I would like to share your idea about the following topic...
found is usually based on the idea that the percentage of nitrogen is
decreased and oxygen is increased (up to 70%), so it will weight three
times less than normal air and be cost-effective...
According to my knowledge, The stabilization of the basic ecosystem will
require redundancy in its diverse systems. For example, often
interaction between populations of organisms rank more important for the
stability of an ecosystem than the activity of single organisms. On
Earth, an enzyme (nitrogenase) is responsible for taking atmospheric
nitrogen and changing it into high-energy ammonia (NH3). The ammonia is
necessary for protein production. The most important point here is that
oxygen must be kept away from away from nitrogenase. If we have too much
oxygen, there will be no production of ammonia and protein. It is hard
enough on Earth to keep Nitrogenase active without upping the amount in
the atmosphere to 80%. The nitrogen-fixing bacteria and trace elements
like molybdenum or crucial elements like phosphorus (creating the
universal energy of all living organisms (ATP)) are necessary elements
for a sustainable closed ecosystem.
so does anybody have some information or ideas about sustainable closed
ecosystems??
anilir
You raise some very important issues. You're right about previous
studies advocating changing the composition of the habitat's
atmosphere. They do this to lessen the structural load on the
habitat and to lessen the amount of gas that MAY have to be brought
from earth if a source can't be found in space.
position but have been unwilling to defend a position because of the
scarcity of experimental data on the complexity of the new
environment and most importantly, I'm really out of my depth in this
field.
My concerns are that an eco-system is a very complex system. While a
closed new environment might be sustainable in a small test
environment over a limited test period of time, I'd be concerned
about scaling up to a habitat size and letting it run for the life
of the habitat. Further, my concerns would also extend to the
findings of the pilot-plant study being used in the design criteria
for the habitat, i.e. designing for a reduced atmospheric pressure.
It's hard to come up with a solution for an eco-system which may
destabilize when options become closed to you.
The example you raised furthers my apprehension. Perhaps a solution
is to design the first habitats for full atmospheric pressure,
despite the engineering challenge that would present, and replicate
the earth's eco-system as closely as possible. In a sense, we use
the first habitat's as living laboratories and develop a base-line
of experience before we embark on a design change which would impact
on the entire design of the habitat. I guess I see it as a question
of which technologies have we the most mastery of: engineering of
large structures or design of eco-systems. I'd vote for engineering
science being the most developed and with fewer component
interactions, and with most of the interactions being more fully
understood than what we'd find in the practice of eco-system design.
--- In spacesettlers@y..., "Serkan, Anilir" wrote:
> I would like to share your idea about the following topic...
>
> Concerning, the closed ecosystem of a habitation, the information I
> found is usually based on the idea that the percentage of nitrogen
is
> decreased and oxygen is increased (up to 70%), so it will weight
three
> times less than normal air and be cost-effective...
>
> According to my knowledge, The stabilization of the basic
ecosystem will
> require redundancy in its diverse systems. For example, often
> interaction between populations of organisms rank more important
for the
> stability of an ecosystem than the activity of single organisms. On
> Earth, an enzyme (nitrogenase) is responsible for taking
atmospheric
> nitrogen and changing it into high-energy ammonia (NH3). The
ammonia is
> necessary for protein production. The most important point here is
that
> oxygen must be kept away from away from nitrogenase. If we have
too much
> oxygen, there will be no production of ammonia and protein. It is
hard
> enough on Earth to keep Nitrogenase active without upping the
amount in
> the atmosphere to 80%. The nitrogen-fixing bacteria and trace
elements
> like molybdenum or crucial elements like phosphorus (creating the
> universal energy of all living organisms (ATP)) are necessary
elements
> for a sustainable closed ecosystem.
>
> so does anybody have some information or ideas about sustainable
closed
I only see one way, to start in the small and then scale up.
We shall not only use one kind of ecologic system to test, we shall use many
and get lot of experiences.
EX: Does we need produktion of NH3 from nitrogen, and if, has it to be
produced by bacteria, or is syntetic (N2 + H2) good enough, or can we
produce NOx from nitrogen,oxygen and heat and then let nature
oxidice/reduzice this NOx ???
From: victoriatangoman [mailto:tango_dancer@...]
position but have been unwilling to defend a position because of the
scarcity of experimental data on the complexity of the new
environment and most importantly, I'm really out of my depth in this
field.
You may well be right to have such reservations. There's a lot to be
considered, such as heat and sound conductivity, as well as the ecological
issues you raise.
But I would point out that O'Neill's atmosphere proposals were more
conservative than a couple which have been made since. Zubrin advocates an
atmosphere with 1/3 the pressure and 3 times the oxygen percentage, while
Savage talks about 1/5 pressure atmospheres of almost pure oxygen. My
thinking is that if the 1/2 pressure atmosphere is going to have problems,
then the others are going to get us into even bigger trouble.
I believe that even for Island 3, O'Neill's initial calculations assumed
sea-level pressure air, an assumption he later called "naive". Still, if
lower pressure/higher O2 percentage atmospheres do turn out to be a problem,
we can still build habitats as large as Island Three with sea-level pressure
air.
Regards,
Mike Combs
From:
victoriatangoman [mailto:tango_dancer@...]
I've had my reservations as to the wisdom of the reduced atmosphere
position but have been unwilling to defend a position because of the
scarcity of experimental data on the complexity of the new
environment and most importantly, I'm really out of my depth in this
field.
You may well be right to have such reservations. There's a lot to be considered, such as heat and sound conductivity, as well as the ecological issues you raise.
But I would point out that O'Neill's atmosphere proposals were more conservative than a couple which have been made since. Zubrin advocates an atmosphere with 1/3 the pressure and 3 times the oxygen percentage, while Savage talks about 1/5 pressure atmospheres of almost pure oxygen. My thinking is that if the 1/2 pressure atmosphere is going to have problems, then the others are going to get us into even bigger trouble.
I believe that even for Island 3, O'Neill's initial calculations assumed sea-level pressure air, an assumption he later called "naive". Still, if lower pressure/higher O2 percentage atmospheres do turn out to be a problem, we can still build habitats as large as Island Three with sea-level pressure air.
Regards,
Mike Combs
I think the nitrogen-to-ammonia conversion that Anilir is describing happens
at the intra-cellular level. Earth's atmosphere doesn't have all that much
free ammonia, nor does that seem to figure into what he's describing. As I
understand it, he's describing the important process in which certain
organisms take molecular nitrogen (N2) out of the atmosphere, and through
the action of nitrogenase make it into ammonia, which then becomes an
important component in the soil. The reason that agronomists back to Thomas
Jefferson used to advise a 4-year crop rotation scheme, one year of which
required growing clover, was because clover (through the action of
nitrogen-fixing bacteria in its roots) encouraged this process and left a
lot of nitrogen-bearing compounds in the soil. That kept the food crops
grown in that soil in subsequent years healthy. Without a
nitrogen-replacement scheme (fertilizers do most of that function nowadays),
agricultural land becomes depleted, especially by repeated monoculture over
many years, and eventually is rendered nearly useless. Messing with the
atmospheric nitrogen-oxygen balance in a closed ecosystem might hinder that
process and over time leave your tillable soil unhealthy. So you might want
to put clover seeds on your checklist of must-haves for your first colony.
your local organic food/smoothie/nutrition store. To paraphrase a piece of
literature I read about wheat grass, human agriculture depletes soil of over
50 naturally-occurring minerals and nutrients. Farmers use fertilizer to
replace these, but the typical fertilizer only replenishes 3-4 of them (one
of which is nitrogen). The wheat grass you see in the store is grown in
soil which has been painstakingly rebuilt to its "original" or "pristine" or
"pre-human" state (which how would we know?). Now I sometimes write off the
organic food extremists as basically hating humanity, but this argument
makes a bit of sense. Food grown in soil which comes by its nutrients the
natural way, the way topsoil got created in the first place, comes closer to
what humans ate as they evolved into humans than the food we have been
eating the last 100 years. Who knows all the micronutrients and traces of
this and that which we may be missing in the heavily altered agricultural
soils that underpin our diets, and what effects these deficits have on our
health? This may seem like a remote subject to habitat engineers, but I
have to argue that it isn't. A previous contributor said that the early
settlements should resemble earthly environments as much as possible--I
completely agree. I don't think we understand soil and food interactions
all that well yet, and our best safeguard is to try to replicate the
natural processes exactly as we move off-world. 500 years from now we may
find that Anopheles mosquitoes, Stachybotrys mold, snakes and poison ivy are
all vital to human survival, through the complex interactions of soil, food,
atmosphere and energy.
Dad astra
In a message dated 2/27/02 8:39:46 AM, orbitalgardens@... writes:
We shall not only use one kind of ecologic system to test, we shall use many
and get lot of experiences.
EX: Does we need produktion of NH3 from nitrogen, and if, has it to be
produced by bacteria, or is syntetic (N2 + H2) good enough, or can we
produce NOx from nitrogen,oxygen and heat and then let nature
oxidice/reduzice this NOx ???
Sren Nielsen >>
Soren,
This is one of many reason why space colonization should be private from get
go. Private efforts HAVE to start small to fit with investors' needs and
there would be a lot more varsity along different efforts, which by logic of
evolution would speed up the learning curve. This would be a big improvement
over states' "offical" projects which would be too big, too expensive, and
have better chanch of failing big because they don't have any concept of
starting small and grow from there step by step. Witness the ISS that cost
far more than it really needed to be based on tiny space they have.
Carl Mullin
If government wanted to do it cheaply they could do it quite cheap. There are
many government agencies that do a better job then the market. It's just that
they don't seem to see the need, or don't think it's possible. Or think it's
possible but don't want to do it because it won't give the state of those
holding the balance of power much extra money. With ISS they had 3 competing
designs for it. The most expensive one was chosen despite the fact that the
cheapest one was far more capable. Usually you get what you pay for but in the
space industry it seems that more money doesn't mean better product but instead
means more chance of a congressman voting for it if their state's involved.
may have been posted twice. If it was then blame Yahoo not me.
--- Ravenart@... wrote:
I had some talks with friends who are specialized in the field of
biology about the closed ecosystems.
Usually, the common idea is that,in space; current biology knowledge is
not enough to create the same perfect environment as on the Earth.
Perhaps, with a long time scheduled task, after completing many
different research (and perhaps some sample closed ecosystems on the
Earth), same systems could be developed and send to space. But some
important life forms or bacterias will be formed by the time, so the
habitation of human being at the beginning will be impossible for quite
a long time. That will raise the cost assumptions and I am sure there
will be big problem with the financing.
the extra size might ease the problem of stabilizing the system over
long periods. The weight penalty must be researched. As experience is
gained, there is the hope that such techniques can be used in the design
of cities or modernization of existing cities.
Noting that the whole is a buffer system, starting with carbondioxide
and water, fuel is made by photosynthesis. (used later to alter nitrogen
to ammonia) , the genes of bacterias live symbiotically with the plant
and any change in the atmosphere will change the whole process. We
should also focus on Carbon, Nitrogen, Hydrogen and Phosphorus elements.
I think, the Earth is a living organism, such a perfect combination and
now we have the technology and knowledge to create the same (perhaps a
better one?) ...
anilir
I had some talks with friends who are specialized in the field of biology about the closed ecosystems.
Usually, the common idea is that,in space; current biology knowledge is not enough to create the same perfect environment as on the Earth.
Perhaps, with a long time scheduled task, after completing many different research (and perhaps some sample closed ecosystems on the Earth), same systems could be developed and send to space. But some important life forms or bacterias will be formed by the time, so the habitation of human being at the beginning will be impossible for quite a long time. That will raise the cost assumptions and I am sure there will be big problem with the financing.
I think, as a first step, experimental systems can be developed, perhaps the extra size might ease the problem of stabilizing the system over long periods. The weight penalty must be researched. As experience is gained, there is the hope that such techniques can be used in the design of cities or modernization of existing cities.
Noting that the whole is a buffer system, starting with carbondioxide and water, fuel is made by photosynthesis. (used later to alter nitrogen to ammonia) , the genes of bacterias live symbiotically with the plant and any change in the atmosphere will change the whole process. We should also focus on Carbon, Nitrogen, Hydrogen and Phosphorus elements.
I think, the Earth is a living organism, such a perfect combination and now we have the technology and knowledge to create the same (perhaps a better one?) ...
anilir
--- In spacesettlers@y..., "Serkan, Anilir" wrote:
> I would like to share your idea about the following topic...
>
> Concerning, the closed ecosystem of a habitation, the information I
> found is usually based on the idea that the percentage of nitrogen
is
> decreased and oxygen is increased (up to 70%), so it will weight
three
> times less than normal air and be cost-effective...
>
> According to my knowledge, The stabilization of the basic ecosystem
will
> require redundancy in its diverse systems. For example, often
> interaction between populations of organisms rank more important
for the
> stability of an ecosystem than the activity of single organisms. On
> Earth, an enzyme (nitrogenase) is responsible for taking atmospheric
> nitrogen and changing it into high-energy ammonia (NH3). The
ammonia is
> necessary for protein production. The most important point here is
that
> oxygen must be kept away from away from nitrogenase. If we have too
much
> oxygen, there will be no production of ammonia and protein. It is
hard
> enough on Earth to keep Nitrogenase active without upping the
amount in
> the atmosphere to 80%. The nitrogen-fixing bacteria and trace
elements
> like molybdenum or crucial elements like phosphorus (creating the
> universal energy of all living organisms (ATP)) are necessary
elements
> for a sustainable closed ecosystem.
>
> so does anybody have some information or ideas about sustainable
closed
> ecosystems??
>
> anilir
built before a perminent habitat can be started. There will be
pleanty of time to grow various species of plants and find out what
likes what.
But I will call your attention to the failed BiosphereII experiment.
They spent enormous resources to build small examples of all the
recognized ecosystems on the planet. Including things like savanah
and a mini ocean. The thought was that a 'holistic' example of the
world enviroment was needed to properly sustain human life. Well the
crew nearly starved themselves and they had to pump oxygen in to
restore a safe atmospehre. Now they had many problems- badly
designed green houses that cut 20% of the light, concrete that was
absorbing CO2- and taking the oxygen with it, and the use of high
grade soil from Arizona farms to plant ALL the plants in ALL the
biomes-not just the farming ones- which ment that the rainforest and
savanah had TOO MUCH organic matter for their plants to grow well in
and released extra CO2 and Methane as it decomposed.
The point is, design the habitate through engineering, not through
eco-religion. Humans dont need savanahs, or rain forests to survive
in space. They need edible foods, they need clean water, and they
need oxygen. Plants and animals to accompany them for this should be
chosen to fill these needs- not the desire to create a model of
planet earth.
Also its ok for the colonies to get imports from each other and from
Earth. Earth isnt going anywhere. To be economicaly viable the
colonies have to grow the bulk of their caloric intake, but not
everything. So its not crucial that everything be grown there, what
is crucial is that what DOES grow there keeps the air balanced and
the water clean.
Also, the Moon has plenty of Oxygen and other gases to pressurize a
colony to 1 atm if they want to. But if athletic training tells us
anything, slightly higher gravity (by spinning at a even 10m/sec
instead of 9.8 whatever that is the true gravitational constant) and
slightly thinner air (say the same as Denver- or perhaps even Mexico
City) would produce a basicaly helthier person- while not being very
burdonsom on a new arrival. But one of O'Neals Island colonies, the
way they are built, they are NOT going to be fragile. The people
talking about reducing the air pressure are trying to get colonies
built "on the cheap" and assuming that EVERYTHING has to fly off
Earth. But the only way any colony is going to be built is to build
lunar surface infastructure first then build a small- like Island One-
"construction shack" and then start assembling perminant habatats.
As for the makeup of lunar soil, it is not a unknown:
http://silver.neep.wisc.edu/~neep533/LEC13/lecture13.html
gives a good breakdown. Phosphorous for ATP production is found in
lunar soil "P2O5-0.5 wt% in phosphate minerals in KREEP" to quote the
above link. Of course the same processes that will extract the oxygen
and metals from lunar soil will leave this behind in concentrated
form so the colonies don't have to depend on just what gets dumped
into their soil when assembled.
Probably planting in lunar soil would give you better results in such
closed confines than the Biosphere people got using high grade farm
soil. Its a blank slate, and the organics, minerals and microbes can
be tailored exactly to each plant species needs.
NH3 should be avilable in asteriods so you could get it from there.
self-sustaining and will still require quite a bit of technology to regulate
the environment. We don't need to go to full closure stright away we could do
it in steps getting closer and closer to fully closing it off with extra
knowledge. Projects like Biosphere II are a good idea and CELSS is something
that should be studied but you don't have to try to get it completely
independant, it's OK to have to get a few things from outside.
--- Sren Nielsen wrote:
--- In spacesettlers@y..., "Serkan, Anilir" wrote:
> I had some talks with friends who are specialized in the field of
> biology about the closed ecosystems.
> Usually, the common idea is that,in space; current biology
knowledge is
> not enough to create the same perfect environment as on the Earth.
> Perhaps, with a long time scheduled task, after completing many
> different research (and perhaps some sample closed ecosystems on the
> Earth), same systems could be developed and send to space. But some
> important life forms or bacterias will be formed by the time, so the
> habitation of human being at the beginning will be impossible for
quite
> a long time. That will raise the cost assumptions and I am sure
there
> will be big problem with the financing.
>
> I think, as a first step, experimental systems can be developed,
perhaps
> the extra size might ease the problem of stabilizing the system over
> long periods. The weight penalty must be researched. As experience
is
> gained, there is the hope that such techniques can be used in the
design
> of cities or modernization of existing cities.
>
> Noting that the whole is a buffer system, starting with
carbondioxide
> and water, fuel is made by photosynthesis. (used later to alter
nitrogen
> to ammonia) , the genes of bacterias live symbiotically with the
plant
> and any change in the atmosphere will change the whole process. We
> should also focus on Carbon, Nitrogen, Hydrogen and Phosphorus
elements.
>
> I think, the Earth is a living organism, such a perfect combination
and
> now we have the technology and knowledge to create the same
(perhaps a
> better one?) ...
>
> anilir
microcosim of the whole world. No colony could be big enough. What
they are habitats for humans to live in in comfort. I do not beleve
that every single other species on the planet is vital to human
existance. That we have a chain we are dependant on yes- in fact we
have several chains! That is how humans settled on all six habitable
colonies and adapted to all enviroments in the premodern period. But
all each indivdual colony needs is one such chain.
--- In spacesettlers@y..., Ryan Healey wrote:
> NH3 should be avilable in asteriods so you could get it from there.
>
> I suspect that space colonies, particulary the early ones won't be
fully
> self-sustaining and will still require quite a bit of technology to
regulate
> the environment. We don't need to go to full closure stright away
we could do
> it in steps getting closer and closer to fully closing it off with
extra
> knowledge. Projects like Biosphere II are a good idea and CELSS is
something
> that should be studied but you don't have to try to get it
completely
> independant, it's OK to have to get a few things from outside.
http://silver.neep.wisc.edu/~neep533/neep533.html there are good
supplies of Nitrogen and Hydrogen in lunar soil, that would be
released by heating them. Since we have to heat them to get oxygen
and the metals out, it should be easy to collect enough to establish
colony atmospheres and if need to make ammonia and phosphorous based
fertilizer. See Lectures 13 and 21 on the page above for details.
Right. I agree completely.
another one. You have to get your materials somewhere.
It's better to be over-supplied with what you need than living on the
edge.. it's better to thrive than just barely survive.
George
--- In spacesettlers@y..., Ryan Healey wrote:
> NH3 should be avilable in asteriods so you could get it from there.
>
> I suspect that space colonies, particulary the early ones won't be
fully
> self-sustaining and will still require quite a bit of technology to
regulate
> the environment. We don't need to go to full closure stright away
we could do
> it in steps getting closer and closer to fully closing it off with
extra
> knowledge. Projects like Biosphere II are a good idea and CELSS is
something
> that should be studied but you don't have to try to get it
completely
> independant, it's OK to have to get a few things from outside.
>
> --- Sren Nielsen wrote:
> > I only see one way, to start in the small and then scale up.
> > We shall not only use one kind of ecologic system to test, we
shall use many
> > and get lot of experiences.
> > EX: Does we need produktion of NH3 from nitrogen, and if, has it
to be
> > produced by bacteria, or is syntetic (N2 + H2) good enough, or
can we
Over time the facility would be expanded or duplicated and other rocks taken in
to mine. We might at first only be able to do building but over time we'll be
making everything presently made on earth and a whole lot more entirely from
space materials without it anything even reaching earth.
Also a very good idea to build in a large safety margain. With failures it
could help with the life support system to allow for a few hours to a few days
(whatever we can do) to evacuate if it fails. I see it as very unlikely that
we'd be able to get it done without using any technology for any length of
time.
--- cygonaut wrote: