## 4 Results  
The model of the dependence of the LSS cost on the degree of autonomy is important at the early steps of LSS concept design for crewed autonomous transport for deep space habitation still in the beginning of mission development. This could help to identify trends and patterns in the data and make predictions about the cost of life support systems with different levels of autonomy. This type of model can be used to make predictions about the cost of life support systems with different levels of autonomy and to determine the optimal level of autonomy that balances cost and performance. Each alternative architecture--OLSS, CLSS, and MLSS--offers unique advantages and disadvantages (Table 3). The choice of architecture depends on mission objectives, resource availability, budget constraints, and the desired level of autonomy and self-sufficiency. To select the most effective solution, we will use the dependence of the cost of the life cycle of the LCC on the duration of the mission and its chosen architecture (Figure 2). The cost graphs \(C(\Omega,t)\) exhibit a relationship of specific life support system architecture denoted as \(C_{1}(\Omega,t)\)--for OLSS, \(C_{2}(\Omega,t)\)--for MLSS, and \(C_{3}(\Omega,t)\)--for CLSS. The initial value of each line corresponds to the design and production cost, and the slope of these lines is correlated with specific operating costs associated with each architecture. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt}} \hline \hline
**Life Support System Architecture** & **Advantages** & **Disadvantages** \\ \hline \multirow{7}{*}{Open LSS} & \multirow{7}{*}{OLS} & \multirow{7}{*}{\(\bullet\)} & The main drawback of OLS is its reliance on external cargo carriers for resource delivery. This dependence on reselyme systems. This leads to lower initial development costs. & \multirow{7}{*}{\(\bullet\)} \\  & & OISS does not require sophisticated resource recycling and regeneration systems, simplifying the overall system design. & \multirow{7}{*}{\(\bullet\)} \\  & & OISS adapts to changes in resource requirements or technological advancements through external resupply missions. & \multirow{7}{*}{\(\bullet\)} \\  & & & \\ \hline \multirow{7}{*}{Closed LSS} & \multirow{7}{*}{\(\bullet\)} & \multirow{7}{*}{\(\bullet\)} \\  & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & & \\ \hline \multirow{7}{*}{Mixed LSS} & \multirow{7}{*}{\(\bullet\)} & \multirow{7}{*}{MLSS combines the advantages of both OLSS and CLSS by allowing for a mix of external resource delivery and onboard resource generation. This provides flexibility and adaptability to varying mission requirements.} & \multirow{7}{*}{\(\bullet\)} \\ \cline{1-1}  & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & & \\ \cline{1-1}  & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Advantages and disadvantages of different alternative LSS architectures. The search for optimal solutions in practice should be solved in the field of alternative pairs of LSS architectures:  
* For an OLSS-MLSS pair, the boundary condition is the point \(T_{1}\). When the condition \(T_{m}<T_{1}\) is met, a completely non-autonomous life support system would be more efficient in terms of life cycle cost. If the condition \(T_{m}>T_{1}\) is met, a mixed-type life support system would be more efficient in terms of life cycle cost. * For a CLSS-MLSS pair, the boundary condition is the point \(T_{3}\). When the condition \(T_{1}<T_{m}<T_{3}\) is met, a mixed-type life support system would be more efficient in terms of life cycle cost. If the condition \(T_{m}>T_{3}\) is met, a fully autonomous life support system will be more efficient in terms of life cycle cost.