VECTORIS LUNA
A gap remains open until evidence exists to close it. Software implementation does not close a data or qualification gap.
Missing: Site-specific stratigraphy, density, strength and ice-content parameters for South Pole landing regions.
Why it matters: Overburden, bearing and buried-structure loads depend strongly on local regolith stratigraphy and ice content.
Would close the gap: Site-specific borehole or geophysical data, correlated simulant test campaigns and documented uncertainty bounds.
Missing: Defensible stiffness and strength parameters under lunar gravity and vacuum.
Why it matters: Continuum screening models need constitutive parameters that are not assumed from terrestrial analogues alone.
Would close the gap: Reduced-gravity and vacuum geotechnical tests with traceable particle-size and density metadata.
Missing: Temperature-dependent multiphase mechanical properties for ice-bearing polar mixtures.
Why it matters: Thermal and mechanical coupling changes excavation, bearing and buried-structure interaction near permanently shadowed regions.
Would close the gap: Temperature-dependent strength/stiffness data and validated multiphase material models for representative polar mixtures.
Missing: Process-controlled structural allowables for sintered or cast regolith products.
Why it matters: Structural allowables cannot be assumed from terrestrial analogues alone.
Would close the gap: Process-controlled specimen tests, repeatability statistics and explicit limitation statements per material route.
Missing: A defensible spectral input tied to mission duration, location and acceptable exceedance.
Why it matters: Dynamic design requires an explicit seismic demand, not a generic placeholder.
Would close the gap: Published seismic records or agency reference spectra adapted with documented site/mission adjustment rationale.
Missing: Benchmark cases beyond analytical screening for buried and berm-supported concepts.
Why it matters: Screening kernels are not a substitute for validated soil-structure interaction.
Would close the gap: Physical or high-fidelity numerical benchmarks with measured displacement, pressure and failure mode comparison.
Missing: Flux models, damage equations and structural response criteria linked to explicit design scenarios.
Why it matters: Penetrator risk affects wall thickness, redundancy and maintenance access assumptions for long-duration habitats.
Would close the gap: Documented MMOD engineering models with stated applicability and limitations.
Missing: Coupled plume-surface structural load cases for relevant landing configurations.
Why it matters: Plume impingement can erode berms, expose buried structures and contaminate adjacent assets.
Would close the gap: Documented plume-surface interaction tests or validated simulation cases for relevant landing configurations.
Missing: Coupled thermal-structural benchmarks with measured temperature fields and structural response.
Why it matters: Combined thermal gradients and mechanical loads drive liner sizing, joint design and fatigue-relevant hotspots.
Would close the gap: Coupled test articles or benchmark models with measured temperature fields and structural response.
