Next Article in Journal
Characteristics of Force Transmissibility in PLOVIS-II Cooler Micro-Vibration Isolation System
Previous Article in Journal
Static Aero-Propulsion Experiment of an Electric Ducted Fan
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Aerospace
Volume 12
Issue 6
10.3390/aerospace12060510
aerospace-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

Advancements in Mars Habitation Technologies and Terrestrial Simulation Projects: A Comprehensive Review

by
Yubin Zhong
1,2,
Tao Wu
1,2,*,
Yan Han
1,2,
Feiyang Wang
1,2,
Dan Zhao
1,2,
Zhen Fang
1,2,
Linxin Pan
1,2 and
Chen Tang
1,2
1
Deep Space Exploration Laboratory, Hefei 230000, China
2
National Key Laboratory of Deep Space Exploration, Hefei 230000, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Aerospace 2025, 12(6), 510; https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace12060510
Submission received: 8 April 2025 / Revised: 3 June 2025 / Accepted: 4 June 2025 / Published: 5 June 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Astronautics & Space Science)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

This review examines advancements in Mars habitation technologies, emphasizing Earth-based analog missions and closed-loop life support systems critical for long-duration human presence on the Red Planet. The paper categorizes major simulation projects—including Biosphere 2, Yuegong 1 (Lunar Palace 1), SAM, MaMBA, and CHAPEA—and analyzes their contributions to habitat design, psychological resilience, and environmental control. Technological domains such as in situ resource utilization (ISRU), habitat automation, and extraterrestrial health care are evaluated with respect to current limitations and future scalability. Additionally, the paper explores regulatory, economic, and international cooperation aspects, highlighting their significance in enabling sustainable settlement. By integrating empirical data from terrestrial experiments and recent space initiatives, this review offers a comprehensive assessment of readiness and gaps in Mars habitation strategies.

1. Introduction

Mars exploration has been an important focus of planetary science due to its status as the most Earth-like planet in the solar system. As a natural laboratory, Mars offers invaluable insights into planetary evolution, the origins of life, and comparative planetary processes [1,2]. Over the decades, advancements in space technology have shifted exploration efforts from early reconnaissance to increasingly complex robotic missions, paving the way for future human habitation [3]. Beyond scientific discovery, Mars presents a potential solution to Earth’s growing resource constraints, with its vast water ice reservoirs, mineral deposits, and abundant solar energy, offering prospects for sustainable extraterrestrial settlements [4,5]. Establishing a human presence on Mars, however, presents formidable engineering and logistical challenges, requiring advancements in climate control and life support systems (ECLSS), habitat design, and in situ resource utilization (ISRU) [6].
Mars exploration has evolved through distinct phases, each marked by technological progress and shifting mission objectives. The first phase (1960–1975) was characterized by the initial wave of Mars missions launched by the U.S.S.R. and the U.S. during the Cold War. Despite the high failure rate—only 11 of 23 missions achieved partial or full success—these early attempts laid the groundwork for future exploration. The second phase (1976–1990) saw a period of stagnation, with only two unsuccessful U.S.S.R. missions. The third phase (1991–present) ushered in a resurgence, with 22 missions launched and a significant improvement in success rates. Following setbacks in 1998 and 1999, all nine subsequent U.S. missions have been successful, reflecting substantial advancements in spacecraft technology and mission design [7,8,9,10].
As Mars exploration continues, mission objectives have expanded beyond fundamental scientific research to focus on assessing the planet’s habitability. As can be seen from the description of the science goals of future Mars exploration missions in Table 1, while studying its geology, climate, and potential for past or present life remains a priority, growing attention is being directed toward evaluating resources—such as subsurface water ice—that will be critical for future human missions [11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21].
Despite offering a relatively benign surface environment compared to Mercury and Venus, Mars remains an inhospitable world, with extreme low temperatures, high radiation exposure, and a thin atmosphere incapable of supporting human life [28,29,30]. Even with the establishment of a long-term colony, human activities would initially be confined to controlled, enclosed habitats until technological advancements enable broader environmental adaptation.
Addressing the challenges of human habitation on Mars requires extensive research in ECLSS and analog simulations. Earth-based projects, such as Biosphere 2, Yuegong 1 (Lunar Palace 1), and SAM Analog, provide valuable insights into maintaining closed-loop habitats in extreme environments [31,32,33,34]. These analog studies help refine life support technologies, test sustainable resource utilization strategies, and assess human factors associated with prolonged isolation and confinement.
This review examines the evolution of Mars environment simulation projects and ECLSS technologies, highlighting their roles in advancing our capability to sustain human life beyond Earth. By synthesizing research findings, it provides a comprehensive assessment of progress toward establishing a viable Martian habitat and the technological innovations required for long-term presence. The review is organized as follows: Section 2 presents key Earth-based simulation missions and analog research facilities; Section 3 explores enabling technologies such as ISRU, construction methods, ECLSS, automation, and crew health systems as well as critical discussion on policy, international collaboration, and economic implications; and Section 4 concludes with key challenges and priorities for future research and mission planning.

2. Development for Living on Mars

2.1. Biosphere 2

The idea of extraterrestrial habitation has its roots in early concepts such as the Bernal Sphere (1929) by John Desmond Bernal and the O’Neill Cylinder (1976) by physicist Gerard K. O’Neill. These designs helped shape how we understand the challenges of living in space and influenced later research and experimental projects [35].
Biosphere 2 was the first large-scale attempt to build a closed habitat capable of supporting humans independently from Earth. It functioned as a mesocosm—a sealed system containing several interconnected ecosystems that mimicked Earth’s climates and environmental processes. As shown in Figure 1 (symbol in the upper-right corner of the figure represents the orientation of the structure), the project includes biomes such as desert, rainforest, savanna, thornscrub, mangrove–marsh, and a coral reef–ocean. The “Marsh” refers specifically to the low-salinity transition zone within the mangrove wetland system, simulating estuarine processes.
A unique feature of Biosphere 2 was its use of two “lung” chambers to manage air pressure inside the sealed structure. Each lung was a large cylindrical space connected by tunnels and contained a flexible rubber membrane supporting a heavy metal plate. When the air expanded due to heat, it lifted the plate; when it cooled, the plate’s weight helped push the air back, keeping the internal pressure stable.
Humans lived in both the agricultural and residential zones, acting as the dominant species in the system [36]. The main challenge for the designers was to recreate Earth-like processes in a closed loop that could support life. Since its completion, Biosphere 2 has provided important lessons on ecological management, closed life support systems, and sustainable habitat design. Research continues to inform future applications for space missions and Earth-based environmental strategies [37].
Biosphere 2 operated as a closed system from 1991 to 1994, aiming to test self-sustaining life support and ecosystem interactions for space habitation. The first two-year mission (1991–1993) faced challenges like oxygen depletion and food shortages, while a second six-month mission (1994) ended prematurely due to management conflicts [38]. In 1995, Biosphere 2 transitioned to an open system, allowing external exchanges and shifting to Earth system science research. Since 2011, the University of Arizona has managed it as a laboratory for climate, water, and planetary habitability studies [39].

2.2. Lunar Palace 1

Lunar Palace 1 (LP1), located at the Institute of Environmental Biology and Life Support Technology, Beihang University, Beijing, China, is a self-sustaining bio-regenerative life support facility designed for space habitation research. Upgraded from its Stage I facility built in 2014, LP1 currently spans 160 m2 with a total volume of 500 m3. As Figure 2 shows, LP1 includes a comprehensive cabin and two plant cabins. The comprehensive cabin includes living quarters, a bathroom, a communal area, and an insect culturing room [40].
Based on the experience in the history of human spaceflight, LP1, compared to Biosphere 2, included more research on the psychological state of human beings living in isolated environments for long periods of time. A long-term isolation experiment was conducted in three phases from May 2017 to May 2018, involving eight crew members (four males, four females) divided into two groups. Phase 1 lasted 60 days, Phase 2 extended for 200 days, and Phase 3 concluded with 110 days of isolation [42]. Throughout the study, participants adhered to structured schedules, engaging in plant cultivation for over 4 hours per day while maintaining a regulated lifestyle. Psychological assessments, including the Symptom Checklist 90 (SCL-90) and Profile of Mood States (POMS), were conducted monthly before and after the experiment and weekly during isolation to evaluate psychological well-being. LP1 serves as a pioneering platform for advancing bio-regenerative life support systems and understanding the long-term effects of isolation in preparation for future space missions [40].

2.3. Space Analog for the Moon and Mars, SAM

In 2021, with support from NASA, the National Geographic Society, SpaceX, Blue Origin, and other private companies, Kaye Staats of the University of Arizona and John Adams, an independent scientist and former deputy director of the Biosphere 2 program, led the Space Analog for the Moon and Mars (SAM) project. Based on the Biosphere 2 experience, SAM is housed in the original facility and greenhouses in Arizona, covering over 8400 m2, making it the largest fully enclosed ecological simulation experiment [32].
SAM integrates the original Biosphere 2 chamber with a newly constructed test pressure chamber, which functions as the main living and working space for researchers. This chamber includes workshops, communal areas, and accommodations for up to four people, along with basalt-based growing beds and hydroponic systems for food production. A half-acre lunar and Martian surface simulation area, accessed through an airlock, replicates extraterrestrial environments using specialized rock and soil. It features simulated topography, lava tubes, and gravity-offset rigs designed to mimic low-gravity walking conditions. Researchers will use this area to study planetary surface processes and develop techniques for in situ soil utilization. Adjacent to the pressure chamber is a biological laboratory that supports sample analysis and microbial research [38].
SAM’s five main objectives include the following:
  • Develop a plant-based ECLSS to replace current physicochemical systems.
  • Simulate the transformation of weathered basalt into plantable soil.
  • Test pressurized suits and extravehicular activities, including tool use, construction, maintenance, data collection, and communication.
  • Study the evolution of microbial communities in a simulated Martian environment.
  • Develop computer models for long-term, composite ECLSS simulations.

2.4. MAn-Moon Base Analog (MaMBA)

The MaMBA project (MAn-Moon Base Analog) is a European project aimed at simulating long-term human habitation on the Moon and Mars [43]. The project involves creating an analog habitat environment to study how humans could live and work on these celestial bodies, with a particular focus on life support, resource management, and the psychological and physical challenges of long-duration space missions.
The key research objectives of MaMBA include the following:
  • Life Support Systems: Investigating self-sustaining technologies for air, water, and food production in closed-loop ecosystems.
  • In Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU): Developing technologies to utilize local resources on the Moon and Mars, such as water ice and building materials, to reduce dependency on Earth-based supplies.
  • Psychological and Physiological Impacts: Studying the effects of isolation, confinement, and teamwork on astronauts’ well-being during extended missions.
The MaMBA project uses an analog habitat to replicate the conditions of living on the Moon or Mars, testing technologies for air and water recycling, food production, and crew dynamics in an isolated environment [44].
The MaMBA project offers valuable insights into the challenges of sustaining a human presence on the Moon and Mars. The layout is shown in Figure 3. It supports the development of future habitat designs, advances life support technologies, and helps address psychological and physiological stresses faced by astronauts. The findings also have wider relevance for space exploration and may contribute to improving sustainability and quality of life in remote or confined environments on Earth [45,46,47,48].

2.5. Crew Health and Performance Exploration Analog (CHAPEA)

CHAPEA represents a series of simulated Mars surface missions designed to replicate year-long extraterrestrial habitation. These analog missions involve four-member crews residing in Mars Dune Alpha, a purpose-built, 158 m2 isolated habitat. Throughout the mission duration, participants conduct simulated extravehicular activities while researchers collect extensive physiological and psychological data, including indicators of physical health, behavioral dynamics, and operational performance metrics.
The 3D-printed habitat is designed to replicate Martian living conditions and includes private crew quarters, a kitchen, and designated areas for medical care, recreation, fitness, work, and agriculture [50]. Additional facilities include a technical workspace and two bathrooms. To ensure data accuracy and mission realism, the analog environment incorporates Mars-like stressors such as limited resources, prolonged isolation, equipment malfunctions, and demanding workloads. Crew activities are expected to include simulated spacewalks using virtual reality, communication exercises, crop cultivation, meal preparation, physical training, personal hygiene, maintenance tasks, leisure, scientific experiments, and regular sleep cycles [51].
The CHAPEA program comprises three planned analog missions. Mission 1 took place from 25 June 2023 to 6 July 2024, while Missions 2 and 3 are scheduled for 2025 and 2026, respectively. The first mission validated the feasibility of 3D-printed habitats and assessed human performance under extended isolation and high-latency communication. These findings aim to inform NASA’s future Mars operations under the Artemis program and beyond, while also contributing knowledge applicable to sustaining life in extreme environments on Earth.

2.6. Flashline Mars Arctic Research Station (MARS)

MARS, as the Mars Society’s inaugural simulated habitat project, is situated in the Mars-like environment of Devon Island in Canada’s High Arctic region. At its core stands a cylindrical habitat module with a diameter of 8 m (“The Hab”)—a two-level structure mounted on landing struts to simulate Martian surface conditions—with the capacity to integrate expandable inflatable auxiliary modules. This experimental platform progressively enhances both environmental verisimilitude and operational authenticity through continuous design iterations and increasingly realistic mission simulations, aiming to develop the operational protocols and technical systems required for sustained scientific expeditions on Mars [52].
Each research station hosts rotating teams of four to six specialists (including geologists, astrobiologists, engineers, and medical professionals) conducting extended-duration studies under simulated Martian conditions. These terrestrial analog sites are carefully selected for their distinctive combinations of environmental parameters, geological formations, and biological characteristics that closely resemble aspects of both present and past Martian environments. In addition to advancing knowledge of Martian geology and potential biosignatures through comparative planetology, the stations play a critical role in testing exploration technologies under realistic field conditions, examining human performance in confined and isolated settings, and developing operational protocols for effective human–robot collaboration [53].
The program specifically addresses the multidimensional complexities inherent in deep space missions, which require seamless coordination between habitat crews, extravehicular activity teams, rover operators, and Earth-based support systems. The partial layout of MARS can be found in Figure 4. It also tackles challenges such as optimizing human–machine interaction efficiency and mitigating communication latency effects. Through phased mission simulations, the program systematically validates exploration strategies; refines crew selection criteria; perfects operational procedures; and enhances habitat systems. This evolutionary approach ultimately cultivates the “art of coordinated operations” essential for actual Mars missions, establishing MARS as a critical bridge connecting theoretical planning with practical interstellar exploration implementation [54].

2.7. Mars Desert Research Station (MDRS)

The Mars Desert Research Station (MDRS), operated by the Mars Society, is a pioneering analog research facility dedicated to simulating and studying human planetary surface operations. As the longest-running Mars simulation habitat, MDRS has become a vital platform for testing and refining operational protocols, mission planning strategies, and technological systems essential for future human exploration of Mars [55,56].
Since its inception two decades ago, MDRS has served as an essential field laboratory, hosting rotating crews of six to seven multidisciplinary specialists. These teams—typically composed of geologists, astrobiologists, engineers, physicians, and human factor researchers—conduct extended-duration missions lasting from several weeks to months in a high-fidelity Mars analog environment. The station’s design incorporates a prototype Mars surface habitat, providing valuable insights into the challenges of sustaining human presence under conditions of relative isolation and resource constraints comparable to those expected on Mars [57,58].
Through its sustained operations, MDRS has contributed significantly to our understanding of the following:
(1)
Crew dynamics in confined, isolated environments;
(2)
Field science operations under simulated planetary conditions;
(3)
Habitat system performance requirements for future Mars missions.
The station continues to serve as a vital platform for testing exploration strategies and technologies while training the next generation of planetary explorers [59].

2.8. Concordia Research Station

Concordia Research Station, a joint Franco–Italian facility at Dome C on the Antarctic Plateau, stands as one of Earth’s most extreme research outposts. Operated by the French Polar Institute Paul-Émile Victor (IPEV) and the Italian National Antarctic Research Program (PNRA), this year-round station has maintained continuous operations since 2005 [60]. Situated at 3200 m altitude, Concordia’s environment features the following:
(1)
Extreme low temperatures reaching −80 °C in winter.
(2)
Prolonged polar night with complete darkness for 4 months.
(3)
Hypobaric hypoxia (oxygen levels equivalent to 3800 m altitude).
Beyond its fundamental polar research, Concordia serves as a critical analog for space studies. The European Space Agency (ESA) leverages these extreme conditions to investigate the following:
(1)
Human adaptation in isolated, confined environments.
(2)
Psychophysiological responses to prolonged isolation.
(3)
Neurological changes under extreme conditions.
(4)
Team dynamics and performance under stress.
These studies directly inform the development of life support systems and habitat designs for future lunar/Mars missions, while the station’s unique combination of environmental extremes, sensory deprivation, and social isolation provides unparalleled insights into spaceflight stressors [61].

2.9. Mars-500

The Mars-500 program (2007–2011) represents the most comprehensive simulation of a crewed Mars mission to date. Conducted by Russia’s Institute for Biomedical Problems (IBMP) with ESA and CNSA participation, this 520-day isolation experiment (June 2010–November 2011) involved an international six-member crew in a specially designed Moscow habitat that accurately replicated mission constraints including communication delays (1–20 min) and resource limitations [62].
Key psychological findings revealed the following [63]:
(1)
Progressive decline in group cohesion after 8 months.
(2)
A 40% reduction in communication efficiency during final mission phase.
(3)
The development of effective stress management protocols is necessary and efficient for long-term human exterresial missions.
The study’s comprehensive results demonstrated that while physiological and psychological stressors accumulate predictably during prolonged isolation, proper countermeasures can maintain crew functionality. These findings have fundamentally informed current astronaut selection criteria emphasizing psychological resilience, mission architecture design including communication protocols, and operational procedures for future deep space exploration [64,65]. The program remains the gold standard for understanding human adaptation to long-duration spaceflight, with data continuing to yield insights more than a decade later.

2.10. HI-SEAS Mars Environment Simulation Research Station

The Hawai‘i Space Exploration Analog and Simulation (HI-SEAS) research station, situated on the Mauna Loa volcano in Hawai‘i at an elevation of approximately 2500 m, functions as a high-fidelity analog for Mars and Moon environments. Designed to support long-duration mission simulations, HI-SEAS enables research on habitat sustainability, crew psychology, and planetary surface operations. Unlike opportunistic analog sites, HI-SEAS allows for controlled crew selection and mission design like EVA simulation, as Figure 5 shows. This ensures that simulation parameters are tailored to meet defined scientific and operational research goals [66].
The habitat itself, with a volume of approximately 368 m3 and a floor space of 111 m2, accommodates six crew members and includes essential facilities such as a laboratory, kitchen, sleeping quarters, and a simulated airlock. The surrounding basaltic terrain closely resembles Martian regolith, enabling realistic geological and astrobiological studies. The site’s visual isolation, limited biological activity, and diverse volcanic features provide an ideal setting for planetary surface operations research [67].
A key feature of HI-SEAS is its implementation of high-latency, asynchronous communication, replicating Mars’ 20 min signal delay. This constraint allows for the study of operational challenges in remote mission support. The station’s accessibility and stable climate enable extended mission durations, making it a critical platform for advancing space habitation technologies and human performance research in preparation for future planetary exploration [68,69].

2.11. International Space Station (ISS)

NASA has spearheaded various research projects both on Earth and in orbit to advance human spaceflight capabilities. These include NEEMO (underwater simulations for low-gravity environments), HERA (space habitat environment simulations), and SIRIUS (on-orbit radiation exposure studies), among others. Among these initiatives, the most significant is the development of the ECLSS for the International Space Station (ISS) [70,71].
Led by NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, the Environmental Control and Life Support System (ECLSS) aboard the International Space Station is engineered to recycle oxygen and water while maintaining stable atmospheric conditions, including air pressure and gas composition. The system has achieved near-complete recovery of oxygen and water along with effective waste management. Ongoing efforts focus on improving system reliability, with the long-term goal of developing a fully closed-loop, self-sustaining life support system capable of supporting extended deep-space missions without the need for resupply [72].

3. Technology and Development Focus

3.1. ISRU Technology

ISRU technologies critically constrain the ability to meet the fundamental requirements for sustaining human life on Mars. While reliance on Earth-based resupply is feasible for short-duration missions with small crews, this approach becomes increasingly untenable for long-term, large-scale habitation. In the absence of robust ISRU systems capable of producing water, oxygen, construction materials, and agricultural substrates locally, the burden of maintaining a continuous interplanetary supply chain becomes both economically prohibitive and logistically fragile.
Conventional chemical propulsion systems require more than six months to deliver cargo to Mars, while advanced systems such as nuclear thermal propulsion (NTP) or high-power electric propulsion may reduce this transit time to three or four months. Nonetheless, the cost of transport remains substantial—ranging from tens to hundreds of millions of U.S. dollars per metric ton—and all interplanetary missions remain constrained by orbital mechanics, with optimal launch windows occurring approximately every 26 months [5,73]. This reliance on an Earth–Mars “logistical umbilical cord” introduces significant vulnerabilities: a single launch failure or mission delay could compromise the integrity of an entire settlement, resulting in severe losses of life, infrastructure, and scientific assets.
Current research confirms Mars possesses three vital ISRU resources:
(1)
The abundant silicates in Martian soil serve as excellent construction materials [74].
(2)
Its iron-rich regolith holds significant smelting value [74].
(3)
The subsurface water ice deposits can provide essential water and oxygen [75].
While these resources may support initial infrastructure and basic life support systems, they remain inadequate for sustaining extended missions without surmounting significant challenges. First, because the Martian regolith lacks hydrogen-bearing minerals, using local materials for radiation shielding is less effective [76]. While small-scale habitats may initially import shielding mass from Earth, long-term protection will require the development of hydrogen enrichment technologies using Martian or transported feedstock. Second, Martian soil contains high levels of perchlorates and lacks key macronutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium [77]. Sustainable agriculture on Mars will require detoxification of the soil, atmospheric or regolith-based nutrient extraction, advanced recycling systems for organic waste, and the development of genetically engineered crops with enhanced nutrient uptake and perchlorate tolerance.
Although ISRU technologies have demonstrated the potential to supply essential structural materials, life support consumables, and basic tools, they are not yet mature enough to enable full mission autonomy. Significant advancements in ISRU capability—particularly in the areas of resource processing, environmental compatibility, and system integration—are imperative to reduce reliance on Earth-based resupply and enable long-term self-sufficiency. Progress in these domains will be pivotal in transforming Mars from a temporary research outpost to a permanently habitable frontier.

3.2. Extraterrestrial Construction

Martian habitats are capable of maintaining controlled internal conditions while providing adequate shielding against cosmic radiation. The primary environmental constraints for Martian habitat construction include the following:
(1)
Thermal Variability: The Martian regolith exhibits low thermal conductivity [78,79,80], which significantly limits its capacity to store and redistribute heat. Consequently, surface temperatures on Mars are highly responsive to solar radiation, leading to pronounced diurnal temperature fluctuations. During daylight hours, solar-exposed regions can experience rapid warming, whereas the absence of insolation at night results in swift cooling. This severe thermal cycling imposes mechanical stress on habitat materials, accelerates material fatigue, and may induce deformation of the regolith foundation. These conditions present serious challenges for maintaining structural stability and thermal regulation within habitats. As such, future Martian construction efforts must incorporate advanced thermal insulation, resilient structural materials, and adaptive architectural strategies to ensure habitat integrity over extended durations.
(2)
Radiation Exposure: Surface radiation levels on Mars are 50–100 times higher than those on Earth, amounting to approximately two-thirds of the exposure experienced aboard the International Space Station [81,82,83,84]. Therefore, continuous radiation shielding is essential for any long-term habitat.
In light of these constraints, subsurface habitats present a promising mitigation strategy. Similar to the Moon, Mars features natural voids such as lava tubes and caves, which can provide inherent protection against radiation and temperature extremes [85,86]. Structures located at depths exceeding two meters may eliminate the need for heavy artificial shielding. Converting these natural formations into pressurized, habitable spaces could significantly reduce material demands and construction complexity. Therefore, in parallel with ISRU for material production, future architectural approaches should prioritize exploration and adaptation of such subsurface environments.

3.3. Automation Technology

Mars has extreme environmental conditions that greatly limit what humans can do on the surface, making automation very important. Robots of different sizes, from large construction machines to small, swarming rovers, will be needed to build habitats and support human missions [28]. These systems can help with tasks like setting up infrastructure, exploring for resources, and collecting materials, all while keeping people safe from harsh conditions. Using robotic systems in construction and resource use will be key to making long-term human presence on Mars possible.

3.4. ECLSS

ECLSS are essential for sustaining human life during extended Mars missions and future colonization. These systems provide breathable air, clean water, and temperature regulation while efficiently managing waste in the planet’s harsh environment.
Mars’ CO2-rich atmosphere [87] necessitates reliable oxygen production through technologies like electrolysis or MOXIE. Water recovery relies on closed-loop recycling, similar to NASA’s ISS Water Recovery System [72]. Advanced CO2 scrubbing and bio-regenerative waste conversion reduce reliance on Earth resupply. Thermal control and radiation-shielding measures help mitigate the harsh conditions of the Martian environment.
Current research focuses on in situ resource utilization (ISRU) to extract oxygen and water, closed-loop air and water recycling to minimize resupply needs, and bio-regenerative life support systems such as hydroponics for food and oxygen generation. AI-driven autonomous monitoring ensures system reliability. Advancements in ECLSS technology are crucial for reducing mission costs and enabling long-term human presence on Mars through enhanced efficiency, self-sufficiency, and sustainability.

3.5. Extraterrestrial Human Physical and Mental Health Care

Because Mars is so far from Earth, quick medical evacuation is impossible, making full medical care on-site essential. Mars habitats need advanced medical tools like autonomous diagnostic devices, robotic-assisted surgery, and AI-based health monitoring. Crew members must be well-trained to handle emergencies, and support from Earth through telemedicine will be crucial. Having backup medical supplies, regenerative treatments, and plans for managing mental health will help ensure astronauts stay healthy during long missions in isolation.
Mental health is also a major concern due to long periods of isolation, confinement, and communication delays with Earth. Support strategies should include virtual reality therapy, AI-based counseling, planned social activities, and stress-relief programs. Crew selection and training must focus on resilience and teamwork, while habitat design should provide simulated natural light, private areas, and spaces for recreation. Regular mental health check-ups and access to remote psychological support will be vital for maintaining crew well-being and mission success in Mars’ harsh environment.

3.6. Potentials of Public–Private Partnerships (PPPs) and Commercializations

As Mars missions grow increasingly complex and resource-intensive, relying solely on government funding and institutional support is becoming unsustainable. Incorporating private and commercial investment is emerging as a critical strategy for enabling the construction of future Mars habitats. However, in the near term, the limited economic return from such ventures reduces the appeal for private investors. Fully private Mars analog initiatives—such as the Astroland facilities in Spain, LunAres Station in Poland, and INTERSPACE of 4Frontiers Corporation in the United States [88,89,90]—generally operate with modest budgets. The infrastructure is often limited or even absent, and the scientific outputs remain significantly less robust compared to large-scale, publicly funded programs.
Public–private partnerships (PPPs) present a promising alternative. By combining the long-term vision, regulatory frameworks, and mission planning capabilities of government agencies with the innovation, agility, and cost-efficiency of private companies, PPPs can help lower overall costs, accelerate development timelines, and broaden technical approaches. This model holds substantial potential for advancing human exploration of Mars in a more sustainable and scalable manner [91].
Commercial participation also opens new potential revenue streams—from scientific payload delivery and communications infrastructure to off-world mining and bioengineering. While speculative, such activities could reduce long-term dependence on government budgets and incentivize scalable Mars infrastructure [92].
Successful PPPs, such as NASA’s Commercial Crew Program and ESA’s ARTES initiatives, have shown that aligning public mission goals with industrial agility can accelerate capability development. Future Mars-focused PPPs may cover life support systems, ISRU integration, habitat construction, or logistics services, making them a critical strategic component of Martian settlement roadmaps [93].

3.7. Influences of National Policies and International Corporations

The development of Mars habitation technologies is shaped not only by scientific and engineering advances but also by evolving national strategies and international frameworks. Governments play a critical role in defining mission objectives, funding priorities, and regulatory conditions that guide technological trajectories.
The European Union, through ESA and associated programs, emphasizes peaceful exploration, environmental sustainability, and cooperative research. Its participation in ExoMars and ongoing involvement in Mars Sample Return reflect a commitment to multilateralism and open scientific collaboration [94]. In parallel, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), while not yet institutionalized in space policy, includes key actors like China and Russia, both of which are pursuing strategic, state-led lunar and Mars programs emphasizing technological autonomy and long-term settlement goals [95].
Legal frameworks, especially around in situ resource utilization (ISRU), remain unsettled. The Outer Space Treaty prohibits sovereignty over celestial bodies but is silent on private and consortium-led extraction rights. As such, countries like the U.S., Luxembourg, and the UAE have enacted national laws permitting commercial exploitation of space resources, while China and Russia have called for a new multilateral regime under UNCOPUOS. These policy divergences will have direct consequences for technology development, international collaboration, and the governance of shared Martian assets [95,96,97].

4. Conclusions

This review examines past efforts to develop sustainable habitation strategies for Mars, focusing particularly on planetary environment simulation projects and advancements in ECLSS. By summarizing key technological developments from previous research, the paper highlights both progress achieved and the remaining challenges in creating a habitable environment on Mars. The analysis aims to serve as a reference for future studies, guiding the development of essential technologies for long-term human presence on the Red Planet.
The prospect of human exploration is gaining momentum, with ambitious plans proposed by both government agencies and private companies. Despite this, major challenges remain, including the need for technological innovation, financial resources, and international cooperation. Earth-based Mars analogs—such as desert research stations and underwater habitats—play a critical role as testbeds for simulating Martian conditions, refining mission protocols, and evaluating astronaut health and performance in isolated settings. As exploration progresses, future missions will emphasize sample return, long-duration habitation experiments, and ultimately human settlement. Achieving these goals will require ongoing innovation, significant investment, and coordinated global efforts. The integration of Mars analog research into mission planning will be vital to overcoming challenges related to long-term survival, bringing humanity closer to living on Mars.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.Z. and T.W.; methodology, Y.Z.; investigation, Y.Z. and T.W.; resources, C.T., Y.H. and F.W.; data curation, Y.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.Z.; writing—review and editing, T.W., D.Z., Z.F., L.P. and C.T.; visualization, F.W. and L.P.; supervision, T.W.; funding acquisition, T.W. and C.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (42405133), Key Technology Research Project of Planetary Protection for the Tianwen-3 mission (TW3010), and Advanced scientific research project of Deep Space Exploration Laboratory (GC03ZX0001ZC3XT-2325).

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
ECLSSEnvironmental Control and Life Support System
EVAExtravehicular activity
ISRUIn situ resource utilization

References

  1. Valantinas, A.; Mustard, J.F.; Chevrier, V.; Mangold, N.; Bishop, J.L.; Pommerol, A.; Beck, P.; Poch, O.; Applin, D.M.; Cloutis, E.A.; et al. Detection of Ferrihydrite in Martian Red Dust Records Ancient Cold and Wet Conditions on Mars. Nat. Commun. 2025, 16, 1712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Adams, D.; Scheucher, M.; Hu, R.; Ehlmann, B.L.; Thomas, T.B.; Wordsworth, R.; Scheller, E.; Lillis, R.; Smith, K.; Rauer, H.; et al. Episodic Warm Climates on Early Mars Primed by Crustal Hydration. Nat. Geosci. 2025, 18, 133–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Starr, S.O.; Muscatello, A.C. Mars in Situ Resource Utilization: A Review. Planet. Space Sci. 2020, 182, 104824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Muscatello, A.; Santiago-Maldonado, E. Mars in Situ Resource Utilization Technology Evaluation. In Proceedings of the 50th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition 2012, Nashville, TN, USA, 9–12 January 2012; p. 360. [Google Scholar]
  5. Shishko, R.; Fradet, R.; Do, S.; Saydam, S.; Tapia-Cortez, C.; Dempster, A.G.; Coulton, J. Mars Colony in Situ Resource Utilization: An Integrated Architecture and Economics Model. Acta Astronaut. 2017, 138, 53–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Sacksteder, K.; Sanders, G. In-Situ Resource Utilization for Lunar and Mars Exploration. In Proceedings of the 45th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, USA, 8–11 January 2007; p. 345. [Google Scholar]
  7. Golombek, M.P.; Grant, J.A.; Parker, T.J.; Kass, D.M.; Crisp, J.A.; Squyres, S.W.; Haldemann, A.F.C.; Adler, M.; Lee, W.J.; Bridges, N.T. Selection of the Mars Exploration Rover Landing Sites. J. Geophys. Res. Planets 2003, 108, 8072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Crisp, J.A.; Adler, M.; Matijevic, J.R.; Squyres, S.W.; Arvidson, R.E.; Kass, D.M. Mars Exploration Rover Mission. J. Geophys. Res. Planets 2003, 108, 8061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Sheehan, W. The Planet Mars: A History of Observation & Discovery; University of Arizona Press: Tucson, AZ, USA, 1996; ISBN 0816516413. [Google Scholar]
  10. Shayler, D.J.; Salmon, A.; Shayler, M.D. History of Mars Exploration. In Marswalk One: First Steps on a New Planet; Springer: London, UK, 2005; pp. 19–42. [Google Scholar]
  11. Williams, G.; Crusan, J. Pioneering Space—The Evolvable Mars Campaign; NASA Headquarters: Washington, DC, USA, 2015. Available online: https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/20150408-nac-crusan-emc-v7a_tagged.pdf (accessed on 30 May 2025).
  12. Craig, D.A.; Herrmann, N.B.; Troutman, P.A. The Evolvable Mars Campaign-Study Status. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE Aerospace Conference, Big Sky, MT, USA, 7–14 March 2015; pp. 1–14. [Google Scholar]
  13. Mueller, R.P.; Sibille, L.; Mantovani, J.; Sanders, G.B.; Jones, C.A. Opportunities and Strategies for Testing and Infusion of ISRU in the Evolvable Mars Campaign. In Proceedings of the AIAA SPACE 2015 Conference and Exposition, Pasadena, CA, USA, 31 August–2 September 2015; p. 4459. [Google Scholar]
  14. Davé, A.; Thompson, S.J.; McKay, C.P.; Stoker, C.R.; Zacny, K.; Paulsen, G.; Mellerowicz, B.; Glass, B.J.; Willson, D.; Bonaccorsi, R. The Sample Handling System for the Mars Icebreaker Life Mission: From Dirt to Data. Astrobiology 2013, 13, 354–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Haltigin, T.; Davis, R.; Kelley, M.; Mugnuolo, R.; Usui, T.; Ammannito, E.; Baker, D.; Plourde, P.; Viotti, M. International Mars Ice Mapper: Overview and Development Status. In Proceedings of the 44th COSPAR Scientific Assembly, Athens, Greece, 16–24 July 2022; Volume 44, p. 425. [Google Scholar]
  16. Davis, R.M.; Collom, B.; Viotti, M.; Kelley, M. International Mars Ice Mapper Mission: A Reconnaissance Mission for the Human Exploration of Mars. In Proceedings of the Low-Cost Science Mission Concepts for Mars Exploration, Pasadena, CA, USA, 29–31 March 2022; Volume 2655, p. 5071. [Google Scholar]
  17. Nealson, K.H. The Limits of Life on Earth and Searching for Life on Mars. J. Geophys. Res. Planets 1997, 102, 23675–23686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. McKay, C.P.; Stoker, C.R. The Early Environment and Its Evolution on Mars: Implication for Life. Rev. Geophys. 1989, 27, 189–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Farley, K.A.; Williford, K.H.; Stack, K.M.; Bhartia, R.; Chen, A.; de la Torre, M.; Hand, K.; Goreva, Y.; Herd, C.D.K.; Hueso, R. Mars 2020 Mission Overview. Space Sci. Rev. 2020, 216, 142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. HandWiki List of Missions to Mars. Available online: https://handwiki.org/wiki/Astronomy:List_of_missions_to_Mars (accessed on 30 May 2025).
  21. Williford, K.H.; Farley, K.A.; Stack, K.M.; Allwood, A.C.; Beaty, D.; Beegle, L.W.; Bhartia, R.; Brown, A.J.; de la Torre Juarez, M.; Hamran, S.-E. The NASA Mars 2020 Rover Mission and the Search for Extraterrestrial Life. In From Habitability to Life on Mars; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 275–308. [Google Scholar]
  22. Simon, M.A.; Wald, S.I.; Howe, A.S.; Toups, L. Evolvable Mars Campaign Long Duration Habitation Strategies: Architectural Approaches to Enable Human Exploration Missions. In Proceedings of the AIAA SPACE 2015 Conference and Exposition, Pasadena, CA, USA, 31 August–2 September 2015; p. 4514. [Google Scholar]
  23. Craig, D.A.; Troutman, P.; Herrmann, N. Pioneering Space through the Evolvable Mars Campaign. In Proceedings of the AIAA Space 2015 Conference and Exposition, Pasadena, CA, USA, 31 August–2 September 2015; p. 4409. [Google Scholar]
  24. McKay, C.P.; Stoker, C.R.; Glass, B.J.; Davé, A.I.; Davila, A.F.; Heldmann, J.L.; Marinova, M.M.; Fairen, A.G.; Quinn, R.C.; Zacny, K.A. The Icebreaker Life Mission to Mars: A Search for Biomolecular Evidence for Life. Astrobiology 2013, 13, 334–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Ammannito, E.; Viotti, M.A.; Amoroso, M.; Haltigin, T.; Usui, T.; Kelley, M.; Mugnuolo, R.; Davis, R. Mapping Martian Ice & Implications for Astrobiology: Contributions of the International Mars Ice Mapper Mission. In Proceedings of the 23rd European Astrobiology Conference, Madrid, Spain, 19–22 September 2023; p. E1. [Google Scholar]
  26. Vago, J.; Gardini, B.; Kminek, G.; Baglioni, P.; Gianfiglio, G.; Santovincenzo, A.; Bayon, S.; van Winnendael, M. ExoMars-Searching for Life on the Red Planet. ESA Bull. 2006, 126, 16–23. [Google Scholar]
  27. Boeder, P.A.; Soares, C.E. Mars 2020: Mission, Science Objectives and Build. In Proceedings of the Systems Contamination: Prediction, Control, and Performance 2020, San Diego, CA, USA, 24 August–4 September 2020; Volume 11489, p. 1148903. [Google Scholar]
  28. Hanel, R.; Conrath, B.; Hovis, W.; Kunde, V.; Lowman, P.; Maguire, W.; Pearl, J.; Pirraglia, J.; Prabhakara, C.; Schlachman, B. Investigation of the Martian Environment by Infrared Spectroscopy on Mariner 9. Icarus 1972, 17, 423–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Segura, T.L.; Toon, O.B.; Colaprete, A.; Zahnle, K. Environmental Effects of Large Impacts on Mars. Science 2002, 298, 1977–1980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Horneck, G.; Facius, R.; Reitz, G.; Rettberg, P.; Baumstark-Khan, C.; Gerzer, R. Critical Issues in Connection with Human Missions to Mars: Protection of and from the Martian Environment. Adv. Space Res. 2003, 31, 87–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Dong, C.; Shao, L.; Fu, Y.; Wang, M.; Xie, B.; Yu, J.; Liu, H. Evaluation of Wheat Growth, Morphological Characteristics, Biomass Yield and Quality in Lunar Palace-1, Plant Factory, Green House and Field Systems. Acta Astronaut. 2015, 111, 102–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Hawkins, G.; Melotti, E.; Staats, K.; Meszaros, A.; Giacomelli, G. Ecosystem Modeling and Validation Using Empirical Data from NASA CELSS and Biosphere 2. In Proceedings of the 2023 International Conference on Environmental Systems, Calgary, AB, Canada, 16–20 July 2023. [Google Scholar]
  33. Fu, Y.; Liu, H.; Liu, D.; Hu, D.; Xie, B.; Liu, G.; Yi, Z.; Liu, H. A Case for Supporting Human Long-Term Survival on the Moon:“Lunar Palace 365” Mission. Acta Astronaut. 2025, 228, 131–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Marino, B.D.V.; Odum, H.T. Biosphere 2. Introduction and Research Progress. Ecol. Eng. 1999, 13, 3–14. [Google Scholar]
  35. Allen, J.; Nelson, M. Overview and Design Biospherics and Biosphere 2, Mission One (1991–1993). Ecol. Eng. 1999, 13, 15–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Dempster, W.F. Biosphere 2 Engineering Design. Ecol. Eng. 1999, 13, 31–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Nelson, M.; Burgess, T.L.; Alling, A.; Alvarez-Romo, N.; Dempster, W.F.; Walford, R.L.; Allen, J.P. Using a Closed Ecological System to Study Earth’s Biosphere: Initial Results from Biosphere 2. Bioscience 1993, 43, 225–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Nelson, M. Biosphere 2’s Lessons about Living on Earth and in Space. Space Sci. Technol. 2021, 2021, 8067539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Cohen, J.E.; Tilman, D. Biosphere 2 and Biodiversity—The Lessons So Far. Science 1996, 274, 1150–1151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Liu, H.; Yao, Z.; Liu, H. Human Lunar Base: “Lunar Palace 1” Team of Beihang University Unveils China’s “Lunar Palace” Plan. Innovation 2024, 5, 100592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Hao, Z.; Zhu, Y.; Feng, S.; Meng, C.; Hu, D.; Liu, H.; Liu, H. Effects of Long Term Isolation on the Emotion Change of “Lunar Palace 365” Crewmembers. Sci. Bull. 2019, 64, 881–884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Wu, R.; Wang, Y. Psychosocial Interaction during a 105-Day Isolated Mission in Lunar Palace 1. Acta Astronaut. 2015, 113, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Heinicke, C.; Foing, B. MaMBA-a Functional Moon and Mars Base Analog. In Proceedings of the European Planetary Science Congress, Riga, Latvia, 17–22 September 2017; p. EPSC2017-814. [Google Scholar]
  44. Heinicke, C. From Simulations towards a Functional Base: The Moon and Mars Base Analog (MaMBA). In Proceedings of the 49th International Conference on Environmental Systems, Boston, MA, USA, 7–11 July 2019. [Google Scholar]
  45. Heinicke, C.; Orzechowski, L.; Abdullah, R.; von Einem, M.; Arnhof, M. Updated Design Concepts of the Moon and Mars Base Analog (MaMBA). In Proceedings of the European Planetary Science Congress 2018, Berlin, Germany, 16–21 September 2018; Volume 12. [Google Scholar]
  46. Heinicke, C.; Avila, M. Lessons from the First Simulations at the Moon and Mars Base Analog (MaMBA). In Proceedings of the 50th International Conference on Environmental Systems, Online, 12–14 July 2021. [Google Scholar]
  47. Momose, K.; Heinicke, C. Medical Bay Design Considerations for the Moon and Mars Base Analog (MaMBA). In Proceedings of the 50th International Conference on Environmental Systems, Online, 12–14 July 2021. [Google Scholar]
  48. Gellenbeck, S.; Cuello, J.L.; Pryor, B.; Gerba, C.; Staats, K. Integration and Validation of Mushroom and Algae into an Agent-Based Model of a Physico-Chemical and Bioregenerative ECLSS. In Proceedings of the 2023 International Conference on Environmental Systems, Calgary, AB, Canada, 16–20 July 2023. [Google Scholar]
  49. Heinicke, C. Preparing Human Exploration on the Moon and Mars: First Test Runs at the MaMBA Laboratory. In Proceedings of the EPSC-DPS Joint Meeting 2019, Geneva, Switzerland, 15–20 September 2019; Volume 2019, p. EPSC-DPS2019. [Google Scholar]
  50. Meier, A.; Fisher, J.; Bolado, N.; Crow, A.; Arnold, C.; Rios, J.; Best, H.; Smith, J. Thermal Degradation and Rapid Composting of Inedible Biomass and Logistical Waste for Crop Production and Resource Recovery in Space Applications. In Proceedings of the 53rd International Conference on Environmental Systems, Louisville, KY, USA, 21–25 July 2024. [Google Scholar]
  51. Yashar, M.; Glasgow, C.; Mehlomakulu, B.; Ballard, J.; Salazar, J.; Mauer, S.; Covey, S. Mars Dune Alpha: A 3D-Printed Habitat by ICON/BIG for NASA’s Crew Health and Performance Exploration Analog (CHAPEA). In Proceedings of the Earth and Space 2022, Denver, CO, USA, 25–28 April 2022. [Google Scholar]
  52. Cusack, S.; Ferrone, K.; Kramer, W.; Garvin, C.; Palaia, J.; Shiro, B. Flashline Mars Arctic Research Station (FMARS) 2009 Expedition Crew Perspectives. In Proceedings of the SpaceOps 2010 Conference, Huntsville, AL, USA, 25–30 April 2010; ISBN 978-1-62410-164-9. [Google Scholar]
  53. Society, M. Mars160 FMARS Final Mission Report; Flashline Mars Arctic Research Station, Mars Society: Devon Island, NU, Canada, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  54. Bamsey, M.; Berinstain, A.; Auclair, S.; Battler, M.; Binsted, K.; Bywaters, K.; Harris, J.; Kobrick, R.; McKay, C. Four-Month Moon and Mars Crew Water Utilization Study Conducted at the Flashline Mars Arctic Research Station, Devon Island, Nunavut. Adv. Space Res. 2009, 43, 1256–1274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Hargitai, H.I.; Gregory, H.S.; Osburg, J.; Hands, D. Development of a Local Toponym System at the Mars Desert Research Station. Cartogr. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Geovis. 2007, 42, 179–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Poulet, L.; Doule, O. Greenhouse Automation, Illumination and Expansion Study for Mars Desert Research Station. In Proceedings of the IAC 2014, Toronto, ON, Canada, 29 September–3 October 2014. [Google Scholar]
  57. Black, A.D. Wor (l) D-building: Simulation and Metaphor at the Mars Desert Research Station. J. Linguist. Anthropol. 2018, 28, 137–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Martins, Z.; Sephton, M.A.; Foing, B.H.; Ehrenfreund, P. Extraction of Amino Acids from Soils Close to the Mars Desert Research Station (MDRS), Utah. Int. J. Astrobiol. 2011, 10, 231–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Roman-Gonzalez, A.; Saab, B.; Berger, J.; Hoyt, J.; Urquhart, J.; Guined, J. Mars Desert Research Station: Crew 138. In Proceedings of the 66th International Astronautical Congress-IAC 2015, Jerusalem, Israel, 12–16 October 2015; p. 7. [Google Scholar]
  60. Ricaud, P.; Sonneville, A. Concordia: Une Station Scientifique Dans Le Froid Extrême de l’Antarctique. La Météorologie 2023, 123, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Van Ombergen, A.; Rossiter, A.; Ngo-Anh, T.J. ‘White Mars’–Nearly Two Decades of Biomedical Research at the Antarctic Concordia Station. Exp. Physiol. 2021, 106, 6–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Feichtinger, E.; Charles, R.; Urbina, D.; Sundblad, P.; Fuglesang, C.; Zell, M. Mars-500—A Testbed for Psychological Crew Support during Future Human Exploration Missions. In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE Aerospace Conference, Big Sky, MT, USA, 3–10 March 2012; pp. 1–17. [Google Scholar]
  63. Tafforin, C. The Mars-500 Crew in Daily Life Activities: An Ethological Study. Acta Astronaut. 2013, 91, 69–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Tafforin, C.; Vinokhodova, A.; Chekalina, A.; Gushin, V. Correlation of Etho-Social and Psycho-Social Data from “Mars-500” Interplanetary Simulation. Acta Astronaut. 2015, 111, 19–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Ushakov, I.B.; Vladimirovich, M.B.; Bubeev, Y.A.; Gushin, V.I.; Vasil’eva, G.Y.; Vinokhodova, A.G.; Shved, D.M. Main Findings of Psychophysiological Studies in the Mars 500 Exceperiment. Her. Russ. Acad. Sci. 2014, 84, 106–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Musilova, M.; Foing, B.; Beniest, A.; Rogers, H. EuroMoonMars IMA at HI-SEAS Campaigns in 2019: An Overview of the Analog Missions, Upgrades to the Mission Operations and Protocols. In Proceedings of the 51st Lunar and Planetary Science Conference, The Woodlands, TX, USA, 16–20 March 2020. [Google Scholar]
  67. Anderson, A.P.; Fellows, A.M.; Binsted, K.A.; Hegel, M.T.; Buckey, J.C. Autonomous, Computer-Based Behavioral Health Countermeasure Evaluation at HI-SEAS Mars Analog. Aerosp. Med. Hum. Perform. 2016, 87, 912–920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Mahnert, A.; Verseux, C.; Schwendner, P.; Koskinen, K.; Kumpitsch, C.; Blohs, M.; Wink, L.; Brunner, D.; Goessler, T.; Billi, D. Microbiome Dynamics during the HI-SEAS IV Mission, and Implications for Future Crewed Missions beyond Earth. Microbiome 2021, 9, 27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Goemaere, S.; Van Caelenberg, T.; Beyers, W.; Binsted, K.; Vansteenkiste, M. Life on Mars from a Self-Determination Theory Perspective: How Astronauts’ Needs for Autonomy, Competence and Relatedness Go Hand in Hand with Crew Health and Mission Success-Results from HI-SEAS IV. Acta Astronaut. 2019, 159, 273–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Tatara, J.D.; Roman, M.C. An Overview of ISS ECLSS Life Testing at NASA, MSFC. Life Support. Biosph. Sci. 1998, 5, 13–21. [Google Scholar]
  71. Carrasquillo, R. ISS ECLSS Technology Evolution for Exploration. In Proceedings of the 43rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, USA, 10–13 January 2005; p. 337. [Google Scholar]
  72. Balistreri, S.F., Jr.; Van Keuren, S.; Robinson, K.; Santoyo, J.; Koerber, O.; Caldwell, A.; Luong, H.H.; Davis, M.; Cover, J.M. International Space Station (ISS) Environmental Control and Life Support (ECLS) System Overview of Events 2023. In Proceedings of the 53rd International Conference on Environmental Systems (ICES), Louisville, KY, USA, 21–25 July 2024. [Google Scholar]
  73. Rucker, M.A.; Craig, D.A.; Burke, L.M.; Chai, P.R.; Chappell, M.B.; Drake, B.G.; Edwards, S.J.; Hoffman, S.; McCrea, A.C.; Trent, D.J. NASA’s Strategic Analysis Cycle 2021 (SAC21) Human Mars Architecture. In Proceedings of the 2022 IEEE Aerospace Conference (AERO), Big Sky, MT, USA, 5–13 March 2022; pp. 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  74. Clark, B.C. Geochemical Components in Martian Soil. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 1993, 57, 4575–4581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Morgan, G.A.; Putzig, N.E.; Perry, M.R.; Sizemore, H.G.; Bramson, A.M.; Petersen, E.I.; Bain, Z.M.; Baker, D.M.H.; Mastrogiuseppe, M.; Hoover, R.H.; et al. Availability of Subsurface Water-Ice Resources in the Northern Mid-Latitudes of Mars. Nat. Astron. 2021, 5, 230–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Bish, D.L.; William Carey, J.; Vaniman, D.T.; Chipera, S.J. Stability of Hydrous Minerals on the Martian Surface. Icarus 2003, 164, 96–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Oze, C.; Beisel, J.; Dabsys, E.; Dall, J.; North, G.; Scott, A.; Lopez, A.M.; Holmes, R.; Fendorf, S. Perchlorate and Agriculture on Mars. Soil Syst. 2021, 5, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Grott, M.; Spohn, T.; Knollenberg, J.; Krause, C.; Hudson, T.L.; Piqueux, S.; Müller, N.; Golombek, M.; Vrettos, C.; Marteau, E. Thermal Conductivity of the Martian Soil at the InSight Landing Site from HP3 Active Heating Experiments. J. Geophys. Res. Planets 2021, 126, e2021JE006861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Siegler, M.; Aharonson, O.; Carey, E.; Choukroun, M.; Hudson, T.; Schorghofer, N.; Xu, S. Measurements of Thermal Properties of Icy Mars Regolith Analogs. J. Geophys. Res. Planets 2012, 117, E03001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Nagihara, S.; Ngo, P.; Grott, M. Thermal Properties of the Mojave Mars Regolith Simulant in Mars-like Atmospheric Conditions. Int. J. Thermophys. 2022, 43, 98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Cucinotta, F.A.; Schimmerling, W.; Wilson, J.W.; Peterson, L.E.; Badhwar, G.D.; Saganti, P.B.; Dicello, J.F. Space Radiation Cancer Risks and Uncertainties for Mars Missions. Radiat. Res. 2001, 156, 682–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Simonsen, L.C.; Nealy, J.E.; Townsend, L.W.; Wilson, J.W. Space Radiation Dose Estimates on the Surface of Mars. J. Spacecr. Rocket. 1990, 27, 353–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Cucinotta, F.A. Review of NASA Approach to Space Radiation Risk Assessments for Mars Exploration. Health Phys. 2015, 108, 131–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Hassler, D.M.; Zeitlin, C.; Wimmer-Schweingruber, R.F.; Ehresmann, B.; Rafkin, S.; Eigenbrode, J.L.; Brinza, D.E.; Weigle, G.; Böttcher, S.; Böhm, E.; et al. Mars’ Surface Radiation Environment Measured with the Mars Science Laboratory’s Curiosity Rover. Science 2014, 343, 1244797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Li, C.; Zheng, Y.; Wang, X.; Zhang, J.; Wang, Y.; Chen, L.; Zhang, L.; Zhao, P.; Liu, Y.; Lv, W.; et al. Layered Subsurface in Utopia Basin of Mars Revealed by Zhurong Rover Radar. Nature 2022, 610, 308–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Viola, D.; McEwen, A.S.; Dundas, C.M.; Byrne, S. Expanded Secondary Craters in the Arcadia Planitia Region, Mars: Evidence for Tens of Myr-Old Shallow Subsurface Ice. Icarus 2015, 248, 190–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Gillmann, C.; Lognonné, P.; Chassefière, E.; Moreira, M. The Present-Day Atmosphere of Mars: Where Does It Come From? Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 2009, 277, 384–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Mintus, A.; Orzechowski, L.; Ćwilichowska, N. LunAres Analog Research Station—Overview of Updated Design and Research Potential. Acta Astronaut. 2022, 193, 785–794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Aquinoa, R.C.D. Mars Cave Research Station: Principia Mission. In Proceedings of the 75th International Astronautical Congress (IAC), Milan, Italy, 14–18 October 2024. [Google Scholar]
  90. Homnick, M. INTERSPACE Mars Analog Based on Proposed Settlement Level Criteria. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference and Exhibition on Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 8–10 September 2014. [Google Scholar]
  91. Undseth, M.; Jolly, C.; Olivari, M. Evolving Public-Private Relations in the Space Sector; OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers; OECD: Paris, France, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  92. Parishanmahjuri, H. Development of the Global Value Chains in the Space Industry. Master’s Thesis, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, Venice, Italy, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  93. Rausser, G.; Choi, E.; Bayen, A. Public–Private Partnerships in Fostering Outer Space Innovations. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2023, 120, e2222013120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Papadimitriou, A.; Adriaensen, M.; Antoni, N.; Giannopapa, C. Perspective on Space and Security Policy, Programmes and Governance in Europe. Acta Astronaut. 2019, 161, 183–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Wu, X. The International Lunar Research Station: China’s New Era of Space Cooperation and Its New Role in the Space Legal Order. Space Policy 2023, 65, 101537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Jakhu, R.S.; Pelton, J.N.; Nyampong, Y.O.M. Space Mining and Its Regulation; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; Volume 106. [Google Scholar]
  97. Zhao, Y. Space Commercialization and the Development of Space Law. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Planetary Science; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
Aerospace 12 00510 g001
Figure 1. Plan view of Biosphere 2 [34].
Figure 1. Plan view of Biosphere 2 [34].
Aerospace 12 00510 g001
Aerospace 12 00510 g002
Figure 2. Lunar Palace 1 model [41].
Figure 2. Lunar Palace 1 model [41].
Aerospace 12 00510 g002
Aerospace 12 00510 g003
Figure 3. MaMBA base layout: MaMBA consists of six connected but separable modules, each dedicated to one or two specific functions: (1) sleeping module, (2) kitchen module, (3) leisure module, (4) greenhouse/gym, (5) laboratory module, (6) workshop, and (7,8) airlock. Note that the right side of the base is dedicated to work, while the left side is reserved for leisure [49].
Figure 3. MaMBA base layout: MaMBA consists of six connected but separable modules, each dedicated to one or two specific functions: (1) sleeping module, (2) kitchen module, (3) leisure module, (4) greenhouse/gym, (5) laboratory module, (6) workshop, and (7,8) airlock. Note that the right side of the base is dedicated to work, while the left side is reserved for leisure [49].
Aerospace 12 00510 g003
Aerospace 12 00510 g004
Figure 4. (Left) Exterior of the Flashline Mars Arctic Research Station, Devon (Right) floors (Osburg, 2004) [54].
Figure 4. (Left) Exterior of the Flashline Mars Arctic Research Station, Devon (Right) floors (Osburg, 2004) [54].
Aerospace 12 00510 g004
Aerospace 12 00510 g005
Figure 5. Crew members performing geology research during an EVA [66].
Figure 5. Crew members performing geology research during an EVA [66].
Aerospace 12 00510 g005
Table 1. Some of future Mars exploration missions about Mars habitation [22,23,24,25,26,27].
Table 1. Some of future Mars exploration missions about Mars habitation [22,23,24,25,26,27].
MissionsObjectives Relative to Mars Habitation/Life on Mars
ExoMars 2022 (Rosalind Franklin)Search for signs of life on Mars.
Tianwen-3Demonstrate ISRU technology.
International Mars Ice Mapper (I-MIM)Map and characterize accessible near-surface water ice (to depths of 10 m or less) and its overburden at mid- to low-latitude regions.
Icebreaker Life
  • Search for specific biomolecules that could serve as definitive evidence of life.
  • Broad search for organic molecules within subsurface ice.
  • Investigate the process of surface ice formation and the role of liquid water in this context.
  • Understand the mechanical properties of ice-bound soils in the Martian polar regions.
  • Assess the near-term habitability of the environment, including elements essential for sustaining life, potential energy sources, and the presence of possibly toxic elements.
  • Compare the elemental composition of Mars’ northern plains with that of mid-latitude regions.
Evolvable Mars Campaign (EMC)Manned exploration on Mars.
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

Zhong, Y.; Wu, T.; Han, Y.; Wang, F.; Zhao, D.; Fang, Z.; Pan, L.; Tang, C. Advancements in Mars Habitation Technologies and Terrestrial Simulation Projects: A Comprehensive Review. Aerospace 2025, 12, 510. https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace12060510

AMA Style

Zhong Y, Wu T, Han Y, Wang F, Zhao D, Fang Z, Pan L, Tang C. Advancements in Mars Habitation Technologies and Terrestrial Simulation Projects: A Comprehensive Review. Aerospace. 2025; 12(6):510. https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace12060510

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zhong, Yubin, Tao Wu, Yan Han, Feiyang Wang, Dan Zhao, Zhen Fang, Linxin Pan, and Chen Tang. 2025. "Advancements in Mars Habitation Technologies and Terrestrial Simulation Projects: A Comprehensive Review" Aerospace 12, no. 6: 510. https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace12060510

APA Style

Zhong, Y., Wu, T., Han, Y., Wang, F., Zhao, D., Fang, Z., Pan, L., & Tang, C. (2025). Advancements in Mars Habitation Technologies and Terrestrial Simulation Projects: A Comprehensive Review. Aerospace, 12(6), 510. https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace12060510

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