Warning: this post was typed while getting ready for bed. Expect
spelling mistakes and things that were accidentally left out.
most respects probably aren't very different from sheep. Therefor I'd
suggest sheep over goats.
Chickens are basically feathered hogs, except that hogs probably won't
eat some things that a chicken will. Also, their manure tends to leech
nutrients from soil unless properly aged. I think it's a bad idea to
have chickens anywhere other than the agricultural rings.
Rabbits produce manure which is instantly usable, provide meat in an
efficient package, and some can provide fur for clothing.
Unfortunately their breeding is somewhat work-intensive.
As for releasing rabbits into your green section, I don't see a
problem with it if you use the following model:
Take a standard O'niell cylinder and make it larger than normal. Have
the mirrors constantly reflect light into the windows. Place another
level in the middle of the cylinder, somewhere closer to the normal
inner diameter of an O'Neill, and rotate it at a slighlt different rpm
than the outer level. This produces your day/night cycle. It's
preferable that the inner layer be composed of solid sections and the
supports only. In the lower level you start growing a lot of biomass
on the land portions, while on the upper level you stick the
residential sections. Once you judge the level of biomass on the lower
level high enough, you release rabbits down there, along with ferrets,
coyotes, hawks, snakes, and other predators. This gives you a
functional ecosystem down there, and the rabbits will probably grow
plentiful enough to be reasonably easy to harvest as a little protien.
I'd personally take this system and use the windows as lakes/plankton
farms. You just need to make sure you have enough bottom feeder fish
to keep the windows clean. Then you feed the lake water into krill and
shellfish tanks, then into fish tanks along with some shellfish and
krill meat, and then back onto the lower green level as fertilizer. I
just wouldn't suggest using it to make rain.
If you want more oxygen then you cover the bottom of the inner level
with clear open topped jars, fill them with plankton and water, and
stick an aerator in them.
> Well, goats seem to like climbing on things, which can be
> bad, and in
> most respects probably aren't very different from sheep.
> Therefor I'd
> suggest sheep over goats.
time and my studies indicated that goats are significantly
more disease resistant and hearty than sheep. Of course,
this isn't to say that I'm ruling out sheep, just that
from all I have heard from sheep farmers they are a lot of
work. Cashmere goats would work for fiber, especially if
we also had angora rabbits, although both would be luxury
items and perhaps useless ones considering the probable
temperature controls on the station.
> Chickens are basically feathered hogs, except that hogs
> probably won't
> eat some things that a chicken will. Also, their manure
> tends to leech
> nutrients from soil unless properly aged. I think it's a
> bad idea to
> have chickens anywhere other than the agricultural rings.
Again, are you positive? A popular idea for fertilizer is
to create a chicken coop on wheels (aka chicken tractor)
that can be moved around to let the chickens scratch up
the ground and fertilize one area and then another as the
coop is moved. No one I've ever spoken to about this has
said anything about chicken manure leeching nutrients from
the soil.
> Rabbits produce manure which is instantly usable, provide
> meat in an
> efficient package, and some can provide fur for clothing.
> Unfortunately their breeding is somewhat work-intensive.
How are they work intensive?
> As for releasing rabbits into your green section, I don't
> see a
> problem with it if you use the following model:
> Take a standard O'niell cylinder and make it larger than
> normal. Have
> the mirrors constantly reflect light into the windows.
> Place another
> level in the middle of the cylinder, somewhere closer to
> the normal
> inner diameter of an O'Neill, and rotate it at a slighlt
> different rpm
> than the outer level. This produces your day/night cycle.
> It's
> preferable that the inner layer be composed of solid
> sections and the
> supports only. In the lower level you start growing a lot
> of biomass
> on the land portions, while on the upper level you stick
> the
> residential sections. Once you judge the level of biomass
> on the lower
> level high enough, you release rabbits down there, along
> with ferrets,
> coyotes, hawks, snakes, and other predators. This gives
> you a
> functional ecosystem down there, and the rabbits will
> probably grow
> plentiful enough to be reasonably easy to harvest as a
> little protien.
>
> I'd personally take this system and use the windows as
> lakes/plankton
> farms. You just need to make sure you have enough bottom
> feeder fish
> to keep the windows clean. Then you feed the lake water
> into krill and
> shellfish tanks, then into fish tanks along with some
> shellfish and
> krill meat, and then back onto the lower green level as
> fertilizer. I
> just wouldn't suggest using it to make rain.
>
> If you want more oxygen then you cover the bottom of the
> inner level
> with clear open topped jars, fill them with plankton and
> water, and
> stick an aerator in them.
Others have said that making people adjust to strange
conditions could be a bit of a strain on them. Does
anyone have any thoughts on how various ways of
implementing "lakes" could work? I wonder if light
filtered through water would be disconcerting. Certainly
would be hazy. Also, I've noticed that many schemes for
setting up colonies include keeping agriculture isolated
from the population. While I understand that a higher CO2
level could make plants more productive, I wonder if there
are any other reasons. I am hesitant to move agriculture
to an isolated section of the station without a really
good reason.
-- Felicia
In a message dated 6/19/05 12:21:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
felicia@... writes:
> > eat some things that a chicken will. Also, their manure tends to leech
> > nutrients from soil unless properly aged. I think it's a bad idea to
> > have chickens anywhere other than the agricultural rings.
>
> Again, are you positive? A popular idea for fertilizer is to create a
> chicken coop on wheels (AKA chicken tractor) that can be moved around to let the
> chickens scratch up the ground and fertilize one area and then another as the
> coop is moved. No one I've ever spoken to about this has said anything about
> chicken manure leeching nutrients from the soil.
If the manure stays in one place any thing leached from the soil will stay in
the soil at the same place.
However I am not too keen on using this method. I like bio-digestion which
produces a high grade ammonium fertilizer and as a by product methane gas which
could be used as a fuel for many purposes, including rocket fuel.
> > I'd personally take this system and use the windows as lakes/plankton
> > farms. You just need to make sure you have enough bottom feeder fish
> > to keep the windows clean. Then you feed the lake water into krill and
> > shellfish tanks, then into fish tanks along with some shellfish and
> > krill meat, and then back onto the lower green level as fertilizer. I
> > just wouldn't suggest using it to make rain.
>
> > If you want more oxygen then you cover the bottom of the inner level
> > with clear open topped jars, fill them with plankton and water, and
> > stick an aerator in them.
>
> Others have said that making people adjust to strange conditions could be a
> bit of a strain on them. Does anyone have any thoughts on how various ways
> of implementing "lakes" could work? I wonder if light filtered through water
> would be disconcerting. Certainly would be hazy. Also, I've noticed that
> many schemes for
> setting up colonies include keeping agriculture isolated from the
> population. While I understand that a higher CO2 level could make plants more
> productive, I wonder if there are any other reasons. I am hesitant to move
> agriculture to an isolated section of the station without a really good reason.
> -- Felicia
I too would hesitate to remove the agriculture section from the living
section. To do so would result in a stale atmosphere without huge atmosphere
transfer systems. While some atmosphere transfer systems must be in place, the
unnecessary application of such huge atmosphere transfer systems would be a drain on
any power system.
The only place where that would make any sense in my book would be in
vacation habitats.
John Wayne Smith, CEO
1000Planets, Inc.
http://www.1000Planets.com
Building a Road to the Stars
> From:
> I too would hesitate to remove the agriculture section from the living
> section. To do so would result in a stale atmosphere without huge
> atmosphere transfer systems.
the air fresh. Any greenery will do that. You also don't nee many animals in
the food ring to do that, if indeed you need animals at all.
Meat could be grown for food in the same way organs could be grown for
implantation. Such a controlled industrial process would be perfect for the
limited volume in a space colony. Since it's highly likely the technology
will be developed anyway, and since it will likely end up cheaper and safer
(plus the ethical considerations) it's the situation I'd prefer. Even if the
techno-cautious on this list would espouse it.
> The only place where that would make any sense in my book would be in
> vacation habitats.
Given the choice of living in a copy of central park or a copy of Bucktooth
Alabama, I'd choose central park. IMHO, it's more impractical to expect
people to want to live in a space farm than it is to have a separate food
ring.
You might also consider that every additional isolated airtight volume as a
potential life boat if anything happened to the main habitat.
John
How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday
> Given the choice of living in a copy of central park or a
> copy of Bucktooth
> Alabama, I'd choose central park. IMHO, it's more
> impractical to expect
> people to want to live in a space farm than it is to have
> a separate food
> ring.
that at least I would rather live in a farming community
than in a planned park. Certainly, our differing opinions
indicates that there ought to be a choice.
> You might also consider that every additional isolated
> airtight volume as a
> potential life boat if anything happened to the main
> habitat.
This is true. What kind of safety precautions were built
into the original design of the O'Neill cylinder? Also,
has everyone seen the design changes proposed in Space
Oases: The Next Generation
(http://www.lunar-reclamation.org/papers/reinv_so.htm)?
Any thoughts on those? -- Felicia
if you didn't check already this site there are some
interesting data about sopace settlements population
and
actvitieshttp://lifesci3.arc.nasa.gov/SpaceSettlement/Contest/
I am currently working with an international group of
students in a n entirely new design called ringworld
which we will formally present next year at the Asce
space architecture convention as a paper.
Such design is based on a modular system, each module
allowing around 1000\150o people and completely
independent.
Expansion possibilities are unlimted and we foresee a
design of an entirely artificial planet with
artificial gravity for a population in the billion
order of magnitude.
all functions are being considered , inclusive the
breeding of small genetic engineered small animals
(fish, shellfish and poultry) plus an agricultural
area mixed with the other functions in a multistory
solution in order to optimize space utilization.
--- Felicia ha scritto:
or a
> copy of Bucktooth
> Alabama, I'd choose central park. IMHO, it's more
> impractical to expect
> people to want to live in a space farm than it is to
have
> a separate food
> ring.
Putting aside the stereotypes of Alabama, I am certain
that at least I would rather live in a farming
community
than in a planned park. Certainly, our differing
opinions
indicates that there ought to be a choice.
> You might also consider that every additional
isolated
> airtight volume as a
> potential life boat if anything happened to the main
> habitat.
This is true. What kind of safety precautions were
built
into the original design of the O'Neill cylinder?
Also,
has everyone seen the design changes proposed in Space
Oases: The Next Generation
(http://www.lunar-reclamation.org/papers/reinv_so.htm)?
Any thoughts on those? -- Felicia
--- In spacesettlers, "Felicia" wrote:
>> copy of Bucktooth Alabama, I'd choose central park. IMHO,
>> it's more impractical to expect people to want to live in
>> a space farm than it is to have a separate food ring.
> Putting aside the stereotypes of Alabama, I am certain
> that at least I would rather live in a farming community
> than in a planned park. Certainly, our differing opinions
> indicates that there ought to be a choice.
Living in a farming COMMUNITY might be cool (like Smallville, minus
Clark Kent and the CryptoFreak of the Week). But living IN A FARM
means that we're stepping in the cow patties and that we can't look
at the pretty birdies because there AREN'T any pretty birdies because
they'll eat the crops. The weather should be optimal for whatever
crops are being grown, which may or may not be optimal for people.
Even the CO2 level might be uncomfortable. Not for me, and not for
most farmers, to tell the truth. The farmers of space can live in
the best that either small towns or (eventually) big cities have to
offer, and still have the best of farm life. And farm life has its
virtues. But the total package (smelly animals, 16-hour days, etc.)
appeals to very few people.
>> You might also consider that every additional isolated
>> airtight volume as a potential life boat if anything
>> happened to the main habitat.
> This is true. What kind of safety precautions were built
> into the original design of the O'Neill cylinder? Also,
Not sure (other than having a whole other cylinder near by).
> has everyone seen the design changes proposed in Space
> Oases: The Next Generation
> (http://www.lunar-reclamation.org/papers/reinv_so.htm)?
> Any thoughts on those? -- Felicia
I don't like this guy's tone. I don't like his sneering tendency to
brand everybody a "lemming" and such. I don't like his tendency to
assume that everything was (and must be) simply expanded by a linear
factor of 3 (area 9, volume 27), when in fact it was concern over
exactly this that lead to the design called the Stanford Torus. I
don't like his assumption that he, and only he, ever thought of such
obvious things as offset shifts, when in fact they have been in the
literature since at least 1976, if not before. I don't like his
assumption that putting others down makes him look so damned smart.
His triple helix is cool, though it was in part already thunk up by
our own TangoMan. Still, this guy has taken it further, and it
should be looked at.
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophile"
wrote:
> --- In spacesettlers, "Felicia" wrote:
>
> >> Given the choice of living in a copy of central park or a
> >> copy of Bucktooth Alabama, I'd choose central park. IMHO,
> >> it's more impractical to expect people to want to live in
> >> a space farm than it is to have a separate food ring.
>
> > Putting aside the stereotypes of Alabama, I am certain
> > that at least I would rather live in a farming community
> > than in a planned park. Certainly, our differing opinions
> > indicates that there ought to be a choice.
>
Perhaps this needs to be looked at in a different light - perhaps
the living area needs to have a small amount of animals to help with
recycling - personally I don't know of any small child who eats all
of his meals or does not have a fair bit of edible waste - having
enough chickens or other small omnivores to cycle this and provide a
small return as a special meal later on would be preferable. I would
not want to live in an area that they call a farm on earth but
really enjoy small scale gardens even though we acquire most food
from a distribution system.
> Perhaps this needs to be looked at in a different light -
> perhaps
> the living area needs to have a small amount of animals to
> help with
> recycling - personally I don't know of any small child who
> eats all
> of his meals or does not have a fair bit of edible waste -
> having
> enough chickens or other small omnivores to cycle this and
> provide a
> small return as a special meal later on would be
> preferable. I would
> not want to live in an area that they call a farm on earth
> but
> really enjoy small scale gardens even though we acquire
> most food
> from a distribution system.
meant to imply that everyone would be living "on the
farm", but rather that it might make sense to have a
"town" with more dense residential, manufacturing, and
service zones, surrounded by agricultural areas, instead
of having the agricultural areas sealed off. -- Felicia
--- In spacesettlers, "Felicia" wrote:
> meant to imply that everyone would be living "on the
> farm", but rather that it might make sense to have a
> "town" with more dense residential, manufacturing, and
> service zones, surrounded by agricultural areas, instead
> of having the agricultural areas sealed off. -- Felicia
Ah! I think we might be on the same page after all. Now it's just a
matter of "surrounded by" v "sealed off," and what we mean by that.
Xenophile (who doubts that the Barsoom movie will make it out by next
summer)
I think that Felicia's idea is the most appropriate. You would still have to
have massive air moving equipment but not as much. Transportation, even
walking between the different sections would not require as much energy. Energy is
always a major concern.
1000 Planets, Inc.
Dream - Think -Build - Go
In a message dated 6/22/05 10:00:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
felicia@... writes:
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, jwsmith42000@a... wrote:
> I think that Felicia's idea is the most appropriate. You would still
have to
> have massive air moving equipment but not as much. Transportation, even
> walking between the different sections would not require as much
energy. Energy is
> always a major concern.
>
> John Wayne Smith, CEO
> 1000 Planets, Inc.
> Dream - Think -Build - Go
The sun shines 24 hours a day out there.
Rick Brooks
From: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Richard
> > Energy is
> > always a major concern.
>
> Is it?
>
> The sun shines 24 hours a day out there.
Indeed. Probably the biggest ways in which orbital societies will do
things differently than we do down here on Earth will all involve stingy
usage of raw materials but proliferate usage of energy.
Regards,
Mike Combs
On Jul 3, 2005, at 9:03 AM, jwsmith42000@... wrote:
> have to
> have massive air moving equipment but not as much. Transportation, even
> walking between the different sections would not require as much
> energy. Energy is
> always a major concern.
>
Most of the energy is simply needed to grow the crops. If you use
artificial light, about 50 Kw continuous per person.
Space tourism could be our ticket to the stars. Save your pennies,
suborbital flights for about $200,000 may start in a few years. See
www.virgingalactic.com for details.
Al Globus
Evolvable Systems Group (http://ic.arc.nasa.gov/projects/esg)
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html
Views expressed in this email are only my opinions and are not the
position of any organization I'm familiar with.