It seems to me that in order to have a functioning biosphere,
biotorus, or biocylinder in orbit we'll have to nurture the plant
life long before the habitat it completed.
any work starts on the habitat itself, we'll have to construct a
large structure to be used as a plant nursery. It'll be packed with
hundreds of acres of growing plants and trees. It'll have to be
designed to allow for tree growth over the 10-25 year construction
timeline for the habitat.
It'll be interesting to see how a 25 year old tree will be removed
from the nursery, transported across space, brought into the
habitat, and now under gravity, transported to its ultimate location
and re-planted. This may call for a whole new profession; astro-
botanical transportation engineer:)
Of course all of the above is premised on the assumption that we'll
try to have a bio-environment regulate the habitat, rather than
SOLELY air scrubbers and other mechanical means. I don't see how we
can start a functioning bio-environment from scratch. A little
sapling of a tree is nowhere near as efficient a CO2 scrubber as a
substantial tree. The biomass will have to come from somewhere.
Better to grow it in orbit than to haul it all from earth. Better to
launch the seeds or little shoots in a shuttle launch, rather than
trying to figure out how to send trees into orbit:)
Now considering that trees are made from the carbon in the air,
we'll have to have a steady supply of carbon which we'll combine
with the O2 that is a byproduct of lunar material extraction, thus
forming CO2. We'll cycle this through the nursery, and extract the
O2 again. Add more carbon and start the cycle again.
It's amazing to think that the mass of a tree is primarily made by
extracting the carbon from the air. WOW.
emails. :-(
To:
Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 12:59 PM
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] Plant Nursery In Space?
> Excuse me, but *why* do you have to have a complete biosphere, with
complex
I think the answer is in TangoMan's original post, that full sized trees are
so much productive. This is when I wish we had a botanist following the
discussion group, so they could rattle off some figures like tons of oxygen
production per year per ton of biomass (e.g. "It takes 10 tons of
cyanobacteria to produce the oxygen that 2 tons of trees can produce in the
same amount of time," or whatever the figures are).
this settlement will grow slowly enough (i.e. the population will start
small enough) that seeds or seedlings could be transported instead of trees,
and that the numbers of the colony's botannical and zoonotic occupants would
grow at about the same pace.
From: "Brad Walsh"
To:
Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 2:08 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: [spacesettlers] Plant Nursery In Space?
are
> so much productive. This is when I wish we had a botanist following the
> discussion group, so they could rattle off some figures like tons of
oxygen
> production per year per ton of biomass (e.g. "It takes 10 tons of
> cyanobacteria to produce the oxygen that 2 tons of trees can produce in
the
> same amount of time," or whatever the figures are).
>
Unfortunately I don't have the figures to prove my point, but I strongly
suspect that the efficiency relation is quite the opposite: cyanobacterial
biomass is *much* more efficient than trees in oxygen production, I think.
You should remember that the vast majority of the mass of a tree is dead
weight: wood is composed by dead cells, and photosynthesis occurs only in
the leaves. On the other hand, cyanobacteria and algae are kind of
"photosynthetic oxygen plants", with photosynthesis occurring all along
their bodies. By the way, most of the oxygen on Earth is recycled by the
oceans (algae+cyanobacteria).
Besides, in the beginning oxygen production could be mostly industrial.
After all, you have *lots* of solar energy that machines could use much more
efficiently than plants. In fact, I see plants of a source of food instead
of a primary source of oxygen.
> Perhaps you're projecting that the vertibrate occupants' need for oxygen
in
> this settlement will grow slowly enough (i.e. the population will start
> small enough) that seeds or seedlings could be transported instead of
trees,
> and that the numbers of the colony's botannical and zoonotic occupants
would
> grow at about the same pace.
>
I think that that's a realistic model.
[snikt]
Lucio Coelho
Your point about oxygen as an industrial byproduct in space settlements may
be a good one. I'm also told (although I haven't yet seen the source
documents) that research is proceeding on man-made photosynthesizers. I
hear that microchip-sized photosynthesizers can create oxygen by a variety
of chemical processes (thereby permitting them to crank out a number of
other chemicals in the process), and that these little wonders promise
orders of magnitude more efficiency than an equivalent weight of plant
material.
benefit, though.
I agree that cyanobacteria is probably more efficient than trees in
the matter of photosynthesis. Also, I agree that oxygen will be a
huge by-product of the manufacturing process. Also, I agree that we
will probably rely on CO2 scrubbers and other mechanical systems for
the construction shack facility.
with 10,000 - 1,000,000 inhabitants, with open spaces (an outdoors,
not just corridors.)
In such a structure I foresee the need to have a functioning
environmental cycle. I think that a mechanical system to handle the
environment would be horrendously expensive, not to mention
inefficient and unsightly. I have trouble imagining a barren
landscape with only cyanobacteria farms to please the eye, and to
clear the air and provide an ecosystem for all of the bugs and other
living things that will be needed to start the eco-cycle. Unless, of
course, we are happy to implement only an aquatic eco-system and
leave the land barren. Then, of course, our lakes will serve the
critical ecosystem role, and the land will be barren of life and
available for housing, shops, treeless parks, roads, etc. I don't
see why that couldn't work, although I'd still prefer to have trees,
bees, birds, flowers, shrubs, deer, etc throughout the habitat.
I'd definitely need some convincing that when the airlocks open for
the first 10,000+ people, that that is when we will start work on
implementing an ecosystem. I take the term ecosystem to mean more
than just photosynthesis.
Also, if you recall from my original post, I referred to taking the
oxygen from the manufacturing process, combining it with carbon to
make CO2, and cycling that through the plant nursery. Of course, if
we're doing this we already have a supply of oxygen at hand. So the
immediate need isn't to create the plant life for oxygen production,
its to plan ahead a couple of decades, so that when the airlocks do
open for the first time, we have a better chance at creating a
sustainable ecosystem.
> Unfortunately I don't have the figures to prove my point, but I
strongly
> suspect that the efficiency relation is quite the opposite:
cyanobacterial
> biomass is *much* more efficient than trees in oxygen production,
I think.
> You should remember that the vast majority of the mass of a tree
is dead
> weight: wood is composed by dead cells, and photosynthesis occurs
only in
> the leaves. On the other hand, cyanobacteria and algae are kind of
> "photosynthetic oxygen plants", with photosynthesis occurring all
along
> their bodies. By the way, most of the oxygen on Earth is recycled
by the
> oceans (algae+cyanobacteria).
>
> Besides, in the beginning oxygen production could be mostly
industrial.
> After all, you have *lots* of solar energy that machines could use
much more
> efficiently than plants. In fact, I see plants of a source of food
instead
> of a primary source of oxygen.
>
> > Perhaps you're projecting that the vertibrate occupants' need
for oxygen
> in
> > this settlement will grow slowly enough (i.e. the population
will start
> > small enough) that seeds or seedlings could be transported
instead of
> trees,
> > and that the numbers of the colony's botannical and zoonotic
occupants
While on the topic of long range planning for ecosystem design, does
anyone know how to make soil from lifeless lunar dirt. Could someone
point me to any articles they know of?
Do we need to launch a shuttle with earthworms as the man occupants:)
I'm wondering if we'll also need a huge compost heap out in space to
cultivate the topsoil that'll be needed for the habitat. Now if the
whole interior surface of the habitat is paved, tiled, etc, then
there'll probably be no need for grass, forests, etc, and then this
becomes a moot question.
The lunar dirt is really low on Nitrogen; that's the biggest issue I think.
required.
victoriatangoman wrote:
Hi
> anyone know how to make soil from lifeless lunar dirt. Could someone
> point me to any articles they know of?
If you haven't already seen it, you might care to check out "My Life as a
Designer of Soils" by Robert Scarborough. He did a lot of the soil work for
Biosphere II before the initial closure experiments.
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m0GER/1999_Spring/54321357/p1/article.jht
ml
Regards
D
Your link looks like it would be interesting reading except the link
is dead. Do you have an updated link?
> Hi
>
> > While on the topic of long range planning for ecosystem design,
does
> > anyone know how to make soil from lifeless lunar dirt. Could
someone
> > point me to any articles they know of?
>
> If you haven't already seen it, you might care to check out "My
Life as a
> Designer of Soils" by Robert Scarborough. He did a lot of the soil
work for
> Biosphere II before the initial closure experiments.
>
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m0GER/1999_Spring/54321357/p1/arti
cle.jht
Hi
Life as a
>> Designer of Soils" by Robert Scarborough. He did a lot of the soil
work for
>> Biosphere II before the initial closure experiments.
> Your link looks like it would be interesting reading except the link
> is dead. Do you have an updated link?
Hmmm. worked yesterday, doesn't today. Must be one of those odd sites that
dynamically generate page references.
Anyways, try this one:
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/PI/search.jhtml?magR=all+magazines&key=desi
gner+soils
or just go to http://www.findarticles.com and search for "designer soils"
Regards
D
It works for me!
have to stick it back together again to reach the page.
Great article BTW!
Guess we need our habitats to be 70% sea.. ;-(
space1d@... wrote:
Works for me too. Very informative article. It raised a number of
new questions for me though.
extracted from the atmosphere.
Much of our discussion has centered on whether cyanobacteria,
seaweeds, algae or trees are the most efficient at photosynthesis
per ton of biomass, but we've completely ignored the plant's ability
to store the accumulated carbon. It seems to me that at one end of
the spectrum we have the algae that are very efficient at
photosynthesis but can store very little carbon, have a short life,
die and decompose, thus releasing their carbon back into the
environment. At the other end of the spectrum are the long lived
trees, which use a small percentage of their biomass for
photosynthesis and are really just massive carbon storage facilities.
The sheer complexity of the ecosystem design for the Biosphere II
complex was surprising. I have a feeling that ecosystem engineering
is going to be the achille's heel of habitat design. It is nowhere
near as well understood as the mechanical and engineering aspects of
habitat design and construction. Sure, we can build a immense
country in space but will its environment go haywire after a few
years? There'll be no escape hatch for the thousands of inhabitants.
What'll we do if the atmosphere starts to become toxic over time? If
the soils start to die? I hope no one proposes that we just flush
out the atmosphere and replace it. I'd like to read the process for
doing that without inconveniencing the citizens.
I sure hope that there'll be a substantial increase in research
funding for ecosystem studies. Too bad that Biosphere II was looked
upon as kooky science. I recall that I had fond hopes for its
success when it started but the media converage it got made it look
flakey. I hope that something like it can be done again but with
more success and that more knowledge can be added to what was
discovered from Biosphere II.
Let's face it - this problem must be solved before we embark on a
building program. We can't support thousands of people with a
program like for the ISS where everything comes from earth.
Oh well, thanks for the reference to the article. Very informative.
--- In spacesettlers@y..., Ian Woollard wrote:
> It works for me!
>
> There's an unfortunate carriager return in the middle of the line,
you
> have to stick it back together again to reach the page.
>
> Great article BTW!
>
> Guess we need our habitats to be 70% sea.. ;-(
>
> space1d@y... wrote:
>
> >Hi
> >
> >>>If you haven't already seen it, you might care to check out "My
> >>>
> >Life as a
> >
> >>>Designer of Soils" by Robert Scarborough. He did a lot of the
soil
> >>>
> >work for
> >
> >>>Biosphere II before the initial closure experiments.
> >>>
> >
> >>Your link looks like it would be interesting reading except the
link
> >>is dead. Do you have an updated link?
> >>
> >
> >Hmmm. worked yesterday, doesn't today. Must be one of those odd
sites that
> >dynamically generate page references.
> >
> >Anyways, try this one:
> >http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/PI/search.jhtml?
magR=all+magazines&key=desi
> >gner+soils
> >or just go to http://www.findarticles.com and search
for "designer soils"
From: "victoriatangoman"
To:
Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2002 9:48 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: [spacesettlers] Plant Nursery In Space?
(...)
> complex was surprising. I have a feeling that ecosystem engineering
> is going to be the achille's heel of habitat design. It is nowhere
> near as well understood as the mechanical and engineering aspects of
> habitat design and construction. Sure, we can build a immense
> country in space but will its environment go haywire after a few
> years? There'll be no escape hatch for the thousands of inhabitants.
> What'll we do if the atmosphere starts to become toxic over time? If
> the soils start to die? I hope no one proposes that we just flush
> out the atmosphere and replace it. I'd like to read the process for
> doing that without inconveniencing the citizens.
(...)
I also have that impression that a ecosystem is overwhelmingly complex.
That's the main reason that leads me to favor industry-based solutions for
recycling in habitats. I think that a natural ecosystem is so intrinsically
uncontrollable due to its complexity that it is better to rely on the
regularity and predictability of machines for most of the air/water
recycling and leave the plants just as food sources.
I agree that a heavy-industry system for air/water recycling for a
10-million people city would be huge and expensive, but perhaps the
potential cost inherent to the risk of using a ecosystem for doing the job
is still higher.
Lucio Coelho
--- In spacesettlers@y..., "victoriatangoman"
> funding for ecosystem studies. Too bad that Biosphere II was looked
> upon as kooky science. I recall that I had fond hopes for its
> success when it started but the media converage it got made it look
> flakey. I hope that something like it can be done again but with
> more success and that more knowledge can be added to what was
> discovered from Biosphere II.
>
It was actually pretty good science for the most part. They only ran
into trouble when they had to replace part of the atmosphere... and
then lied about it. Had they simply admitted that there was still
lots to learn about maintaining a completely enclosed life support
system, and that they didn't have all the answers YET, it would still
be considered a good experiment.
:) ed
If you think the cost and complexity of creating useable air and water for a
space colony of 10 million is daunting, consider what it would take to
generate the food for 10 megafolks.
complex than H2O to drink and N2/O2/Ar to breathe. Nutritionists are so
stumped by the task of determining what chemicals in a vegetable are
necessary for proper nutrition, they have invented the vague construct
"phytochemicals," which can be defined as "the other stuff in plants that
are necessary in trace amounts for proper human health, but which we haven't
even been identified yet." The phrase you often hear is, "sure a
multivitamin is a good idea, but if you allow it to substitute for fruits
and vegetables, you're depriving your body of phytochemicals."
Howard Garrett, an organic gardening expert here in the Dallas area, points
out that food crops grown in depleted soil fertilized with the old-school
NPK fertilizers (mainly Nitrogen and Phosphorous) are likely to lack
phytochemicals usually obtained from a more natural, organically-fertilized
soil. There seems to be a growing consensus that NPK-fertilized plants are
badly nourished and often fail to thrive.
To answer a question posed here earlier, my impression from reading Garrett
and others is that pure mineral sand with no nutrients in it can be
converted to healthy soil with compost (rotting vegetable matter and some
animal waste) and a small seeding of soil, and a little time. I would
envision soil creation in space to start with sand from regolith or other
sources, a wheelbarrow full of soil from earth, and a few growing seasons'
recycling. Mix the soil with an equal volume of sand, plant a diverse mix
of seeds, let it grow one season, take it all to a compost heap for a few
months, and when you're done you'll have 3-4 times the volume of soil to
expand the process with the next season. The initial soil from earth should
bring enough of the right bugs. The biosphere botanist discovered a new
perspective on the gas exchange processes that take place in that initial
phase, when not much oxygen creation is taking place. But I'm confident
that more research will reach a broader understanding of the inputs and
outputs of the process in space. You do notice the news reports of plants
being grown aboard the ISS, the shuttle and before that on MIR, right?
>I agree that a heavy-industry system for air/water recycling for a
>10-million people city would be huge and expensive, but perhaps the
>potential cost inherent to the risk of using a ecosystem for doing the job
>is still higher.
>
>Lucio Coelho
>
http://www.hotmail.com
From: "Brad Walsh"
To:
Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 4:02 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: [spacesettlers] Plant Nursery In Space?
(...)
> To answer a question posed here earlier, my impression from reading
Garrett
> and others is that pure mineral sand with no nutrients in it can be
> converted to healthy soil with compost (rotting vegetable matter and some
> animal waste) and a small seeding of soil, and a little time. I would
> envision soil creation in space to start with sand from regolith or other
> sources, a wheelbarrow full of soil from earth, and a few growing seasons'
> recycling. Mix the soil with an equal volume of sand, plant a diverse mix
> of seeds, let it grow one season, take it all to a compost heap for a few
> months, and when you're done you'll have 3-4 times the volume of soil to
> expand the process with the next season. The initial soil from earth
should
> bring enough of the right bugs. The biosphere botanist discovered a new
> perspective on the gas exchange processes that take place in that initial
> phase, when not much oxygen creation is taking place. But I'm confident
> that more research will reach a broader understanding of the inputs and
> outputs of the process in space. You do notice the news reports of plants
> being grown aboard the ISS, the shuttle and before that on MIR, right?
(...)
Lucio Coelho
This is probably true. The reason I want trees in my colony is simply
that I like trees -- a lot. Space colonies probably won't be a good
place to send illiterate, technically uneducated people for quite some
time. Well educated people can do quite nicely on Earth, thank you.
Therefor, colonies -- from the beginning -- need to be attractive places
to live. Therefor, we probably need trees.
> Unfortunately I don't have the figures to prove my point, but I strongly
> suspect that the efficiency relation is quite the opposite:
> cyanobacterial
> biomass is *much* more efficient than trees in oxygen production, I
> think.
> You should remember that the vast majority of the mass of a tree is dead
> weight: wood is composed by dead cells, and photosynthesis occurs only
> in
> the leaves.
The materials in one asteroid (the largest ) are sufficient to make
orbital space colonies with ~500 times the surface area of the Earth in
usable real estate. See http://lifesci3.arc.nasa.gov/SpaceSettlement/
for details.
Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html
From: "Al Globus"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 2:10 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: [spacesettlers] Plant Nursery In Space?
that I like trees -- a lot. Space colonies probably won't be a good
place to send illiterate, technically uneducated people for quite some
time. Well educated people can do quite nicely on Earth, thank you.
Therefor, colonies -- from the beginning -- need to be attractive places
to live. Therefor, we probably need trees.
I completely agree with trees in a space colony serving purely ornamental
purposes. However, you don't really need to have fully grown trees (as I
understood from victoriatangoman's post) to do that. Any large-scale
engineering project on Earth begins with tiny, "newborn" trees that grow as
the years pass.
For instance, my mother visited Braslia around 1960, when the city had just
been finished, and the trees were really small because they had just been
planted. Many years later, she visited the city again and the trees were
already fully grown. However, the fact that the trees were very tiny in the
beginning did not prevent the rapid growth of the population of the city.
(As a matter of fact, there were people leaving in/around Braslia *before*
its opening or tree planting, because of course thousands of workers were
needed.) I guess that the same thing happened with Washington, which is also
a planned city, isn't it?
Lucio Coelho
--- In spacesettlers@y..., Lucio de Souza Coelho
> From: "Al Globus"
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 2:10 PM
> Subject: Re: Fw: [spacesettlers] Plant Nursery In Space?
>
> This is probably true. The reason I want trees in my colony is
simply
> that I like trees -- a lot. Space colonies probably won't be a
good
> place to send illiterate, technically uneducated people for quite
some
> time. Well educated people can do quite nicely on Earth, thank
you.
> Therefor, colonies -- from the beginning -- need to be attractive
places
> to live. Therefor, we probably need trees.
>
> I completely agree with trees in a space colony serving purely
ornamental
> purposes. However, you don't really need to have fully grown trees
(as I
> understood from victoriatangoman's post) to do that.
Any large-scale
> engineering project on Earth begins with tiny, "newborn" trees
that grow as
> the years pass.
True enough on earth. But there has been not been even a single
engineering project, notwithstanding BioSphere II, that has created
a complete biosphere. I'm just not sold on the ability of a "just
planted" biosphere being able to support our thousands or hundreds
of thousands of people, in addition to animals, insects, othr flora
and fauna. I just don't see how. I think it will have to be nurtured
and developed in parallel with the construction of the habitat so
that it can be installed as a complete "system" and from there it
can grow and more trees can be added and more lakes can be stocked
and more fertile land can be created.
>
> For instance, my mother visited Braslia around 1960, when the
city had just
> been finished, and the trees were really small because they had
just been
> planted. Many years later, she visited the city again and the
trees were
> already fully grown. However, the fact that the trees were very
tiny in the
> beginning did not prevent the rapid growth of the population of
the city.
> (As a matter of fact, there were people leaving in/around Braslia
*before*
> its opening or tree planting, because of course thousands of
workers were
> needed.) I guess that the same thing happened with Washington,
which is also
From: "victoriatangoman"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 4:35 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: [spacesettlers] Plant Nursery In Space?
(...)
True enough on earth. But there has been not been even a single
engineering project, notwithstanding BioSphere II, that has created
a complete biosphere. I'm just not sold on the ability of a "just
planted" biosphere being able to support our thousands or hundreds
of thousands of people, in addition to animals, insects, othr flora
and fauna. I just don't see how. I think it will have to be nurtured
and developed in parallel with the construction of the habitat so
that it can be installed as a complete "system" and from there it
can grow and more trees can be added and more lakes can be stocked
and more fertile land can be created.
needed for an ecosystem-based life support system.
That's one of the reasons that make me advocate heavy-industry life support
systems instead of biological ones. ;-) Leave the plants just for food
(space agriculture, already a daunting enough task) and ornamentation.
(...)
Lucio Coelho
On Sunday, August 18, 2002, at 05:48 PM, victoriatangoman wrote:
> complex was surprising. I have a feeling that ecosystem engineering
> is going to be the achille's heel of habitat design.
While this may be true, it's not necessarily the case. Consider
Biosphere II. They designed this extremely complex system with lots of
different organisms and it quickly evolved in all kinds of unexpected
ways -- but it did work. It took over a year to require a resupply of
oxygen (note that running out proves that they did get good closure).
Perhaps all that thinking was unnecessary. Maybe you can just throw a
very wide variety of plants and animals in the system and let it evolve
to something more-or-less stable, and that will be good enough most of
the time.
To test this hypothesis I took random clumps of soil, including some
plants and whatever small organisms happened to be there, out of my
backyard and sealed them in a couple of 1-2 quart plastic, transparent
containers. Over a year later, with no care what-so-ever, both contains
still had living grasses in them. While this hardly constitutes proof,
it is indicative, along with the Biosphere II experience, that simply
providing a very wide range of organisms in a closed environment will
often lead to a fairly sustainable system.
This hypothesis isn't very hard to test ...
The materials in one asteroid (the largest ) are sufficient to make
orbital space colonies with ~500 times the surface area of the Earth in
usable real estate. See http://lifesci3.arc.nasa.gov/SpaceSettlement/
for details.
Al Globus
CSC at NASA Ames Research Center
http://www.nas.nasa.gov/~globus/home.html
While I tend to agree with you when you say that a good biodiversity is
probably enough to provide a "more-or-less stable" environment, the problem
is: I think that humans need a *very* stable environment to live healthily
and comfortably. Moreover, not *any* "very stable environment", but one
occupying a somewhat narrow band of O2 and CO2 concentration in the
atmosphere, humidity, temperature, etc. So, I much doubt that the "more or
less stable" state where a closed ecosystem will converge into will be
comfortable (or even acceptable) for humans standards. Talking about
Biosphere II, I would hardly say that the bionauts lived "comfortably" in
there...
forget about using ecosystems to recycle air and water and use machines to
do that. Space habitats don't have to be Earths in miniature, they just have
to be a place were people will like to live.
Lucio Coelho
From: "Al Globus"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 4:57 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: [spacesettlers] Plant Nursery In Space?
(...)
> While this may be true, it's not necessarily the case. Consider
> Biosphere II. They designed this extremely complex system with lots of
> different organisms and it quickly evolved in all kinds of unexpected
> ways -- but it did work. It took over a year to require a resupply of
> oxygen (note that running out proves that they did get good closure).
> Perhaps all that thinking was unnecessary. Maybe you can just throw a
> very wide variety of plants and animals in the system and let it evolve
> to something more-or-less stable, and that will be good enough most of
> the time.
>
> To test this hypothesis I took random clumps of soil, including some
> plants and whatever small organisms happened to be there, out of my
> backyard and sealed them in a couple of 1-2 quart plastic, transparent
> containers. Over a year later, with no care what-so-ever, both contains
> still had living grasses in them. While this hardly constitutes proof,
> it is indicative, along with the Biosphere II experience, that simply
> providing a very wide range of organisms in a closed environment will
> often lead to a fairly sustainable system.
>
> This hypothesis isn't very hard to test ...
(...)
--- In spacesettlers@y..., Lucio de Souza Coelho
> From: "victoriatangoman"
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 4:35 PM
> Subject: Re: Fw: [spacesettlers] Plant Nursery In Space?
> (...)
> True enough on earth. But there has been not been even a single
> engineering project, notwithstanding BioSphere II, that has created
> a complete biosphere. I'm just not sold on the ability of a "just
> planted" biosphere being able to support our thousands or hundreds
> of thousands of people, in addition to animals, insects, othr flora
> and fauna. I just don't see how. I think it will have to be
nurtured
> and developed in parallel with the construction of the habitat so
> that it can be installed as a complete "system" and from there it
> can grow and more trees can be added and more lakes can be stocked
> and more fertile land can be created.
>
> I agree with you when you say that a fully-grown biosphere is
probably
> needed for an ecosystem-based life support system.
>
> That's one of the reasons that make me advocate heavy-industry
life support
> systems instead of biological ones. ;-) Leave the plants just for
food
> (space agriculture, already a daunting enough task) and
ornamentation.
just oxygen generation? There are so many unknown's in my definition
of life-support system, I just feel that a rube-goldberg maze of
machinery will never be able to supply a biosphere. Oxygen. Yes. CO2
scrubbing yes. REmove pollutants from the atmosphere. YES.
Mechanically pollinate every plant that is needed to feed a
population of hundreds of thousands of people. No. Mechanically feed
every fish, dust mite, bird, etc. No. Do you see the question I'm
posing? Can a mechanical approach really and completely replicate a
functioning biosphere for a small nation. For the ISS, sure. For a
habitat, I'd definitely need some convincing because the complexity
boggles my mind.
--- In spacesettlers@y..., Al Globus wrote:
>
> On Sunday, August 18, 2002, at 05:48 PM, victoriatangoman wrote:
>
> > The sheer complexity of the ecosystem design for the Biosphere II
> > complex was surprising. I have a feeling that ecosystem
engineering
> > is going to be the achille's heel of habitat design.
>
> While this may be true, it's not necessarily the case. Consider
> Biosphere II. They designed this extremely complex system with
lots of
> different organisms and it quickly evolved in all kinds of
unexpected
> ways -- but it did work. It took over a year to require a
resupply of
> oxygen (note that running out proves that they did get good
closure).
> Perhaps all that thinking was unnecessary. Maybe you can just
throw a
> very wide variety of plants and animals in the system and let it
evolve
> to something more-or-less stable, and that will be good enough
most of
> the time.
>
> To test this hypothesis I took random clumps of soil, including
some
> plants and whatever small organisms happened to be there, out of
my
> backyard and sealed them in a couple of 1-2 quart plastic,
transparent
> containers. Over a year later, with no care what-so-ever, both
contains
> still had living grasses in them. While this hardly constitutes
proof,
> it is indicative, along with the Biosphere II experience, that
simply
> providing a very wide range of organisms in a closed environment
will
> often lead to a fairly sustainable system.
>
> This hypothesis isn't very hard to test ...
>
with radiation, kill every microbe in it, completely sterilize it.
Put it in a sealed environment. Then reintroduce what living
compenents you think it will need.
I think that makes it more complex a proposition. I think we take
for granted that even dirt is full of living organisms that we'll
have to introduce in our new world.
> The materials in one asteroid (the largest ) are sufficient to
make
> orbital space colonies with ~500 times the surface area of the
Earth in
> usable real estate. See
http://lifesci3.arc.nasa.gov/SpaceSettlement/