Extraterrestrial Anomaly Response: A Call for USSF Research

ABSTRACT

Analog missions have long served as research testbeds to define extraterrestrial mission feasibility. Over time these missions have produced a large amount of research on prolonged deep-space operations. Yet, there are still gaps in optimizing best practices, determining risk and engagement frameworks for daily operations, and developing emergency management protocols. One such analog program tackling technical and operational gaps is the EuroMoonMars/International Moonbase Alliance/Hawai’i Space Exploration Analog and Simulation (EMMIHS) facility in Hawai’i. The Hawai’i Space Exploration Analog and Simulation (HI-SEAS) 24-1 crew explored early concepts and procedure development for scenarios they would expect to encounter on a long-term lunar mission. Through exercises and documentation, the crew identified lessons learned from an anomalous resupply mission and recommended follow-on scenarios from perspectives living in a crew environment. This essay describes the experiment conducted with considerations, procedures, and findings; synthesizes gaps in knowledge, future operations research, and scenario planning needed to set the landscape for extraterrestrial habitation; and recommends that the U.S. Space Force collaborate and form a follow-on analog mission composed entirely of guardians. It posits a future where guardians take an active role in setting precedents and safe best practices on orbit and on the Moon.

The prospect of sustained human presence on the Moon and Mars is likely as global technological and geopolitical landscapes evolve. When looking toward 2050, research from civil organizations like NASA suggest spacefaring nations will have matured the technology required to further explore the Moon with a sustained presence, as well as other neighboring planets through deep space missions.[1]While robust “moon-base” communities and advanced infrastructure seem somewhat far-fetched for this proposed timeframe, space professionals worldwide are having focused conversations on plans and governance for regular extraterrestrial activity.[2] Two major questions come to mind when considering possible futures when viewed through an operational lens. First, how might spacefaring nations define feasibility for logistics and mechanics on long-term Moon or Mars missions, and where might the need for optimized best practices lie? Second, given the complex geopolitical landscape in the mid-2020s, a slight shift away from globalization, and the proliferation of space as a domain for international competition and potential conflict[3] where might national security play a role, and how can space forces prepare to protect human safety, national (and international, where applicable) interests, and set responsible precedents on the Moon, Mars, and beyond?

Various governmental, civil, and commercial agencies (along with independent researchers) have used analog facilities have been used to date to develop procedures for In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) to better understand the risks incurred in space when relying on highly variable resupply missions. Such use of analog facilities includes manipulating the surrounding environments to extract life-sustaining materials, apparent by way of requests for information (RFIs) from organizations like the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), who are uniquely charged to explore the domain as leaders in research & exploration.[4] Astronaut crews must develop a common understanding of integration procedures in the early stages of a Moon/Mars base or on-orbit laboratory before the arrival of sophisticated equipment, as reliance on resupply missions and constant system re-integrations will mark a significant portion of missions.

The U.S. Space Force (USSF) is uniquely postured to protect U.S. national interests in, from, and to space, along with exploring complex and high-risk technical feasibility studies where multinational partners may be involved.[5] Using the experiment conducted through the EuroMoonMars/International Moonbase Alliance/Hawai’i Space Exploration Analog and Simulation (EMMIHS) 24-1’s analog mission as a guide, the USSF should assemble a team of guardians with diverse backgrounds and aptitudes to test scenarios in a realistic environment. Doing so would define roles guardians might play in deep space missions, prepare the United States to advocate for responsible governance as it matures to meet emerging deep space accessibility, and mitigate anticipated scientific and safety challenges for extraterrestrial bases as global coalitions explore and exploit deep space in tandem with the United States.[6]

Mission Overview

The Hawai’i Space Exploration Analog and Simulation (HI-SEAS) EMMIHS 24-1 mission lasted for two weeks in February 2024. Sitting on Mauna Kea, a volcano known for its cool, dry climate and rocky terrain, the HI-SEAS location has been in use since the Apollo era and is an ideal choice for its similarity to the lunar surface.[7] U.S. and international space agencies along with independent researchers have conducted a variety of experiments in the HI-SEAS analog. The 6-person EMMIHS 24-1 crew was largely composed of independent researchers, who conducted various experiments on pressurized space suit design, perceived attitudes toward risk given education on medical implications of deep-space missions, and procedural optimization for medical measurements, and the development exercise protocols conducted by junior sonographers. The crew checked in daily with a geographically separate Capsule Communications Officer (CapCom) for support but were otherwise quarantined from the outside world. Each day was scheduled to the minute from approximately 0700-2230, to include eight hours of work, three meals, one hour of exercise time, and hygiene/personal time. Analog astronauts experienced the stressors of a crew schedule for 12 days prior to the resupply mission experiment.

The crew consisted of six members:

● Commander - PhD and Scientist (30 years old, Male)

● Vice Commander - Military Engineer (23 years old, Female)

● Chief Engineer - PhD Candidate in Engineering (22 years old, Female)

● Chief Scientist - Cybersecurity Professional (50 years old, Male)

● Crew Physician - Physician, MD and Lecturer (45 years old, Female)

● Communications Officer - Secondary Student (18 years old, Female)

It is difficult to predict exactly how humans may interact with the Moon 30-50 years in the future; yet, if the International Space Station (ISS) has been any example, crews will likely have varied expertise and heritage. The crew emulated those principles through their multinational makeup and a wide variety of career fields, experiences, and personal interests. Considering none of the members were sole experts on land navigation, lunar lander construction, and other aspects of EVAs, the authors sought to characterize how the crew may handle unknown scenarios from recurring habitat operations. To do so, the EMMIHS 24-1 crew participated in a mock anomalous resupply mission as an experimental approach to defining best practices for all astronauts, regardless of background or prior training regiments.

The mission vignette tested how a crew might handle an unexpected and challenging situation, mirroring real-world conditions on the Moon or Mars. In a possible future landscape, various national, international, and commercial assets may be staged on extraterrestrial surfaces. In the early phases of long-term human exploration on the lunar or Martian surface, regular missions for resupply, human transport, and more will be key to establishing and maintaining shared infrastructure. Regardless of whether the Moon (or Mars) will be used as outposts for deeper space exploration, commercial avenues to support the growing space economy, or sites requiring defense against the space weather or adversarial actors, recurring tasks require exponentially more consideration than they would on Earth. The EMMIHS 24-1 crew consequently embarked upon a simulated resupply mission to identify major knowledge gaps.

In the scenario, a resupply lander touched down approximately 0.4 miles from the habitat but presented an immediate problem upon landing. The scenario identified seismic events, asteroid interference, or system malfunction as potential sources of the problem. The Moon in the scenario does not have GPS systems orbiting, forcing the crew to navigate by other means. Although the scenario provided the exact coordinates of the lander’s anticipated drop point, the crew had to search for it within an approximate 150-meter radius based on the anomalous landing.  Several constraints added to the urgency of the mission: the team had only two hours of breathable air capacity, five days of food left (simulated), and a dwindling water supply of about 250 gallons (also simulated). Moreover, CapCom reports indicated possible damage to the door of the lander, requiring the crew to plan for additional hurdles in accessing their supplies. Procedures for executing the mission remained open as long as the crew observed standard operating procedures in the analog (i.e. proper ingress/egress procedures, PPE, etc.). The crew’s physician was designated as the team lead and safety rep, with the commander managing communications and life support, the crew engineer handling PPE and EVA equipment, and the scientist handling navigation. Based on HI-SEAS mission requirements, the crew’s communication officer remained in the habitat to act as the Habitat Communications Officer (HabCom) during the mission.

The crew received the mission brief and a quick lesson on how to navigate as a unit on the lunar surface, inspired by existing military doctrine on navigation through mountainous terrain, but otherwise received no additional training. This reflects a potential real-world scenario, where crews coming from different organizations (i.e. NASA, ESA, JAXA, ISRO, commercial entities, etc.) will not necessarily undergo standard training regiments and will instead have specialized areas of expertise.
 

To begin, the HI-SEAS experiment was limited in scope and resources due to the nature of the analog facility and the experiment preparation window. The scenario’s intent was to raise tensions and decision points that may inform decision-making frameworks, training curricula, and equipment considerations for a more sophisticated follow-on mission. A play-by-play is described below.

Upon receiving the scenario, the team set off to plan; they designated two individuals as navigators in the prep phase, who used habitat systems to geolocate the lander. The other two crew members began gathering and preparing equipment for the EVA, attempting to factor in unknowns about the vehicle’s health and status. Of note, under the perceived stress, the crew abandoned delegated roles and moved as a collective unit; this would later come to adversely affect situational awareness and effective time management on mission. Future training efforts may seek to address crew responses to stress so they may psychologically adapt to changing scenarios with confidence.

Without insight into damage incurred, the crew struggled to decide which equipment to take on the EVA, balancing equipment weight and storage with the weight of supplies they anticipated carrying back. They spent the majority of their planning time collecting and then sorting which equipment to take; in a future mission, effort should be spent to determine which tools and materials might need to go into an “emergency kit” for damage repair and maintenance on an EVA. In addition, infrastructure advancements should support sophisticated damage assessments prior to embarking on EVAs.

The crew egressed one hour after receiving the initial scenario. Then EVA was initially well executed because the crew had regularly ingressed and egressed from the habitat, along with remaining current on standard EVA procedures. Without sophisticated means for traversing the terrain, the team set out on foot in the direction of the spacecraft with a satellite image and their azimuth in hand.

Of note, while traveling, the crew was unable to take a straight path to Echo’s crater based on the danger A’A (sharp, crusty lava) posed to the team’s PPE. The crew sought to travel in the general direction of their target on Pahoehoe (smooth and undulating lava) flows using waypoint navigation, which landed them approximately 0.1 mile off-target. It took the team 25 minutes to reach their initial search point, and they split up to cover more ground when searching for the lost lander. Notably, the radios the crew used to communicate experienced performance degradation when navigating around hills or craters, forcing them to maintain short distances and line of sight with each other.

The crew struggled to find the simulated lander among steep hills and craters, especially when the sun illuminated the craters in such a way that the small vessel was concealed. This condition could be mitigated in real-world operations by choosing a more stable landing site, though seismic effects from takeoffs and landings may impact the surrounding terrain such that landers would end up in similar predicaments.

While searching for the lander, the Crew Commander advised the EVA leader on time constraints, driven by the remaining time to air depletion with a three-minute buffer. Other factors not taken into consideration were the additional time for airlock pressurization, increased physical exertion carrying equipment back, troubleshooting, and navigation buffers. The crew was noticeably stressed as the turnaround point approached, first with one-minute interval shoutouts, then 30-second and eventually 10-second shoutouts. The crew overshot time constraints to locate the lander by approximately one minute; the mission time constraints were overridden to record the remainder of the scenario.

A majority of equipment brought to repair the lander was simulated, largely based on supply constraints in the habitat. The crew brought a hammer & crowbar, shovels, powered cutters, additional PPE to operate equipment with sharp blades or electric charges, grounding wire, and multimeters for any exposed electrical components on the lander. For the intent of the scenario, the crew passed the benchmark of bringing the correct equipment- the moderator revealed the lander damage was a mangled mechanical entry door, where the lander’s interior was already pumped to vacuum pressures, requiring only a crowbar to open. The scenario was quite crude with respect to the lander’s health and status, driven by tight planning timelines and limited equipment availability. Further research should define a more robust and more closely simulated repair operation, which would add several factors to the planning and execution of the EVA.

The crew opted to leave the simulated lander in the field and extract only the food and water. They then started back to the habitat with simulated items in hand (water and weights equaling a total of 250 lbs). The navigator offered to carry the water jug, taking approximately 170 lbs. of the load, with the remaining 80 lbs split between the rest of the team. When the EVA lead offered to switch loads, the navigator declined; the rest of the group passed the 80 lbs. around, and the navigator took the full water jug the full way back alone. Following the EVA, the navigator experienced mild strains and high levels of exhaustion. The only habitat resources were a physician, a few over-the-counter medications, and a pseudo-random assortment of first aid supplies. The crew learned exertion levels on EVAs can severely affect mission success and have potentially deadly consequences. The EVA leader noted during the debrief that a strong presence is needed to enforce success and safety; the team expressed regret for not forcing a regular water weight switch.

This simulated mission underscored several crucial issues that must be addressed before long-term extraterrestrial operations are feasible. For instance, the ability to conduct precise navigation and retrieval in hostile, resource-scarce environments is paramount, specifically in the context of early lunar exploration or in the case of technology regression by equipment failure. This scenario revealed a dual-headed reality: specific technology is key to communicate and navigate on celestial bodies where the Earthly comforts of GPS/cellular service/etc. may not be readily available, yet reliance on human decision-making and resource management is still necessary in environments where such systems may fail. The situation also forced the crew to make critical decisions about prioritizing the retrieval of supplies under a tight timeline, which highlighted the physical and psychological demands placed on humans who face life-or-death scenarios daily while operating in space.

Findings from the EMMIHS 24-1 exercise provide a sobering reminder of the major gaps in human space exploration capabilities, especially concerning long-term or deep-space missions. One of the most critical gaps identified by the mission was the absence of clear frameworks for interoperability. This includes a limited shared understanding of how crews can balance cultural and linguistic differences, the logistics of survival (food, water, and air management) with mission objectives when unexpected events arise, and where turn-back points reside for anomalies. In addition, the crew identified the need for standard skill sets, training regiments, and protocols when participating in routine EVAs, some of which have yet to be defined. Analogs have a unique opportunity to explore these challenges further, using mission scenarios as a controlled environment for astronauts to develop and refine these essential skills. Through controlled exercises, analog astronauts can practice quick decision-making, leadership, and teamwork—all crucial components of successful space operations.

A Note on Future Work:

A host of anomalies may yield similar results and considerations in performing daily operations, to include: crew medical emergencies, key equipment malfunctions, external environmental threats and/or habitat breaches, long-term extravehicular operations that require temporary shelter, and more. Within the bounds of operational vignettes, more data should be collected on the psychological status of the crew, specifically induced by varying levels of situation severity, crew makeups yielding varying skill sets and training gaps, ethical dilemmas, and cascading failures. From an equipment perspective, technical regression (a failure or anomaly resulting in reduced capability in situ) or rapid technological advancement and integration of new technologies with current systems may inform best practices on orbit or on the moon, where astronauts are expected to adapt to both cases. Scenario debriefs could aim to characterize crew adaptability and problem-solving, tackling lessons learned and identifying key areas where improvisation may be necessary to accomplish the mission.

Longer term, exploring a diverse set of geopolitical futures will be key to ensuring analogs are realistic representations of crews on orbit and beyond. Power dynamics, challenges with international cooperation (both regarding diplomatic tensions and resource conflicts), non-state actor integration, and varying governance models off-Earth may impact all aspects of life and should be investigated prior to operationalizing concepts developed in analog environments.

The EMMIHS 24-1 mission indicates a host of future work to define long-term space mission feasibility. Vignettes like those performed at HI-SEAS, involving regular EVA operations with various equipment failures, and evaluating human performance through continual assessments, would provide data on maintaining crew health and mission success over time. Operational exercises (similar to those performed in advance of ISS missions) would establish best practices for on-orbit procedures or extraterrestrial habitation and ensure humans can safely operate in space for extended periods. Human performance assessments, both baseline and ongoing, are also critical in understanding how to keep astronauts mentally and physically prepared for the extreme challenges they will face in space, especially when doing so in pressurized suits. 

These types of missions are integral to strategic planning exercises, as they demonstrate a number of key gaps and considerations that may not have been discovered through tabletop exercises. Collaborative efforts between military and civilian space organizations will be vital to advance the body of research, ensuring that the future of human space exploration is both sustainable and secure. 

The experiment highlighted a need for exploration into the roles U.S. Space Force guardians can play in human spaceflight, especially when managing and mitigating operational risks in resource-constrained environments. While civilian space agencies have long dominated and will continue to dominate the conversation around space exploration, the mission-focused and technical skill sets guardians possess offer untapped potential in managing security, safety, and feasibility for deep-space missions. And without robust capabilities to support personnel recovery or space search and rescue, a key opportunity lies in exploring how guardians can provide real aid for astronauts living and working in space. Analog missions are an ideal proving ground, offering a hands-on opportunity to simulate risks and challenges astronauts may face in real space missions, and in turn defining relevant training and skills that best serve successful missions. Through joint participation in analogs, guardians and partner nations or organizations can also drive deeper understanding of how to manage those partnerships and “rules of engagement”; especially in space exploration, where collaboration and shared governance are crucial for peaceful and sustainable extraterrestrial operations.

Along with training curriculum refinement, analog facility evolution presents a major opportunity to enhance research on human performance, particularly in preparation for long-term extraterrestrial operations. Analog missions offer controlled environments to rigorously simulate the physical, psychological, and operational demands of space. Future missions can provide real-time feedback on human performance metrics by integrating advanced monitoring technologies, including biometric sensors and AI-driven analysis tools. Collected data would enable tailored training protocols to optimize endurance, decision-making under stress, and teamwork in constrained environments.

Analog facilities also provide an ideal platform to test and refine operational doctrines. A follow-on analog mission, composed entirely of guardians, presents an exciting opportunity to test a range of operational scenarios. Missions could include complex repairs on resupply deliveries, search and rescue operations, recovery of distressed crewmates, immediate sheltering strategies from environmental threats, and management of long-distance or anomalous missions requiring mobile shelters and habitats. Training in high-fidelity simulations will hone critical skill sets like emergency response coordination, cross-disciplinary problem-solving, and leadership in isolated conditions. Such scenarios can additionally serve as a proving ground for innovative technologies like augmented reality systems for navigation and repairs, ensuring astronauts are equipped with cutting-edge tools for in-space missions.

Of course, when discussing any on-orbit operations or concept development in the context of the USSF, it is imperative to emphasize that the intent of research and exploration should abide by the United States’ international legal obligations of the Outer Space Treaty (OST). While a USSF analog mission would prove or disprove concepts to support Guardians in space for the protection of American people and assets, activities and concepts inherently should avoid simulating or recommending intentional harm to the environment or extranational on-orbit assets pursuant to the pursuant to the aspirations of the OST. A secondary byproduct of USSF-based analogs would allow the service to explore where the OST can be supplemented or clarified to address the OST’s express prohibition on military activities on the moon and other celestial bodies, despite the rapidly evolving geopolitical landscape and space’s emergence as a domain for competition.[8]

The U.S. Space Force, in collaboration with the Department of Defense, NASA, commercial entities, and international partners, must lead the charge in shaping this future. Its participation in analog missions, alongside the development of robust training programs, will be pivotal in setting the precedent for operational safety and national and international security in space. While multiple policies and executive orders have begun to construct a framework by which these entities may collaborate, it is paramount to begin looking farther into the future, assigning a congressional budget and presidential direction to explore concepts for the lunar domain. By exploring the complexities of long-duration missions now, through rigorous planning and analog testing, guardians can further position themselves as leaders in space security, not only safeguarding U.S. personnel and interests but also fostering responsible, globally collaborative approaches to exploring and inhabiting new frontiers in space.

This paper calls upon a community of practice to take shape between units like Space Futures Command, Space Delta 10, the Air Force Research Laboratory, and the Air Force TPS Space Test Course faculty. These organizations are uniquely postured to provide high-caliber guardians with appropriate skill sets, along with relevant research inquiries and frameworks with outcomes that shape the U.S. Space Force. In partnership with civil organizations like NASA and the Office of Science and Technology Policy, this effort will both benefit the Space Force’s strategic planning efforts and the growing knowledge base fueling deep-space exploration and distressed personnel recovery protocols.

1st Lt Allaire Morgan is a U.S. Space Force Officer and served as the Vice Commander on the EuroMoonMars/International Moonbase Alliance/Hawai’i Space Exploration Analog and Simulation (EMMIHS) 24-1 analog mission. Dr. Mason Robbins is the COO of Star Helix, LTD, and served as the Commander of EMMIHS 24-1. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not reflect the official guidance or position of the United States Government, the Department of Defense, the United States Air Force, or the United States Space Force.

[1] "NASA Shares Progress Toward Early Artemis Moon Missions with Crew” (2024). Can be found at NASA.gov.

[2] "Lunar Base Construction Planning” (2022). Can be found at NTRS.

[3] “THE FUTURE OF SPACE 2060 & IMPLICATIONS FOR U.S. STRATEGY” (2019). Can be found at DTIC.

[4] "SPACE TECHNOLOGY MISSION DIRECTORATE LUNAR INFRASTRUCTURE FOUNDATIONAL TECHNOLOGIES-1 (LIFT-1) DEMONSTRATION” (Dec 2023). Can be found at RFI 80HQTR24L002_LIFT1

[5] "Space Doctrine Publication 1-0: Personnel” (2022). Can be found at SDP 1-0.

[6] "SpOC Commander Sees Spacefaring Guardians in Future” (2021). Can be found at Air & Space Forces Magazine.

[7] "NASA’s Analog Missions: Driving Exploration Through Innovative Testing” (2012). Can be found at NASA.gov.

[8] “Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (Outer Space Treaty)” (1967). Can be found here.