utilization on the Moon.
The extreme lunar environment poses significant challenges to lunar exploration activities. The temperature on the lunar surface ranges from approximately −180 °C to 127 °C, with a vacuum of 10−14 Torr and a gravity field of about 1/6 g [18]. Furthermore, the Moon is continuously subjected to high-energy cosmic radiation, meteorite impacts, micrometeorite abrasion, and lunar dust erosion, creating an extremely harsh environment [19], as illustrated in Figure 1. Consequently, previous lunar exploration missions have encountered numerous engineering challenges. For instance, the Apollo astronaut experienced cardiac damage [20,21]; the Apollo 15 mission faced drill jamming and severe bit wear [22]; the Apollo 16 lunar rover suffered from battery cooling malfunctions [23]; Apollo 17 astronauts were exposed to dust abrasion [24]; the Soviet’s Luna 20 mission encountered power shortages and drill jamming [25]; the Chinese Yutu series lunar rovers exhibited fragile performance at night; and India’s Chandrayaan-3 mission was declared a failure two weeks after landing. These issues have posed significant challenges to the sustainable development of lunar exploration. To ensure astronauts and lunar equipment can be effectively placed, resupplied, and repaired during long-term missions, there is an urgent need to establish protective infrastructure on the Moon. Therefore, the development of lunar base construction technologies is a frontier scientific issue [26,27,28,29,30].
Due to the limitations of Earth–Moon transportation costs [31], developing robust lunar regolith solidification technology is a necessary step for enabling large-scale lunar infrastructure. To support this goal, assessing the reliability of solidification and the long-term safety of lunar regolith-based building materials under extreme conditions is critical. This paper reviews the relevant progress and challenges in two key areas: lunar regolith-based material solidification technologies and technologies for simulating extreme lunar surface environments. The review highlights that current simulation technologies for replicating the extreme lunar environment are still in their infancy, making it difficult to evaluate the in situ applicability of existing solidification methods. To overcome this challenge, we have recently developed a comprehensive lunar environment simulation system, with its principles and research plan outlined. We hope this review will draw attention from researchers to the details of lunar extreme environments and the in situ production conditions for lunar regolith-based building materials, ensuring that the proposed technologies are suitable for the harsh lunar surface environment.

2. Solidification Technologies of Lunar Regolith-Based Building Materials

In the past few decades, dozens of stabilization technologies for lunar regolith-based building materials have been proposed. Bao et al. [32] classified these technologies into four categories based on their curing principles: reaction solidification, sintering/melting solidification, bonding solidification, and confinement formation. This section provides an overview of the underlying principles and developmental progress of the major solidification technologies, along with a discussion of their advantages and constraints.

2.1. Reaction Solidification

Reaction solidification achieves material hardening by forming chemical bonds through reactions between lunar regolith and specific additives. Therefore, a thorough understanding of the chemical composition of lunar regolith is essential. Lunar regolith is an assemblage of granular particles formed through the long-term exposure of lunar bedrock to extreme processes, including billions of years of meteoroid impacts, micrometeorite abrasion, cosmic ray bombardment, and intense diurnal temperature fluctuations [1]. Its primary constituents include mineral fragments (e.g., olivine and ilmenite), pristine crystalline rock debris (e.g., anorthosite and basalt), breccia fragments (e.g., impact melt rocks and microbreccias), glassy materials (e.g., glass beads and shards), and agglutinates—heterogeneous particles formed by the cooling and solidification of fine debris.
Table 1 summarizes the chemical compositions of lunar regolith samples from Apollo and Chang’e series missions, as well as some representative lunar regolith simulants. Previous studies have shown that silica- and alumina-based oxides are the chemically active components during reaction-based solidification. In Table 1, the combined mass fraction of SiO2 and Al2O3 in all five real lunar regolith samples exceeds 50%, indicating a high potential for chemical reactivity in the presence of suitable additives.

2.1.1. Alkali-Activated Solidification

This method represents the most extensively studied chemical solidification technique, in which alkaline activators react with aluminosilicate components in the regolith via a dissolution–repolymerization mechanism to form alkali-activated materials (AAMs), as illustrated in Figure 2a. Extensive studies have been conducted to explore and optimize this solidification approach. Alexiadis et al. [36] and Geng et al. [37] reported that the presence of amorphous aluminosilicates in lunar regolith facilitates alkali activation. Ma et al. [38] demonstrated that the addition of fiber aggregates during the alkali activation process significantly improves compressive strength. Zhou et al. [39] found that the lunar vacuum environment enhances the reaction quality of alkali activation. Zhang et al. [40], Zhou et al. [41], and Gu et al. [42] showed that activator concentration and curing temperature are key parameters affecting the solidification performance. Yao et al. [43,44,45] investigated the alkali-activated solidification behavior under lunar-like temperature and vacuum conditions from a microscale perspective.
This technique has demonstrated excellent reactivity and environmental adaptability in various silico-aluminous materials, including clays [46,47], tailings [48,49], and industrial solid wastes [50,51] on Earth. The high content of aluminosilicate oxides in lunar regolith renders it highly compatible with alkali-activated systems. Additionally, the alkali activation process has a low water demand, with up to 98.61% of the water being recoverable for reuse [52]. These advantages make it a promising candidate for in situ lunar construction applications and have attracted considerable research attention in recent years.

2.1.2. Hydrothermal Solidification

This method utilizes silicates from lunar regolith as the primary reactive material. It achieves solidification under a saturated steam pressurized environment [53,54,55,56,57], as shown in Figure 2b. The microstructure of the hydration products can be effectively controlled by adjusting temperature and moisture content. Such a technique mitigates the adverse effects of ultravacuum conditions on the concrete curing process, producing solidified materials with compressive strengths ranging up to 70 MPa [58]. However, the method is highly dependent on water, and its stringent curing conditions are challenging to maintain under lunar surface environments, thereby posing significant bottlenecks for large-scale application.
Generally, reaction-based solidification methods offer the advantage of rapid curing rates. Nevertheless, several limitations hinder their broader application, including the requirement for considerable amounts of additives, reliance on specific temperature and pressure conditions during curing, and the limited durability of the newly formed chemical bonds under the harsh lunar environment. These challenges necessitate further research to improve the practicality and longevity of such methods for lunar in situ resource utilization.

2.2. Sintering/Melting Solidification

Electric and solar thermal heating are two primary approaches for the in situ solidification of lunar regolith into building materials. Theoretically, both methods can enable direct 3D printing and modular printing of structures. Each method offers distinct advantages and limitations in terms of energy use, process control, and material performance, as shown in Figure 3.
Electric heating provides precise and stable temperature control, e.g., electric resistance sintering [59,60,61], microwave sintering [62,63], and laser melting [64,65], often resulting in sintered products with superior densification, uniformity, and mechanical strength. Additionally, it is adaptable to various component geometries and manufacturing processes. However, its practical application on the Moon is constrained by the requirement for a reliable and continuous high-power energy supply, which poses significant engineering challenges under lunar conditions. The associated system complexity also contributes to higher operational demands. In contrast, solar thermal heating directly utilizes the abundant solar radiation on the lunar surface, offering a sustainable and resource-efficient solution for high-temperature solidification [66,67,68,69]. Nevertheless, this method suffers from limited controllability due to the lunar day-night cycle and natural fluctuations in solar irradiance, making complex thermal management difficult and often resulting in less consistent product quality compared to electric heating.
In terms of energy consumption, Bao et al. [32] estimated that heating one ton of lunar regolith to 1000 °C—neglecting system losses—requires at least 233 kWh of electrical energy. This is approximately equivalent to the output of a 100 m2 photovoltaic array operating for six hours during a lunar day. Therefore, regardless of the specific sintering method employed, the integration of dedicated solar power infrastructure is essential. Most experimental studies report peak sintering temperatures in the range of from 900 °C to 1400 °C [32], with minimal variation among different sintering techniques. However, studies have demonstrated that vacuum conditions can significantly reduce the required peak temperature while simultaneously enhancing the compressive strength of the sintered products [61,70]. Given the ultra-high vacuum environment on the Moon, this effect could facilitate sintering and solidification processes at lower power input and energy consumption.
Based on whether the structure is formed in a single step, sintering solidification can also be classified into two approaches: direct 3D printing and modular sintering. Direct 3D printing offers a more efficient pathway for constructing lunar habitats. However, it presents significantly greater technical challenges compared to prefabricated sintering. This is because large-scale printing is required to achieve practical engineering relevance, which demands higher mechanical power and entails more complex thermo-mechanical control systems. Moreover, previous studies have shown that sintering lunar regolith directly under vacuum conditions can lead to the intense formation of pore structures due to the escape of volatile components [71], posing serious challenges to the material quality of high-temperature fused 3D-printed components. In contrast, modular sintering allows for better control over the initial regolith density, applied pressure, and thermal gradients during the sintering process, thereby improving the quality and uniformity of the final products [61]. However, since modular components still require secondary assembly to form full-scale structures, the mechanical integrity of inter-module connections becomes a critical factor for the overall structural performance.
Compared to other solidification methods, the advantages and disadvantages of the sintering/melting approach are the most pronounced. Its primary advantage lies in being the only method that enables the solidification of lunar regolith into building materials without the need to transport chemical binders or reactants from Earth. However, this approach also presents the highest equipment complexity and faces significant challenges in heat dissipation under the Moon’s ultra-high vacuum environment. Therefore, research on this method should focus on the adaptability of melting systems to extreme lunar conditions and the heat dissipation behavior of molten regolith in a vacuum. If these two key technical challenges can be overcome, sintering/melting solidification holds strong potential as an efficient solution for large-scale lunar infrastructure construction.

2.3. Bonding Solidification

This method solidifies lunar regolith by bonding loose particles using adhesives, as shown in Figure 4. The binders are generally classified into two categories: inorganic [72,73,74] and organic [75,76,77]. Common inorganic binders include sulfur and inorganic cementitious inks, while organic binders consist of polymeric materials and biobased substances. They generally do not chemically react with the lunar regolith components, though minimal and weak reactions may occasionally occur.
The main advantage of the bonding solidification method is that it does not require the lunar regolith to participate in chemical reactions. Solidification is predominantly achieved through physical or chemical reactions of the binder itself, making the process highly efficient and controllable. However, the limitations of this method lie in the relatively low bonding strength and poor durability of the adhesives under the extreme lunar conditions, such as high vacuum and large temperature fluctuations. Moreover, adhesives often require complex in situ extraction processes or incur high Earth-to-Moon transportation costs.

2.4. Confinement Formation

This method achieves the solidification of building materials by filling bulk lunar regolith into specially designed fabric bags [78,79,80,81,82], as shown in Figure 5. Existing studies have shown that extreme lunar conditions, e.g., intense thermal cycling, strong radiation, and micrometeoroid abrasion, can accelerate the aging of fabric bags, ultimately leading to structural failure. Therefore, the durability of fabric bags is a critical factor determining the long-term performance of such building materials in the harsh lunar environment.
Among the four solidification approaches, this is the only purely physical method. Its advantages include rapid solidification and high efficiency in structural assembly. However, its limitations lie in the limited durability of the regolith bags under micrometeoroid abrasion and the difficulty in constructing complex architectural forms.

2.5. Discussion of Solidification Technologies

The selection of lunar regolith solidification methods should comprehensively consider factors such as in situ curing reliability, durability under extreme lunar conditions, Earth-to-Moon transportation costs, and engineering complexity in the lunar environment. The four mainstream approaches each present distinct advantages and limitations across these dimensions.
Reaction solidification methods, particularly alkali activation, benefit from compatibility with the aluminosilicate-rich composition of lunar regolith and offer low water demand, making them promising for long-duration lunar missions. However, their dependence on transported activators and vulnerability of chemical bonds under severe lunar thermal and radiation conditions may limit their long-term reliability. Hydrothermal solidification demonstrates strong material performance but is severely constrained by its water demand and pressurization requirements, which are difficult to meet on the Moon.
Sintering/melting technologies require no terrestrial inputs, thus minimizing Earth-to-Moon transportation costs. Furthermore, the resulting construction materials typically demonstrate enhanced strength and durability relative to those produced by the other three approaches. These advantages underscore the considerable potential of this method for future in situ lunar infrastructure development. Nevertheless, the reliance on stable energy supply (electric) or fluctuating solar input (solar thermal), along with challenges in vacuum heat dissipation and system complexity, restricts their operational feasibility at scale.
Bonding solidification methods offer high process controllability and exhibit low dependency on the chemical composition of the regolith weathering layer. However, due to the potential degradation or failure of adhesives under lunar environmental conditions, their long-term stability remains questionable. Similarly, confinement formation methods offer a highly efficient solution for emergency shelters or temporary infrastructure. However, this method is incapable of supporting the construction of complex architectural structures, and the durability of the fabric bags is challenged by micrometeoroid abrasion and cosmic radiation on the lunar surface.
Overall, current understanding of the advantages and limitations of the four mainstream solidification approaches is primarily based on experimental results from ground-based or thermal-vacuum environments. However, these experimental conditions generally do not account for the influence of the Moon’s 1/6 g gravity, which limits the accuracy of assessing the in situ applicability of each method.

3. Lunar Environment Simulation Technologies

Lunar regolith-based building materials are subjected to harsh environmental conditions during both in situ solidification and long-term service, including ultra-high vacuum, extreme thermal cycling, and reduced gravity. Accurately simulating these three types of environments on Earth is crucial for evaluating the in situ applicability of building materials [83]. The following section summarizes and discusses recent technological advances in this area.

3.1. Thermal Vacuum Simulation Technology

In aerospace engineering, the extreme temperatures and vacuum conditions are collectively referred to as the thermal-vacuum environment. Vacuum conditions are typically achieved using vacuum pumps, while extreme temperature environments are generated via thermal flux and heat sink systems, as shown in Figure 6. Many research institutions, including the Austrian Academy of Sciences [84], the Spanish National Research Council [85], NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center [86], Canadian Space Agency [87], the German Aerospace Center [88], and the Physical Research Laboratory of India [89], have developed lunar thermal-vacuum environment simulation chambers.
Previous studies have shown that the vacuum level is primarily determined by the chamber volume and whether the chamber contains lunar regolith simulant. Compared to unloaded conditions, the outgassing of lunar regolith simulant can reduce the vacuum level by more than two orders of magnitude. For instance, under comparable pumping conditions using five vacuum pumps, Johnson et al. [90] achieved a vacuum level of 10−8 Pa in a chamber with a volume of 8.8 cm3, while Zhang et al. [91] reached only 10−1 Pa in a 4.3 m3 chamber. In addition, creating low-temperature conditions is significantly more challenging than generating high temperatures. According to Zhang et al. [91], cooling from room temperature to −20 °C required 32 h, whereas heating to 80 °C took only 50 min.

3.2. 1/6 g Gravity Simulation Technology

Three approaches can simulate the Moon’s 1/6 g gravity on Earth: parabolic flight, drop towers, and magnetic levitation-based gravity compensation, as illustrated in Figure 7.
Parabolic flight generates reduced gravity by flying an aircraft along a specific parabolic trajectory. The concept is believed to have been first proposed by the German physicist Haber in the early 1950s [92]. Representative reduced-gravity aircraft include the United States’ Zero-G aircraft [93], Russia’s Ilyushin Il-76 [94], and Canada’s Falcon 20 [95]. However, these aircraft can only simulate 1/6 g gravity for approximately 25 s, which is insufficient for the timescale required for the solidification of building materials. Similar to parabolic flights, the drop tower method simulates reduced gravity by allowing experimental payloads to undergo controlled deceleration, thereby creating a partial gravity environment. Representative facilities include those at the Chinese Academy of Sciences [96], NASA Lewis Research Center [97], the Center of Applied Space Technology and Microgravity in Germany [98], and the JAMIC drop tower in Japan [99]. However, the achievable duration of 1/6 g environment in drop towers is generally shorter than that in parabolic flights due to height limitations.
The magnetic levitation method achieves partial gravity by applying a precisely controlled magnetic force to counteract a portion of Earth’s gravitational force in the vertical direction. Relevant studies have been conducted by Li et al. [100] and Sanavandi et al. [101]. Since both magnetic force and gravity are body forces, this technique enables stable and accurate simulation of the Moon’s 1/6 g gravity. Nevertheless, the duration of such simulations is constrained by the thermal load generated in the magnet’s resistive coils during operation.

3.3. Discussion of Lunar Environment Simulation Technologies

Overall, replicating the extreme lunar environment on Earth for testing the in situ solidification and service performance of lunar regolith-based building materials still faces two major technical challenges. First, due to the high complexity of system integration, the development of thermal vacuum and low-gravity simulation technologies has largely progressed in isolation, preventing the creation of comprehensive experimental platforms that can simultaneously reproduce all critical lunar environmental parameters, e.g., ultra-high vacuum, extreme thermal cycling, and 1/6 g gravity. Second, although the magnetic levitation method has shown promise in stably generating a reduced gravity field that mimics lunar gravity, its practical application is severely constrained by significant heat generation in superconducting or resistive magnetic coils, which limits continuous operation time.
The challenges above represent critical bottlenecks that hinder the long-duration and stable simulation of the Moon’s extreme environmental conditions on Earth. Consequently, current research on lunar regolith solidification technologies is predominantly conducted under terrestrial gravity or thermal-vacuum conditions. However, these experimental settings fail to replicate the Moon’s low-gravity environment, thereby limiting our ability to accurately assess its influence on key solidification processes such as material flow, chemical reactions, particle deposition, adhesion, and heat dissipation. As a result, the reliability of these solidification techniques under actual lunar conditions remains highly uncertain, particularly for methods that involve complex chemical reactions.
Moreover, existing studies generally lack thermal fatigue testing of the building materials under prolonged extreme lunar conditions characterized by large temperature fluctuations and high vacuum exposure. Without long-term performance data under this extreme environment, it is challenging to determine whether the proposed methods can meet the structural reliability and durability requirements for lunar surface infrastructure. Therefore, future research must prioritize the development of testing frameworks that incorporate lunar gravity analogs and simulate the full spectrum of lunar environmental extremes to validate and refine current solidification technologies.

4. Comprehensive Lunar Environment Simulation System

4.1. System Development Overview

The system was originally developed to simulate the Moon’s 1/6 g gravitational environment. Its conceptual inspiration traces back to Professor Geim’s famous magnetic levitation experiment in which a frog was levitated using a strong magnetic field [102]. This experiment earned him the 2000 Ig Nobel Prize in Physics. The underlying principle was that magnetic forces could counteract gravitational forces, offering a novel pathway to simulate reduced-gravity conditions on Earth.
In 2010, Li et al. proposed the geotechnical magnetic-similitude-gravity model testing (GMMT) method to simulate unconventional gravity fields on extraterrestrial bodies [100]. After several years of refinement, an application-oriented system was successfully developed [103]. The apparatus consists of a central test module, a power supply system, and a cooling system, as shown in Figure 8. It provides a cylindrical experimental chamber with a diameter of 90 mm and a height of 160 mm. To enable lunar gravity simulation, the system must operate in conjunction with magnetically responsive materials. Hence, a specially formulated magnetic-sensitive lunar regolith simulant, named CUMT-1 lunar regolith simulant, was developed to interact with the magnetic field and enable the generation of controllable magnetic force [35]. This platform subsequently supported preliminary studies on the mechanical behavior of lunar regolith simulant under 1/6 g gravity conditions [104].
However, the system relied on copper windings to generate the magnetic field, which resulted in excessive heat generation and limited the operational duration to approximately 20 min. The significant thermal load also posed serious challenges for thermal management and prevented integration with thermal-vacuum environments. In 2020, under the supervision of Professor Li, the author redesigned the system with NbTi superconducting coils to overcome these limitations. This upgrade effectively eliminated the problem of resistive heating, enabling stable, long-duration reduced-gravity simulation. Moreover, by integrating this superconducting platform with a thermal vacuum chamber, we successfully established a simulation system capable of reproducing the Moon’s extreme environmental conditions over extended periods. This system, referred to as the superconducting magnetic levitation lunar environment simulation system (SML-LESS), offers a more comprehensive and realistic testbed for lunar construction technologies.

4.2. System Performance

The SML-LESS system comprises two subsystems: a superconducting magnetic levitation module and a thermal vacuum generation module, as shown in Figure 9. The two subsystems can independently simulate individual extreme lunar environmental conditions or operate simultaneously to replicate integrated lunar environments. The system is capable of maintaining a long-duration, stable simulation of a 1/6 g gravitational field, an ultra-high vacuum down to 10−8 Torr, and extreme temperature variations ranging from −180 °C to 180 °C within a cylindrical test chamber with a diameter of 500 mm.
The 1/6 g gravity environment is created by the superconducting magnetic levitation subsystem. Its development focused on two main aspects: the design of the magnetic structure and the creation of the magnet’s operational environment. For the magnetic structure, based on the Biot–Savart law and vector superposition principles, the magnetic field distributions around current-carrying uniform field coils and Helmholtz coils were derived. An initial configuration of superconducting coils was proposed accordingly, and the structure was further optimized using ANSYS 2024R2 simulations. The resulting design achieved a gravity distribution accuracy better than 96.23% for a 1/6 g field within the Φ500 × 500 mm volume. For the magnet’s operational environment, a cryogenic refrigeration system was developed using an FJ-110 composite molecular pump unit and two GM helium compressors. This system successfully created an ultra-low temperature environment of less than 4.2 K, which is required to maintain the NbTi superconducting state. As superconductors exhibit zero electrical resistance, they do not generate heat as conventional copper conductors do. Consequently, the superconducting magnet can operate continuously without thermal limitations, ensuring a stable and sustained artificial 1/6 g gravity field.
The lunar-like thermal and vacuum environment is simulated by the thermal vacuum subsystem. A three-stage thermal control system, comprising silicone oil heating pipes, composite refrigerant tubes, and liquid nitrogen cooling pipes, enables precise temperature regulation across a ±180 °C range. A three-stage vacuum pumping system, consisting of a roots pump, a cryopump, and a titanium sublimation pump, allows the vacuum level to be continuously adjusted from atmospheric pressure down to 10−8 Torr.
Due to the strong magnetic fields generated during operation, some sensitive components may be affected. To ensure functional independence and prevent interference between subsystems under high-density integration, the magnetic field distribution was calculated, and the spatial layout of sensitive components was optimized accordingly.

4.3. Future Application Plans

Based on the SML-LESS system, we have preliminarily achieved stable long-term simulation of lunar-like conditions, including 1/6 g gravity, high vacuum, and extreme temperatures. Moving forward, zero-gravity solidification experiments will be carried out using the SML-LESS system. The results will be systematically compared with existing space station-based zero-gravity 3D printing experiments to assess the method’s reliability and applicability. On this basis, we plan to utilize this system to conduct experiments on the solidification of lunar regolith-based building materials and to evaluate their long-term durability under extreme lunar environmental conditions.
Solidification tests. Given the limited robustness and reliability of current lunar equipment under extreme lunar environmental conditions, large-scale, single-step in situ 3D printing is unlikely to be achievable in the near term. A more pragmatic solution is to adopt modular construction methods. Accordingly, the solidification tests will primarily focus on the modular production techniques of building materials based on lunar regolith.
Under on-site modular construction scenarios, the production and solidification of lunar regolith-based building material can be carried out within the lander module, where temperature and pressure conditions are controllable. However, the 1/6 g gravity environment cannot be altered. Therefore, the solidification tests will focus on accurately simulating the 1/6 g gravity. This will facilitate the investigation of potential gravity-related solidification phenomena and support the development of targeted strategies to enhance curing efficiency and material quality.
Based on these considerations, we plan to conduct reactive curing, adhesive curing, and melt-based curing experiments under 1/6 g gravity conditions. It is worth noting that maintaining a stable 1/6 g gravitational condition during the experiment requires not only a stable magnetic field but also consistent magnetic responsiveness of the building materials involved. To address this, we have recently developed a cobalt-doped magnetic-sensitive lunar regolith simulant, which retains stable magnetic properties even under vacuum melting conditions at 1100 °C. Furthermore, this simulant does not participate in chemical reactions such as alkali activation, thereby ensuring that all three curing methods can be tested under a reliably 1/6 g gravity environment.
Long-term durability tests. Different lunar structures impose distinct service performance requirements on building materials. Habitability modules demand materials that combine low thermal conductivity for effective insulation and high impact resistance to withstand micrometeoroid impacts. Landing pads and lunar roads primarily require high impact resistance. Subsurface structures mainly emphasize the compressive strength of the materials. During the assembly of modular building units, the mortise-tenon joints particularly rely on adequate flexural strength to ensure structural soundness. Considering that thermal conductivity, impact resistance, compressive strength, and flexural strength are key indicators for evaluating the service performance of lunar regolith-based construction materials, the next study will focus on the evolution of these four properties under long-term vacuum thermal fatigue conditions. The research framework is illustrated in Figure 10.
In future work, we plan to systematically test the thermal conductivity and three key mechanical strength properties of building materials subjected to varying numbers of thermal fatigue cycles. These results will be integrated with material preparation process parameters to construct a technological parameter-service performance mapping matrix. The Pearson correlation coefficient will be employed to quantify the relationships between different processing parameters and specific performance indicators. On this basis, correlation verification experiments will be designed to investigate the independent contributions of individual parameters and to uncover potential synergistic regulation mechanisms.
Additionally, microstructural analysis will be incorporated to support a deeper interpretation of how multiple process parameters jointly influence material performance. This integrated approach is expected to enable the identification of dominant process parameters governing key service performance indicators, ultimately guiding the development of a preliminary performance regulation strategy for lunar regolith-based building materials.

5. Conclusions

This review summarizes recent advances in the development of building materials based on lunar regolith and compares the advantages and limitations of four mainstream solidification methods: reaction solidification, melting solidification, bonding solidification, and confinement formation. The main conclusions are as follows:
  • Reaction solidification offers the advantage of rapid curing; however, it requires substantial additives, depends on specific temperature and pressure conditions during curing, and the durability of the newly formed chemical bonds under the extreme lunar environment may face significant challenges.
  • Melting solidification directly utilizes lunar soil as a construction material without the need for additional Earth-supplied materials, leading to low preparation costs and high durability. Its major drawback lies in the challenges of thermal management in the ultra-high vacuum environment.
  • Bonding solidification provides an efficient and controllable curing process, yet it suffers from relatively low solidification strength and limited durability of bonding agents, particularly organic adhesives, under harsh lunar surface conditions.
  • Confinement formation achieves the fastest curing and allows for efficient reconfiguration. However, this method faces challenges in realizing complex architectural forms, and the durability of regolith bags is limited by micrometeorite abrasion and damage from cosmic radiation.
  • It is important to note that these conclusions are primarily drawn from existing ground-based or thermal vacuum experiments. The performance and applicability of these four methods under lunar gravity conditions remain inadequately validated. The absence of reliable and stable low-gravity simulation technologies represents a critical bottleneck for further in situ assessment and development of these solidification techniques.
To ensure the in situ reliability of the solidification technologies, future research should focus on the solidification behavior under 1/6 g gravity and the long-term service durability of building materials under extreme thermal-vacuum conditions. The newly developed SML-LESS system, capable of high-fidelity simulation of lunar gravity and thermal-vacuum environments, offers a promising platform for validating and optimizing solidification strategies. Its application may open new avenues for developing more reliable and efficient lunar construction technologies.

Author Contributions

J.C.: data curation, investigation, visualization, and writing—original draft. R.L.: funding acquisition, supervision, resources, and writing—review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The authors would like to acknowledge the financial contributions from the Fundamental Research Funds of the China Academy of Safety Science and Technology (No. 2025JBKY03), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 42372329), and the Basic Research Program of Xuzhou (No. KC23019).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Heiken, G.; Vaniman, D.; French, B.M. Lunar Sourcebook: A User’s Guide to the Moon; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  2. Anand, M.; Crawford, I.A.; Balat-Pichelin, M.; Abanades, S.; Van Westrenen, W.; Péraudeau, G.; Jaumann, R.; Seboldt, W. A brief review of chemical and mineralogical resources on the Moon and likely initial in situ resource utilization (ISRU) applications. Planet. Space Sci. 2012, 74, 42–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Schrunk, D.G.; Sharpe, B.L.; Cooper, B.L.; Thangavelu, M. The Moon: Resources, Future Development, and Settlement; Praxis: New York, NY, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  4. Crawford, I.A. Lunar Resources: A Review. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 2015, 39, 137–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Li, S.; Lucey, P.G.; Milliken, R.E.; Hayne, P.O.; Fisher, E.; Williams, J.P.; Hurley, D.M.; Elphic, R.C. Direct evidence of surface exposed water ice in the lunar polar regions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, 8907–8912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Feldman, W.C.; Maurice, S.; Lawrence, D.J.; Little, R.C.; Lawson, S.L.; Gasnault, O.; Wiens, R.C.; Barraclough, B.L.; Elphic, R.C.; Prettyman, T.H.; et al. Evidence for Water Ice near the Lunar Poles. J. Geophys. Res. Planets 2001, 106, 23231–23251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Anand, M. Lunar Water: A Brief Review. Earth Moon Planets 2010, 107, 65–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Borowitz, M.; Noonan, A.; El Ghazal, R. US Strategic Interest in the Moon: An Assessment of Economic, National Security, and Geopolitical Drivers. Space Policy 2024, 69, 101548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Li, C.; Wang, C.; Wei, Y.; Lin, Y. China’s Present and Future Lunar Exploration Program. Science 2019, 365, 238–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Messina, P.; Vennemann, D. The European Space Exploration Programme: Current Status of ESA’s Plans for Moon and Mars Exploration. Acta Astronaut. 2005, 57, 156–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Harvey, B.; Zakutnyaya, O. Russian Space Probes: Scientific Discoveries and Future Missions; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2011; pp. 301–374. [Google Scholar]
  12. Hashimoto, T.; Hoshino, T.; Tanaka, S.; Otake, H.; Otsuki, M.; Wakabayashi, S.; Morimoto, H.; Masuda, K. Introduction to Japanese Exploration Study to the Moon. Acta Astronaut. 2014, 104, 545–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Davies, P.; Phipps, A.; Taylor, M.; da Silva Curiel, A.; Baker, A.; Gao, Y.; Sweeting, M.; Parker, D.; Crawford, I.A.; Ball, A.J.; et al. UK Lunar Science Missions: Moonlite & Moonraker. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Recent Advances in Space Technologies, Istanbul, Türkiye, 14–16 June 2007; pp. 774–779. [Google Scholar]
  14. Mane, S. Chandrayaan-2: India’s Lunar Exploration Mission to the Moon. Int. J. All Res. Educ. Sci. Methods 2023, 11, 1116–1123. [Google Scholar]
  15. Gibney, E. First Private Moon Lander Sparks New Lunar Space Race. Nature 2019, 566, 434–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Smith, M.; Craig, D.; Herrmann, N.; Mahoney, E.; Krezel, J.; McIntyre, N.; Goodliff, K. The Artemis Program: An Overview of NASA’s Activities to Return Humans to the Moon. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE Aerospace Conference, Big Sky, MT, USA, 7–14 March 2020; pp. 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  17. Xu, L.; Li, H.; Pei, Z.; Zou, Y.; Wang, C. A Brief Introduction to the International Lunar Research Station Program and the Interstellar Express Mission. Chin. J. Space Sci. 2022, 42, 511–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Vaniman, D.; Reedy, R.; Heiken, G.; Olhoeft, G.; Mendell, W. The Lunar Environment. In Lunar Sourcebook; Heiken, G.H., Vaniman, D.T., French, B.M., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1991; Volume 1, pp. 27–60. [Google Scholar]
  19. Benaroya, H. Lunar Habitats: A Brief Overview of Issues and Concepts. REACH 2017, 7, 14–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Rowe, W.J. Extraordinary Hypertension after a Lunar Mission. Am. J. Med. 2009, 122, e1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Delp, M.D.; Charvat, J.M.; Limoli, C.L.; Globus, R.K.; Ghosh, P. Apollo Lunar Astronauts Show Higher Cardiovascular Disease Mortality: Possible Deep Space Radiation Effects on the Vascular Endothelium. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 29901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Anttila, M. Concept Evaluation of Mars Drilling and Sampling Instrument. Master’s Thesis, Helsinki University of Technology, Espoo, Finland, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  23. Gaier, J.R. The Effects of Lunar Dust on EVA Systems During the Apollo Missions; NASA/TM-2005-213610/REV1; NASA: Greenbelt, MD, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  24. Cain, J.R. Lunar Dust: The Hazard and Astronaut Exposure Risks. Earth Moon Planets 2010, 107, 107–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Gao, M.; Wang, X.; Zhang, G.; Li, M.; Liu, T.; Hao, H.; Zhang, Z.; Xie, H. The Novel Idea and Technical Progress of Lunar In-Situ Condition Preserved Coring. Geomech. Geophys. Geo-Energy Geo-Resour. 2022, 8, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Benaroya, H.; Bernold, L.; Chua, K.M. Engineering, Design and Construction of Lunar Bases. J. Aerosp. Eng. 2002, 15, 33–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Benaroya, H.; Bernold, L. Engineering of Lunar Bases. Acta Astronaut. 2008, 62, 277–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Gibney, E. How to Build a Moon Base. Nature 2018, 562, 474–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Sherwood, B. Principles for a Practical Moon Base. Acta Astronaut. 2019, 160, 116–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Marov, M.Y.; Slyuta, E.N. Early Steps toward the Lunar Base Deployment: Some Prospects. Acta Astronaut. 2021, 181, 28–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Isachenkov, M.; Chugunov, S.; Akhatov, I.; Shishkovsky, I. Regolith-Based Additive Manufacturing for Sustainable Development of Lunar Infrastructure-An Overview. Acta Astronaut. 2021, 180, 650–678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Bao, C.; Zhang, D.; Wang, Q.; Cui, Y.; Feng, P. Lunar In Situ Large-Scale Construction: Quantitative Evaluation of Regolith Solidification Techniques. Engineering 2024, 39, 204–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Li, C.; Hu, H.; Yang, M.F.; Pei, Z.Y.; Zhou, Q.; Ren, X.; Liu, B.; Liu, D.; Zeng, X.; Zhang, G.; et al. Characteristics of the Lunar Samples Returned by the Chang’E-5 Mission. Natl. Sci. Rev. 2022, 9, nwab188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Zhou, S.; Lu, C.; Zhu, X.; Li, F. Preparation and Characterization of High-Strength Geopolymer Based on BH-1 Lunar Soil Simulant with Low Alkali Content. Engineering 2021, 7, 1631–1645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Li, R.; Zhou, G.; Yan, K.; Chen, J.; Chen, D.; Cai, S.; Mo, P.Q. Preparation and characterization of a specialized lunar regolith simulant for use in lunar low gravity simulation. Int. J. Min. Sci. Technol. 2022, 32, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Alexiadis, A.; Alberini, F.; Meyer, M.E. Geopolymers from Lunar and Martian Soil Simulants. Adv. Space Res. 2017, 59, 490–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Geng, Z.; Zhang, L.; Pan, H.; She, W.; Zhou, C.; Zhou, H.; Yu, Z.; Xu, Z. In-Situ Solidification of Alkali-Activated Lunar Regolith: Insights into the Chemical and Physical Origins. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 391, 136147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Ma, S.; Jiang, Y.; Fu, S.; He, P.; Sun, C.; Duan, X.; Zhang, X.; Zhou, Y. 3D-Printed Lunar Regolith Simulant-Based Geopolymer Composites with Bio-Inspired Sandwich Architectures. J. Adv. Ceram. 2023, 12, 510–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Zhou, S.; Yang, Z.; Zhang, R.; Zhu, X.; Li, F. Preparation and Evaluation of Geopolymer Based on BH-2 Lunar Regolith Simulant under Lunar Surface Temperature and Vacuum Condition. Acta Astronaut. 2021, 189, 90–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Zhang, R.; Zhou, S.; Li, F. Preparation of Geopolymer Based on Lunar Regolith Simulant at In-Situ Lunar Temperature and Its Durability under Lunar High and Cryogenic Temperature. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022, 318, 126033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Zhou, S.; Zhu, X.; Lu, C.; Li, F. Synthesis and Characterization of Geopolymer from Lunar Regolith Simulant Based on Natural Volcanic Scoria. Chin. J. Aeronaut. 2022, 35, 144–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Gu, J.; Ma, Q. Experimental Study on Geopolymerization of Lunar Soil Simulant under Dry Curing and Sealed Curing. Materials 2024, 17, 1413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Yao, Y.; Liu, C.; Liu, H.; Chen, X.; Li, X.; Wang, T.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, W.; Wu, Y. Multiscale Study of Microstructural Evolution in Alkali-Activated Lunar Regolith Simulant under In-Situ Lunar Temperatures: Insight into the Reaction Mechanism. J. Build. Eng. 2025, 103, 112209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Yao, Y.; Liu, C.; Zhang, W.; Liu, H.; Wang, T.; Wu, Y.; Li, X.; Chen, X. Influence of Vacuum and High-Temperature on the Evolution of Mechanical Strength and Microstructure of Alkali-Activated Lunar Regolith Simulant. J. Build. Eng. 2024, 97, 110709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Yao, Y.; Liu, C.; Zhang, W.; Liu, H.; Zhu, C. Influence of In-Situ Lunar Temperature on the Pore Structure and Solid Phases of Alkali-Activated Lunar Regolith Simulant. J. Build. Eng. 2024, 98, 111162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Khalifa, A.Z.; Cizer, Ö.; Pontikes, Y.; Heath, A.; Patureau, P.; Bernal, S.A.; Marsh, A.T. Advances in Alkali-Activation of Clay Minerals. Cem. Concr. Res. 2020, 132, 106050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Jing, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, L.; Wang, Q. The Design of a Novel Alkali-Activated Binder for Solidifying Silty Soft Clay and the Study of Its Solidification Mechanism. Materials 2024, 17, 2177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Obenaus-Emler, R.; Falah, M.; Illikainen, M. Assessment of Mine Tailings as Precursors for Alkali-Activated Materials for On-Site Applications. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 246, 118470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Wang, F.; Zhou, M.; Chen, C.; Yuan, Z.; Geng, X.; Yang, S. Solidification of Uranium Tailings Using Alkali-Activated Slag Mixed with Natural Zeolite. Nucl. Eng. Technol. 2023, 55, 523–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Zhao, S.; Muhammad, F.; Yu, L.; Xia, M.; Huang, X.; Jiao, B.; Li, D. Solidification/Stabilization of Municipal Solid Waste Incineration Fly Ash Using Uncalcined Coal Gangue-Based Alkali-Activated Cementitious Materials. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2019, 26, 25609–25620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Fan, C.; Wu, Z.; Wang, B.; Zheng, W. Solidification of Municipal Solid Waste Incineration Fly Ash with Alkali-Activated Technology. J. Environ. Manag. 2023, 348, 119404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Wang, K.T.; Lemougna, P.N.; Tang, Q.; Li, W.; Cui, X.M. Lunar Regolith Can Allow the Synthesis of Cement Materials with Near-Zero Water Consumption. Gondwana Res. 2017, 44, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Pakulski, D.M.; Knox, K.J. Steam Injection System for Lunar Concrete. In Proceedings of the Engineering, Construction, and Operations in Space III, Denver, CO, USA, 31 May–4 June 1992; Volume 2, pp. 1347–1358. [Google Scholar]
  54. Lin, T.D.; Su, N. Concrete Construction on the Moon. In Proceedings of the Engineering, Construction, and Operations in Space III, Denver, CO, USA, 31 May–4 June 1992; Volume 2, pp. 1359–1369. [Google Scholar]
  55. Lin, T.D.; Tseng, L.; Chou, S. Lunar Concrete Made with the Dry-Mix/Steam-Injection Method. In Proceedings of the Engineering, Construction, and Operations in Space V, Albuquerque, NM, USA, 1–6 June 1996; Volume 5, pp. 592–599. [Google Scholar]
  56. Su, N.; Peng, Y.N. The Characteristics and Engineering Properties of Dry-Mix/Steam-Injection Concrete. Cem. Concr. Res. 2001, 31, 609–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Cai, L.; Ding, L.; Luo, H.; Yi, X. Preparation of Autoclave Concrete from Basaltic Lunar Regolith Simulant: Effect of Mixture and Manufacture Process. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 207, 373–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Wilhelm, S.; Curbach, M. Manufacturing of lunar concrete by steam. In Proceedings of the Earth and Space 2014, St. Louis, MO, USA, 27–29 October 2014; pp. 274–282. [Google Scholar]
  59. Altemir, D.A. Cold press sintering of simulated lunar basalt. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, Lunar and Planetary Institute, Houston, TX, USA, 15–19 March 1993; pp. 23–24. [Google Scholar]
  60. Indyk, S.J.; Benaroya, H. A structural assessment of unrefined sintered lunar regolith simulant. Acta Astronaut. 2017, 140, 517–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Han, W.; Ding, L.; Cai, L.; Zhu, J.; Luo, H.; Tang, T. Sintering of HUST-1 lunar regolith simulant. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022, 324, 126655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Kim, Y.J.; Ryu, B.H.; Woo Jin, H.; Lee, J.; Shin, H.S. Microwave sintering of lunar regolith simulant for manufacturing building elements. In Proceedings of the Earth and Space 2021, Orlando, FL, USA, 29 March–1 April 2021; pp. 985–991. [Google Scholar]
  63. Liu, Z.; Li, J.; Yang, X.; Ding, Y.; Meng, S. Sintering of lunar regolith simulants using a domestic microwave: A rapid and energy-efficient strategy for construction material fabrication. J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 2025, 45, 117047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Balla, V.K.; Roberson, L.B.; O’Connor, G.W.; Trigwell, S.; Bose, S.; Bandyopadhyay, A. First Demonstration on Direct Laser Fabrication of Lunar Regolith Parts. Rapid Prototyp. J. 2012, 18, 451–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Fateri, M.; Gebhardt, A. Process Parameters Development of Selective Laser Melting of Lunar Regolith for On-Site Manufacturing Applications. Int. J. Appl. Ceram. Technol. 2015, 12, 46–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Meurisse, A.; Makaya, A.; Willsch, C.; Sperl, M. Solar 3D printing of lunar regolith. Acta Astronaut. 2018, 152, 800–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Fateri, M.; Meurisse, A.; Sperl, M.; Urbina, D.; Madakashira, H.K.; Govindaraj, S.; Gancet, J.; Imhof, B.; Hoheneder, W.; Waclavicek, R.; et al. Solar sintering for lunar additive manufacturing. J. Aerosp. Eng. 2019, 32, 04019101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Ghosh, A.; Favier, J.J.; Harper, M.C. Solar sintering on lunar regolith simulant (JSC-1) for 3D printing. Proc. Int. Astronaut. Congr. (IAC) 2016, 2, 1195–1203. [Google Scholar]
  69. Imhof, B.; Urbina, D.; Weiss, P.; Sperl, M.; Hoheneder, W.; Waclavicek, R.; Madakashira, H.; Salini, J.; Govindaraj, S.; Gancet, J.; et al. Advancing solar sintering for building a base on the Moon. In Proceedings of the 69th International Astronautical Congress (IAC), Adelaide, Australia, 25–29 September 2017; pp. 25–29. [Google Scholar]
  70. Meurisse, A.; Beltzung, J.C.; Kolbe, M.; Cowley, A.; Sperl, M. Influence of Mineral Composition on Sintering Lunar Regolith. J. Aerosp. Eng. 2017, 30, 04017014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Song, L.; Xu, J.; Fan, S.; Tang, H.; Li, X.; Liu, J.; Duan, X. Vacuum Sintered Lunar Regolith Simulant: Pore-Forming and Thermal Conductivity. Ceram. Int. 2019, 45, 3627–3633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Khoshnevis, B.; Bodiford, M.P.; Burks, K.H.; Ethridge, E.; Tucker, D.; Kim, W.; Toutanji, H.; Fiske, M.R. Lunar Contour Crafting: A Novel Technique for ISRU-Based Habitat Development. In Proceedings of the AIAA 43rd Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, USA, 10–13 January 2005. AIAA Paper 2005-2424. [Google Scholar]
  73. Toutanji, H.A.; Evans, S.; Grugel, R.N. Performance of lunar sulfur concrete in lunar environments. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 29, 444–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Edmunson, J.; Fiske, M.R.; Mueller, R.P.; Alkhateb, H.S.; Akhnoukh, A.K.; Morris, H.C.; Townsend, I.I.; Fikes, J.C.; Johnston, M.M. Additive Construction with Mobile Emplacement: Multifaceted Planetary Construction Materials Development. In Proceedings of the 16th Biennial International Conference on Engineering, Science, Construction, and Operations in Challenging Environment, Cleveland, OH, USA, 9–12 April 2018; pp. 782–792. [Google Scholar]
  75. Roedel, H.; Lepech, M.D.; Loftus, D.J. Protein-Regolith Composites for Space Construction. In Proceedings of the Earth and Space 2014, St. Louis, MO, USA, 27–29 October 2014; pp. 291–300. [Google Scholar]
  76. Lee, T.S.; Lee, J.; Ann, K.Y. Manufacture of polymeric concrete on the Moon. Acta Astronaut. 2015, 114, 60–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Rosa, I.; Lepech, M.D.; Loftus, D.J. Multiscale Modeling and Testing of Protein-Bound Regolith and Soils. In Proceedings of the 16th Biennial International Conference on Engineering, Science, Construction, and Operations in Challenging Environments, Cleveland, OH, USA, 9–12 April 2018; pp. 580–590. [Google Scholar]
  78. Brown, S.; Lundberg, K.; McGarity, G.; Silverman, P. Lunar Regolith Bagging System; Report No. TEX-4312/ME-4182; NASA: Greenbelt, MD, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  79. Smithers, G.A.; Nehls, M.K.; Hovater, M.A.; Evans, S.W.; Miller, J.S.; Broughton, R.M., Jr.; Beale, D.; Kilinc-Balci, F. A One-Piece Lunar Regolith Bag Garage Prototype; No. NASA/TM-2007-215073; NASA: Greenbelt, MD, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  80. Ruess, F.; Zacny, K.; Braun, B. Lunar in-situ resource utilization: Regolith bags automated filling technology. In Proceedings of the AIAA SPACE 2008 Conference and Exposition, San Diego, CA, USA, 9–11 September 2008; p. 7678. [Google Scholar]
  81. Gosau, J.M. Regolith Stabilization and Building Materials for the Lunar Surface. In Earth and Space 2012: Engineering, Science, Construction, and Operations in Challenging Environments; American Society of Civil Engineers: New York, NY, USA, 2012; pp. 243–249. [Google Scholar]
  82. Bao, C.; Feng, P.; Zhang, D.; Wang, Q.; Yang, S. Conceptual design and experimental investigation of regolith bag structures for lunar in situ construction. J. Build. Eng. 2024, 95, 110245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Pilehvar, S.; Arnhof, M.; Erichsen, A.; Valentini, L.; Kjøniksen, A.L. Investigation of severe lunar environmental conditions on the physical and mechanical properties of lunar regolith geopolymers. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 2021, 11, 1506–1516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Kaufmann, E.; Kömle, N.I.; Kargl, G. Laboratory simulation experiments on the solid-state greenhouse effect in planetary ices. Icarus 2006, 185, 274–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Mateo-Martí, E.; Prieto-Ballesteros, O.; Sobrado, J.M.; Gómez-Elvira, J.; Martín-Gago, J.A. A chamber for studying planetary environments and its applications to astrobiology. Meas. Sci. Technol. 2006, 17, 2274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Craven, P.; Vaughn, J.; Schneider, T.; Norwood, J.; Abbas, M.; Alexander, R. MSFC lunar environments test system (LETS) system development. In Proceedings of the Third Lunar Regolith Simulant Workshop, Huntsville, AL, USA, 17–20 March 2009. No. M09-0391. [Google Scholar]
  87. Kleiman, J.; Horodetsky, S.; Issoupov, V. A planetary environmental simulator/test facility. In Protection of Materials and Structures from the Space Environment; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013; pp. 355–370. [Google Scholar]
  88. Rabbow, E.; Parpart, A.; Reitz, G. The planetary and space simulation facilities at DLR Cologne. Microgravity Sci. Technol. 2016, 28, 215–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Prasad, K.D.; Murty, S.V.S. Development of a chamber to simulate lunar surface environment. Planet. Space Sci. 2020, 191, 105038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Johnson, S.W.; Lee, D.J.; Pyrz, A.P.; Thompson, J.E. Simulating the effects of gravitational field and atmosphere on behavior of granular media. J. Spacecr. Rocket. 1970, 7, 1311–1317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Zhang, T.; Liu, S.; Ding, X.; Xu, K.; Guan, Y. Thermal vacuum regolith environment simulator for China’s deep lunar drilling exploration. Appl. Therm. Eng. 2018, 144, 779–787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Haber, F.R.; Haber, H.E. Possible methods of producing the gravity-free state for medical research. J. Aviat. Med. 1950, 21, 395–400. [Google Scholar]
  93. Comstock, D.; Petro, A. Reduced Gravity Technology Demonstration Results from NASA’s FAST Program and Future Plans. In Proceedings of the 47th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting including The New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition, Orlando, FL, USA, 5–8 January 2009; p. 188. [Google Scholar]
  94. Hrvatin, E. Biomechanics in weightlessness. PAJ J. Perform. Art 2002, 24, 102–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Kirkpatrick, A.W.; Keaney, M.A.; Bentz, K.; Groleau, M.; Tyssen, M.; Keyte, J.; Broderick, T.J. The use of the National Research Council of Canada’s Falcon 20 Research Aircraft as a Terrestrial Analogue Space Environment (TASE) for space surgery research: Challenges and suggested solutions. Planet. Space Sci. 2010, 58, 717–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Liu, T.Y.; Wu, Q.P.; Sun, B.Q.; Han, F.T. Microgravity level measurement of the Beijing drop tower using a sensitive accelerometer. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 31632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Marchese, A.J.; Dryer, F.L.; Colantonio, R.O.; Nayagam, V. Microgravity combustion of methanol and methanol/water droplets: Drop tower experiments and model predictions. In Symposium (International) on Combustion; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1996; Volume 26, pp. 1209–1217. [Google Scholar]
  98. Selig, H.; Dittus, H.; Lämmerzahl, C. Drop tower microgravity improvement towards the nano-g level for the MICROSCOPE payload tests. Microgravity Sci. Technol. 2010, 22, 539–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Takamasa, T. Research on gas-liquid two-phase flow using the JAMIC drop shaft. J. Jpn. Soc. Microgravity Appl. 2000, 17, 121. [Google Scholar]
  100. Li, R.; Zhou, G.; Chen, G.; Hall, M.R.; Zhao, X. Geotechnical magnetic-similitude-gravity model testing method. Int. J. Phys. Model. Geotech. 2019, 19, 181–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Sanavandi, H.; Guo, W. A magnetic levitation based low-gravity simulator with an unprecedented large functional volume. npj Microgravity 2021, 7, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Geim, A. Everyone’s magnetism: Though it seems counterintuitive, today’s research magnets can easily levitate seemingly nonmagnetic objects, thereby opening an Earthbound door to microgravity conditions. Phys. Today 1998, 51, 36–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Mo, P.Q.; Gao, F.; Zhou, G.; Li, R.; Yan, K.; Chen, J. An Experimental Study on Triaxial Compression Tests and Cone Penetration Tests in Planetary Regolith Simulant under Low Gravity Fields. J. Test. Eval. 2019, 47, 1677–1700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Li, R.; Chen, J.; Zhang, J.; Chen, D.; Zhao, X.; Mo, P.Q.; Zhou, G. Cone penetration resistance of CUMT-1 lunar regolith simulant under magnetic-similitude lunar gravity condition. Acta Geotech. 2023, 18, 6725–6744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Buildings 15 02543 g001
Figure 1. Overview of the extreme lunar environment and challenges faced by lunar exploration.
Figure 1. Overview of the extreme lunar environment and challenges faced by lunar exploration.
Buildings 15 02543 g001
Buildings 15 02543 g002
Figure 2. Schematic diagram of reaction solidification methods for lunar regolith-based construction materials.
Figure 2. Schematic diagram of reaction solidification methods for lunar regolith-based construction materials.
Buildings 15 02543 g002
Buildings 15 02543 g003
Figure 3. Schematic diagram of sintering/melting solidification methods for lunar regolith-based construction materials.
Figure 3. Schematic diagram of sintering/melting solidification methods for lunar regolith-based construction materials.
Buildings 15 02543 g003
Buildings 15 02543 g004
Figure 4. Schematic diagram of bonding solidification methods for lunar regolith-based construction materials.
Figure 4. Schematic diagram of bonding solidification methods for lunar regolith-based construction materials.
Buildings 15 02543 g004
Buildings 15 02543 g005
Figure 5. Schematic diagram of confinement formation methods for lunar regolith-based construction materials.
Figure 5. Schematic diagram of confinement formation methods for lunar regolith-based construction materials.
Buildings 15 02543 g005
Buildings 15 02543 g006
Figure 6. Working principle of lunar thermal-vacuum environment simulation chamber.
Figure 6. Working principle of lunar thermal-vacuum environment simulation chamber.
Buildings 15 02543 g006
Buildings 15 02543 g007
Figure 7. Working principle of lunar thermal-vacuum environment simulation chambers.
Figure 7. Working principle of lunar thermal-vacuum environment simulation chambers.
Buildings 15 02543 g007
Buildings 15 02543 g008
Figure 8. The second-generation extended magnetic gravity model testing system.
Figure 8. The second-generation extended magnetic gravity model testing system.
Buildings 15 02543 g008
Buildings 15 02543 g009
Figure 9. Overview of the SML-LESS system.
Figure 9. Overview of the SML-LESS system.
Buildings 15 02543 g009
Buildings 15 02543 g010
Figure 10. Research framework for the service performance of lunar regolith-based building materials.
Figure 10. Research framework for the service performance of lunar regolith-based building materials.
Buildings 15 02543 g010
Table 1. Chemical composition (wt%) of partial lunar regolith and lunar regolith simulants.
Table 1. Chemical composition (wt%) of partial lunar regolith and lunar regolith simulants.
OxideApollo12Apollo14Apollo15Apollo16Chang’e-5JSC-1CUMT-1BH-1
SiO242.2046.3048.1046.8042.2047.7142.6843.3
TiO27.803.001.701.205.001.591.312.90
Al2O313.6012.9017.4014.6010.8015.0215.2016.50
FeO15.3015.1010.4014.3022.5010.7926.7616.70
MnO0.200.220.140.190.280.180.110.30
MgO7.809.309.4011.506.489.013.443.00
CaO11.9010.7010.7010.8011.0010.425.628.80
Na2O0.470.540.700.390.262.703.233.80
K2O0.160.310.550.210.190.820.003.30
P2O50.050.400.510.180.230.660.130.70
Notes: Data for Chang’e-5 are from [33]; Data for Apollo12, Apollo14, Apollo15, Apollo16, JSC-1 and BH-1 are from [34]; Data for CUMT-1 are from [35].
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Chen, J.; Li, R. Advances in Solidification Technologies of Lunar Regolith-Based Building Materials Under Extreme Lunar Environments. Buildings 2025, 15, 2543. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15142543

AMA Style

Chen J, Li R. Advances in Solidification Technologies of Lunar Regolith-Based Building Materials Under Extreme Lunar Environments. Buildings. 2025; 15(14):2543. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15142543

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chen, Jun, and Ruilin Li. 2025. "Advances in Solidification Technologies of Lunar Regolith-Based Building Materials Under Extreme Lunar Environments" Buildings 15, no. 14: 2543. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15142543

APA Style

Chen, J., & Li, R. (2025). Advances in Solidification Technologies of Lunar Regolith-Based Building Materials Under Extreme Lunar Environments. Buildings, 15(14), 2543. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15142543

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

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop