Hello Gang,
If our long term goals of establishing a permanent human
presence in space are ever to be realized, we will have to develop
"Artificial Biospheres" on the scale of Biosphere 2. After the massive
failure the Biosphere 2 project how close are we to developing self
sustaining artificial biosphere? I think this is a question pertinent to
what ever side of the debatewe support concerning our long term future
in space. Whether in O'Neil space settlements or settlements on the Moon
or Mars.

Alex Michael Bonnici

More research and experimentation needs to be done on developing self
sustaining artificial biospheres.

Meanwhile, space settlements will need a steady supply of resources
and, though these can be stockpiled most anywhere nearby, these
resources must be acquired from places outside the settlements and
be dependable and, ideally, abundant and within range of available
and applicable equipment and vehicles.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Alex Michael Bonnici
wrote:
>
> Hello Gang,
> If our long term goals of establishing a permanent
human
> presence in space are ever to be realized, we will have to develop
> "Artificial Biospheres" on the scale of Biosphere 2. After the
massive
> failure the Biosphere 2 project how close are we to developing self
> sustaining artificial biosphere? I think this is a question
pertinent to
> what ever side of the debatewe support concerning our long term
future
> in space. Whether in O'Neil space settlements or settlements on
the Moon

On Jan 29, 2004, at 12:30 PM, Alex Michael Bonnici wrote:

> If our long term goals of establishing a permanent human
> presence in space are ever to be realized, we will have to develop
> "Artificial Biospheres" on the scale of Biosphere 2. After the massive
> failure the Biosphere 2 project how close are we to developing self
> sustaining artificial biosphere?

Biosphere 2 was considered a scientific failure, which was true enough.
That obscured the fact that, IMHO, it was a smashing engineering
success. Consider: they achieved full closure and stayed more-or-less
closed for over a year on the first try. We know that full closure was
achieved because they ran low on oxygen and had to replenish after a
year or so. If the system wasn't closed, they couldn't have run low on
oxygen.

Before the oxygen replenishment, the only break in closure was when
someone nearly cut off a finger and had to go to the hospital.

This is a spectacular achievement. At the time I figured the whole
thing would crash in a couple of weeks max. Sure, they had lots of
problems, sure, the didn't make it for two years, but the fact remains
that they did achieve closure, and kept the whole thing working for
many, many months on the first try. I don't know too many engineering
projects of comparable complexity that have had that kind of success.

The dinosaurs were destroyed by an asteroid because they weren't
space-faring. It's almost as if Gaia then thought "Well, dinosaurs
worked pretty well, but space-faring is necessary. Maybe I'll should
try mammals this time." Humanity is now developing systems to detect
and deflect asteroids, and could build orbital space colonies to spread
beyond Earth to insure life would survive a planetary catastrophe.

Al Globus
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.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Al Globus wrote:
>
> On Jan 29, 2004, at 12:30 PM, Alex Michael Bonnici wrote:
>
> > If our long term goals of establishing a permanent human
> > presence in space are ever to be realized, we will have to
develop
> > "Artificial Biospheres" on the scale of Biosphere 2. After the
massive
> > failure the Biosphere 2 project how close are we to developing
self
> > sustaining artificial biosphere?
>
> Biosphere 2 was considered a scientific failure, which was true
enough.
> That obscured the fact that, IMHO, it was a smashing
engineering
> success. Consider: they achieved full closure and stayed more-or-
less
> closed for over a year on the first try.

I agree Al, it was a huge success. The only problem I had with it
was all the glass. We know the first moon base won't be like that,
it will be under"ground".

So to do a better Biosphere test, one must try a facility that does
not receive direct sunlight, and grow everything under electric
lights. Not only does the crew get a feel for living in a
windowless environment in close quarters, you also get a better idea
of the amount of electricity that would be needed, and can then
figure out how much solar power you need to collect every month.

There are decommissioned missile sites all over the USA that would
be perfect for such a test. http://www.missilebases.com/
Some of the sites listed on the above website would be perfect for
such an experiment, at a price comparable to that of a regular house.

Ed

From: Ed Minchau [mailto:spider_boris@...]

> So to do a better Biosphere test, one must try a facility that does
> not receive direct sunlight, and grow everything under electric
> lights. Not only does the crew get a feel for living in a
> windowless environment in close quarters, you also get a better idea
> of the amount of electricity that would be needed, and can then
> figure out how much solar power you need to collect every month.

SSI sponsored some research indicating that to sustain a crew of 4 with food
grown under artificial lighting, the electric bill would be forty million
dollars a month.

Have a billion or so laying around you don't need? :)

I think O'Neill was correct in suggesting that we'll want to move to
agriculture under redirected sunlight at as early a point as possible.

Regards,

Mike Combs

I agree too, Biosphere 2 was a necessary step, one that should have been
followed up more.

Every time I go out to work my compost pile at home, I think about soil
creation and the ecology of space settlements. Some time I'm going to do a
literature search on the topic, and see what research has been published in
the last 20 years. Here are some of the things I'd like to find out:

Has anyone started with simulated lunar regolith and added compost starter
and plant material, and proven that lunar soil can support new topsoil?
Healthy soil is about 45% minerals, so what you start with would have to be
vitally important.

Has anyone attempted composting in a closed atmosphere? One theory about
what happened with the oxygen/CO2 exchange at Biosphere 2 was that the gas
exchange of soil composting was not well understood, and may have
contributed to the oxygen balance problems of the habitat. One wouldn't
want to fund a massive Island 3 settlement and find out that the soil
microorganisms are taking up all the oxygen.

Can a human settlement ecology including agriculture and composting exist on
such a small scale at all? Who knows what macro-scale inputs might be
required. In an earth-bound research setting you'd have to work really hard
to assert that you've truly sealed your biosphere from all outside inputs,
and even so there might still be surprises.

Are there workable alternatives to soil agriculture, and what are the
economics of each? What has happened in the field of hydroponic agriculture
in the last quarter century?

The mechanical engineering of space settlements seems to be so much more
advanced than these equally life-sustaining agricultural issues. I'd love
to hear what people have read, and what the current state of the art is.

Brad

>From: "Ed Minchau"
>Reply-To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
>To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: Artificial Biospheres In Space
>Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2004 17:22:35 -0000
>
>--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Al Globus wrote:
> >
> > On Jan 29, 2004, at 12:30 PM, Alex Michael Bonnici wrote:
> >
> > > If our long term goals of establishing a permanent human
> > > presence in space are ever to be realized, we will have to
>develop
> > > "Artificial Biospheres" on the scale of Biosphere 2. After the
>massive
> > > failure the Biosphere 2 project how close are we to developing
>self
> > > sustaining artificial biosphere?
> >
> > Biosphere 2 was considered a scientific failure, which was true
>enough.
> > That obscured the fact that, IMHO, it was a smashing
>engineering
> > success. Consider: they achieved full closure and stayed more-or-
>less
> > closed for over a year on the first try.
>
>I agree Al, it was a huge success. The only problem I had with it
>was all the glass. We know the first moon base won't be like that,
>it will be under"ground".
>
>So to do a better Biosphere test, one must try a facility that does
>not receive direct sunlight, and grow everything under electric
>lights. Not only does the crew get a feel for living in a
>windowless environment in close quarters, you also get a better idea
>of the amount of electricity that would be needed, and can then
>figure out how much solar power you need to collect every month.
>
>There are decommissioned missile sites all over the USA that would
>be perfect for such a test. http://www.missilebases.com/
>Some of the sites listed on the above website would be perfect for
>such an experiment, at a price comparable to that of a regular house.
>
>Ed
>

Scope out the new MSN Plus Internet Software optimizes dial-up to the max!

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Combs, Mike"
> From: Ed Minchau [mailto:spider_boris@y...]
>
> > So to do a better Biosphere test, one must try a facility that
does
> > not receive direct sunlight, and grow everything under electric
> > lights. Not only does the crew get a feel for living in a
> > windowless environment in close quarters, you also get a better
idea
> > of the amount of electricity that would be needed, and can then
> > figure out how much solar power you need to collect every month.
>
> SSI sponsored some research indicating that to sustain a crew of 4
with food
> grown under artificial lighting, the electric bill would be forty
million
> dollars a month.
>
> Have a billion or so laying around you don't need? :)
>
> I think O'Neill was correct in suggesting that we'll want to move to
> agriculture under redirected sunlight at as early a point as
>possible.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike Combs

That why the moon is terrable for settlement: you cannot grow food
there (maybe at the poles...), because of the radition and month long
sol.

Mars is ten times better than the moon and space settlement (or space
habitat or whatever) better so.

From: babbler36 [mailto:babbler36@...]

> That why the moon is terrable for settlement: you cannot grow food
> there (maybe at the poles...), because of the radition and month long
> sol.

Maybe, maybe not. I'm certainly of the opinion that the moon is not as
well-suited for agriculture as orbital settlements well outside of the
shadow of any planet. But agriculture on the moon may just be possible.

It all turns on one idea. The notion has been put forth that if one were to
allow a lunar greenhouse to chill during the 2-week long night (and indeed
it would take a deliberate effort to keep it from chilling), the plants
might "hibernate" and revive after the sun rises. We'll just have to
experiment.

> Mars is ten times better than the moon and space settlement (or space
> habitat or whatever) better so.

I think you'll find considerable disagreement here on that assertion. For a
list of reasons why orbital settlements are superior to Mars (or indeed any
other planetary location), please read Gerard O'Neill's "The High Frontier"
(http://www.space-frontier.org/HighFrontier/). Or, if you want something
shorter than a book, try this FAQ entry
http://members.aol.com/oscarcombs/spacsetl.htm#advantages or
http://members.aol.com/oscarcombs/case_spc.htm.

Sorry, but it sounds like you might have bought into Zubrin's assertion that
Mars is the only place off the Earth where one can do agriculture. But
Zubrin's insistence on this point stems from his casual dismissal of the
concept of large-yet-flimsy space mirrors the size of croplands, when
there's no detailed reason offered for being skeptical about our abilities
to engineer such things in 0-G. On the other hand, the solar intensity at
Mars' distance from the sun is only about half of what Earthly crop plants
are used to, and even Zubrin confesses that crop energetics relate to
insolation. Orbital habitats may be placed further from the sun if we make
the mirrors bigger and concentrating. But this is a solution which would
not work for Mars, due to gravity and weather.

If you're thinking about those Martian greenhouses made from thin plastic
films, you'd better go back and read the fine print. That's after an
assumed many-decades-long terraforming effort has increased the density of
the air many times over its present value. It might be the 22nd century
before we could see greenhouses of that variety. For the foreseeable
future, a Martian greenhouse would require just as thick glass as an orbital
one.

Regards,

Mike Combs

> From: babbler36 [mailto:babbler36@...]

> That why the moon is terrable for settlement: you cannot grow food
> there (maybe at the poles...), because of the radition and month long
> sol.

Mirrors could be used to solve the radiation problem, same as they did in the Stanford Torus design. Maybe even mirrors in orbit could provide sunlight to dark-side areas, same as the Russians have proposed doing on Earth.

ANTIcarrot.

From: ANTIcarrot [mailto:dante.feditech@...]

> Mirrors could be used to solve the radiation problem, same as they did in
the Stanford Torus design.

Since (assuming 1-G in the torus) the mirrors of a Stanford Torus would be
under 1/2-G, I assume even somewhat bigger mirrors could be possible in
1/6th-G. Not so sure about mirrors on the scale of Island One, and I'd
venture to say mirrors on the scale of Island Three would be impractical on
the lunar surface.

> Maybe even mirrors in orbit could provide sunlight to dark-side areas,
same as the Russians have proposed doing on Earth.

There are problems with this approach, though. The optics of the situation
force you to illuminate much vaster areas than you might like just to get
full solar intensity in at least part of the area. The optics of the
O'Neill approach in orbit, with the mirrors close to the lands being
illuminated, are much better.

Regards,

Mike Combs

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Combs, Mike"
> From: Ed Minchau [mailto:spider_boris@y...]
>
> > So to do a better Biosphere test, one must try a facility that
does
> > not receive direct sunlight, and grow everything under electric
> > lights. Not only does the crew get a feel for living in a
> > windowless environment in close quarters, you also get a better
idea
> > of the amount of electricity that would be needed, and can then
> > figure out how much solar power you need to collect every month.
>
> SSI sponsored some research indicating that to sustain a crew of 4
with food
> grown under artificial lighting, the electric bill would be forty
million
> dollars a month.
>
> Have a billion or so laying around you don't need? :)

LOL. No, but who says all the electricity would come from the
grid? All of those missile silo sites include several acres of land.

BTW can you direct me to that study? I'm sure it would answer (and
raise) lots of questions.

>
> I think O'Neill was correct in suggesting that we'll want to move
to
> agriculture under redirected sunlight at as early a point as
possible.
>

Perhaps he was. However, exactly _how_much_ redirected sunlight is
needed? That's my whole point; Biosphere2 cannot tell us that,
because it is getting some of its energy from the grid, some from
solar panels, and some from the windows. How much energy did they
use per person? Impossible to say, due to the configuration of the
experiment.

Ed

From: Ed Minchau [mailto:spider_boris@...]

> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Combs, Mike"
> wrote:
> >
> > SSI sponsored some research indicating that to sustain a crew of 4
with food
> > grown under artificial lighting, the electric bill would be forty
million
> > dollars a month.
> >
> > Have a billion or so laying around you don't need? :)
>
> LOL. No, but who says all the electricity would come from the
> grid? All of those missile silo sites include several acres of land.
>
> BTW can you direct me to that study? I'm sure it would answer (and
> raise) lots of questions.

You know, after I typed the above I went looking for the reference. I was
certain I'd find it on the SSI website, or in an article by Lee Valentine on
another site, but I couldn't find it. I hope I didn't misremember the
numbers.

But the study gets mentioned here http://ssi.org/research_update.html and
here
http://www.hobbyspace.com/AAdmin/archive/Articles/Guests/atwgBriefingLeeVale
ntine.html Lee Valentine mentions Biosphere II and the need for more study.

Regards,

Mike Combs

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Combs, Mike"
> From: babbler36 [mailto:babbler36@y...]
>
> > That why the moon is terrable for settlement: you cannot grow
food
> > there (maybe at the poles...), because of the radition and month
long
> > sol.
>
> Maybe, maybe not. I'm certainly of the opinion that the moon is
>not as
> well-suited for agriculture as orbital settlements well outside of
>the
> shadow of any planet. But agriculture on the moon may just be
>possible.
>
> It all turns on one idea. The notion has been put forth that if
>one were to
> allow a lunar greenhouse to chill during the 2-week long night (and
>indeed
> it would take a deliberate effort to keep it from chilling), the
>plants
> might "hibernate" and revive after the sun rises. We'll just have
>to
> experiment.

Hum.

> > Mars is ten times better than the moon and space settlement (or
>space
> > habitat or whatever) better so.
>
> I think you'll find considerable disagreement here on that
>assertion. For a
> list of reasons why orbital settlements are superior to Mars (or
>indeed any
> other planetary location), please read Gerard O'Neill's "The High
>Frontier"
> (http://www.space-frontier.org/HighFrontier/). Or, if you want
>something
> shorter than a book, try this FAQ entry
> http://members.aol.com/oscarcombs/spacsetl.htm#advantages or
> http://members.aol.com/oscarcombs/case_spc.htm.

I try to get a copy of the book soon, but, trust me, it hard. And I
have read your webpages.

> Sorry, but it sounds like you might have bought into Zubrin's
>assertion that
> Mars is the only place off the Earth where one can do agriculture.

You did not understand what said.I could have been worded better:
Mars is ten times better than the moon and space settlement _are_(or
space habitat or whatever) _better_ so.

>But
> Zubrin's insistence on this point stems from his casual dismissal
>of the
> concept of large-yet-flimsy space mirrors the size of croplands,
>when
> there's no detailed reason offered for being skeptical about our
>abilities
> to engineer such things in 0-G.

Personally, I would to have those giant merriors more than just
flimsy.

>On the other hand, the solar intensity at
> Mars' distance from the sun is only about half of what Earthly crop
>plants
> are used to, and even Zubrin confesses that crop energetics relate
>to
> insolation. Orbital habitats may be placed further from the sun if
>we make
> the mirrors bigger and concentrating. But this is a solution which
would
> not work for Mars, due to gravity and weather.

That is true. The Martian envoirment would still have month-long dust
storms, 1/3 "Normal" Earth gravity, solar flares and other such
problems.

> If you're thinking about those Martian greenhouses made from thin
>plastic
> films, you'd better go back and read the fine print. That's after
>an
> assumed many-decades-long terraforming effort has increased the
>density of
> the air many times over its present value. It might be the 22nd
>century
> before we could see greenhouses of that variety. For the
foreseeable
> future, a Martian greenhouse would require just as thick glass as
an orbital
> one.
>

But a Martian greenhouse would be certinly be more producive than a
lunar greenhouse of simlar proportions, since the the lunar gh would
be "off-line" for longer.

For course, they would still would not be as producive as a self-
spining orbital gh (which all habitats have) who biggest problem is
too much sunlight.

O'Neil rotating system concepts are getting a bit old.

We now know that these platforms are not needed at all. No mirrors
need be installed. Sunlight is not needed for human survival. It's
not even needed for agriculture. These are old ideas.. false ideas.

Artificial gravity is needed for those people that plan to return
to, or spend some time on the surface of a gravity-rich body. They
need to build up their bone and muscle mass.. their hearts have to
be able to pump that blood under the force of gravity.

There's nothing wrong with building O'Neil or most any (insert
creator/group) thing, but if the balloon's leaking we might have to
get rid of some unnecessary weight.

What of the cost to repair and to maintain such gargantuous, and
unnecessary, structures?

At least scrap the mirrors.

Please.

In my opinion, the ideal space city would have multiple structures,
some of which would rotate. Not all. Not everything rotating.

Then from that, and on that, scenario we always work to make
improvements.

It's highly unlikely we'll decide to start rotating everything and
installing mirrors.

Large structures should be segmented, or in cells, to reduce the
likelihood of everyone perishing inside that structure in the event
of a disaster.

I would also like to see mobility. The capacity to move the most
essential structures is important I think.

George
(cygo.com)

Hi all!

It's worth remembering that Biosphere:2 was designed to be a self-contained
unit. That it almost succeeded is a testament to the designers and
ecologists behind it. Though I personally think that there wasn't enough
ocean, and true viability comes at larger sizes than they could achieve.

However, that's NOT the right approach towards an orbital settlement. Why
aim to make a self-contained, sealed environment with no net flow of
materials in or out? After all, it's impossible to model some fundamental
Earth processes at the scale of the largest O'Neill colonies (such as the
tectonic subduction of carbonates and recycling of those rocks), so why
bother trying to achieve it?

Surely the whole point of orbital colonies is of real estate, and cheap
access to new materials?

I'd therefore argue that the goal should be a clean environment, an
aesthetically pleasing, shirt-sleeve and spun one, in order to provide a
quality of life that Earth can't match, and which we feel adapted for and
psychologically drawn to. That it might mean ferrying in occasional
atmospheric gases, water, etc., and the disposal of wastes, against the
ethos behind Biosphere:2 doesn't personally bother me one bit.

Regards,

Andy

From: babbler36 [mailto:babbler36@...]

> You did not understand what said.I could have been worded better:
> Mars is ten times better than the moon and space settlement _are_(or
> space habitat or whatever) _better_ so.

Oh, OK. Gotcha.

> Personally, I would to have those giant merriors more than just
> flimsy.

Well, I think the argument is that if the mirrors were as sturdily
reinforced as they would have to be to stand up to (for example) 1-G of
gravity, they would be too expensive to produce by the many tens of square
miles.

> But a Martian greenhouse would be certinly be more producive than a
> lunar greenhouse of simlar proportions, since the the lunar gh would
> be "off-line" for longer.

No, stop and think about it a minute. The duty cycle is the same in both
cases: 50% sun available/50% sun unavailable. There are only 2 differences,
one going against the moon, one going against Mars. In the case of the
moon, the extreme length of the duty cycle may be inconvenient for plants.
(But as I said, we'll have to experiment to find out just how inconvenient.)
In the case of Mars, the 50% of the time that the sun is available, the
solar intensity is only half what it is at the moon. And that's neglecting
the fact that on Mars, dust storms would doubtless bring this down a bit
further still, while the moon will always have clear skies.

Regards,

Mike Combs

From: George Perkins [mailto:george@...]

> O'Neil rotating system concepts are getting a bit old.
>
> We now know that these platforms are not needed at all. No mirrors
> need be installed. Sunlight is not needed for human survival. It's
> not even needed for agriculture. These are old ideas.. false ideas.

You may feel free to experiment with living without sunlight for yourself.
Most of your fellow humans will choose not to. I can think of no situation
where large communities of people voluntarily choose to live in an
environment with no sunlight.

I don't think you can say that we "now know" that we don't need
sunlight-based agriculture to survive until you can point to 10,000-person
communities who are economically obtaining their diet from means other than
sunlight-based agriculture.

You can't declare that the way human civilization has sustained itself for
over 10,000 years is a false idea until you can point to a functional
alternative in routine, large-scale, and economically-viable use.

> In my opinion, the ideal space city would have multiple structures,
> some of which would rotate. Not all. Not everything rotating.

Take a look at any of the old O'Neill designs. There's almost invariable a
non-rotating section.

> Large structures should be segmented, or in cells, to reduce the
> likelihood of everyone perishing inside that structure in the event
> of a disaster.

You have to weigh the issues of quality of living against the risk of a
habitat-wide disaster. The odds of such a disaster are considered extremely
low by those who have done actual calculations rather than relying on
gut-feels (which may derive more from science fiction than anything). One
advantage of large volumes is that even given a rather large hole, blow-down
times are long, meaning a routine repair rather than a sudden emergency.
And as to the quality of life trade-off, what is the longest time that any
human being has voluntarily lived inside a small metal room?

> I would also like to see mobility. The capacity to move the most
> essential structures is important I think.

I can see engines being attached to any of the existing designs.

I personally think the original O'Neill designs still make plenty of sense
for all the same reasons now that they did in the 70's. Provided one's goal
is to create high-quality living space as opposed to simply sustaining life.

Regards,

Mike Combs

Anecdotal to this I understand that one of the challenges
encountered was that the bees died.

They then felt obliged to pollinate by hand.

Unimagineable.

Even if a successful Biosphere was made, we should still have ready
the resources needed in case something gets thrown off balance or
there's a need to expand the size of the Biosphere. It's just too
risky in space. You can't just throw in the towel and march out the
front door.

It's good to be prepared. Anything could happen.

Obviously.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Andy Goddard
> Hi all!
>
> It's worth remembering that Biosphere:2 was designed to be a self-
contained
> unit. That it almost succeeded is a testament to the designers and
> ecologists behind it. Though I personally think that there wasn't
enough
> ocean, and true viability comes at larger sizes than they could
achieve.
>
> However, that's NOT the right approach towards an orbital
settlement. Why
> aim to make a self-contained, sealed environment with no net flow
of
> materials in or out? After all, it's impossible to model some
fundamental
> Earth processes at the scale of the largest O'Neill colonies (such
as the
> tectonic subduction of carbonates and recycling of those rocks),
so why
> bother trying to achieve it?
>
> Surely the whole point of orbital colonies is of real estate, and
cheap
> access to new materials?
>
> I'd therefore argue that the goal should be a clean environment,
an
> aesthetically pleasing, shirt-sleeve and spun one, in order to
provide a
> quality of life that Earth can't match, and which we feel adapted
for and
> psychologically drawn to. That it might mean ferrying in
occasional
> atmospheric gases, water, etc., and the disposal of wastes,
against the

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "George Perkins"
>
> O'Neil rotating system concepts are getting a bit old.

Yeah, the concept of a *wheel* is even older. Maybe we should do
away with that and try the new fangled *square wheels* for a few
thousand years.

Some ideas are so elegant that they're very hard to improve upon. I
contend that O'Neill got the basics right and it doesn't matter how
old his ideas are we're all going to have a difficult task improving
them.

> We now know that these platforms are not needed at all.

We do? I certainly don't. Please inform us of the facts that support
your assertion.

> No mirrors need be installed. Sunlight is not needed for human
> survival. It's not even needed for agriculture. These are old
> ideas.. false ideas.

Sunlight isn't needed? Sunlight is essential for vitamin D
synthesis. Sunlight is essential for pyschological balance. Sunlight
is essential for flora and fauna.

Again show me something to back up this statement of yours.

Argument by bald assertion is worthless. You do yourself, and your
reputation, a disservice by propogating fantasy as fact or argument.
All I ask is that you provide evidence for your claims, and if
evidence is lacking, then at least attempt to make a case for your
position.

TangoMan

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Andy Goddard

> After all, it's impossible to model some fundamental Earth
> processes at the scale of the largest O'Neill colonies (such as
> the tectonic subduction of carbonates and recycling of those
> rocks), so why bother trying to achieve it?

??????????????????????

I don't recall ever coming across any proposal that sought to
replicate plate tectonics within an O'Neill cylinder.

What are you trying to say?

TangoMan

From: George Perkins [mailto:george@...]

> Anecdotal to this I understand that one of the challenges
> encountered was that the bees died.
> They then felt obliged to pollinate by hand.
> Unimagineable.
>
> Even if a successful Biosphere was made, we should still have ready
> the resources needed in case something gets thrown off balance or
> there's a need to expand the size of the Biosphere. It's just too
> risky in space. You can't just throw in the towel and march out the
> front door.
>
> It's good to be prepared. Anything could happen.

Which incidentally I think is a good argument for our first attempt at a
self-sustaining ecosystem beyond the Earth being in HEO rather than on the
surface of Mars. If an unanticipated need suddenly arises for replacement
bees, or some obscure kind of bacteria, an emergency shipment can be sent up
from Earth and arrive in 2-3 days. If the same happens on Mars, the
shipment would take closer to 6 months or more, by which time the entire
ecosystem might have already collapsed.

Regards,

Mike Combs

Mike, I want people to thrive, not simply survive.

"You have to weigh the issues of quality of living against the risk
of a habitat-wide disaster. The odds of such a disaster are
considered extremely low by those who have done actual calculations
rather than relying on gut-feels (which may derive more from science
fiction than anything). One advantage of large volumes is that even
given a rather large hole, blow-down times are long, meaning a
routine repair rather than a sudden emergency. And as to the
quality of life trade-off, what is the longest time that any
human being has voluntarily lived inside a small metal room?"

The O'Niel designs are appealing and aesthetic and I expect like
designs will be built in the future. They can them easily drawing
future tourists and become profitable and I'd like to see one made
in L5.

On the practical side they might play an important part in child
development. I'm concerned about how kids will develop up there.

If we need sunlight we're in a heap of trouble going on interstellar
missions. We should have a thousand mirrors to go with the thousand
points of light out there -lol.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "victoriatangoman"
wrote:
> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "George Perkins"

> wrote:
> >
> > O'Neil rotating system concepts are getting a bit old.
>
> Yeah, the concept of a *wheel* is even older. Maybe we should do
> away with that and try the new fangled *square wheels* for a few
> thousand years.
>
> Some ideas are so elegant that they're very hard to improve upon.
I
> contend that O'Neill got the basics right and it doesn't matter
how
> old his ideas are we're all going to have a difficult task
improving
> them.
>
> > We now know that these platforms are not needed at all.
>
> We do? I certainly don't. Please inform us of the facts that
support
> your assertion.
>
> > No mirrors need be installed. Sunlight is not needed for
human
> > survival. It's not even needed for agriculture. These are
old
> > ideas.. false ideas.
>
> Sunlight isn't needed? Sunlight is essential for vitamin D
> synthesis. Sunlight is essential for pyschological balance.
Sunlight
> is essential for flora and fauna.
>
> Again show me something to back up this statement of yours.
>
> Argument by bald assertion is worthless. You do yourself, and your
> reputation, a disservice by propogating fantasy as fact or
argument.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "George Perkins"
>
> If we need sunlight we're in a heap of trouble going on
interstellar
> missions. We should have a thousand mirrors to go with the
thousand
> points of light out there -lol.

I don't quite see the humor in your statement. What is there to LOL
about?

Again you're relying on fantasy to support your position. Here's
some news - we *don't know* that interstellar missions are
possible. ISTM that relying on a doubtful hypothetical scenario is
not a strong tactic to convince others of the merit of your postion.

TangoMan

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "George Perkins"
>
> O'Neil rotating system concepts are getting a bit old.
>
> We now know that these platforms are not needed at all. No mirrors
> need be installed. Sunlight is not needed for human survival.
It's
> not even needed for agriculture. These are old ideas.. false ideas.

What! Have every hear of Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD)! And
plants need sunlight grow! Artificial lighting is too expensive and
too large to work, lest with out technology. So we're going to have
keep our sunlight/mirrors for now.

> Artificial gravity is needed for those people that plan to return
> to, or spend some time on the surface of a gravity-rich body. They
> need to build up their bone and muscle mass.. their hearts have to
> be able to pump that blood under the force of gravity.

We have no clue on what mirco-gravity would do to devloping animals
and people. All we know is very well fit and trained astronauts can
live for months without large amounts of gravity, and return without
ill effects. But we don't if a person can grow up without such large
amounts can grow without such and causing great harm to people.

> There's nothing wrong with building O'Neil or most any (insert
> creator/group) thing, but if the balloon's leaking we might have to
> get rid of some unnecessary weight.
>
> What of the cost to repair and to maintain such gargantuous, and
> unnecessary, structures?

The space colonist will. Do you got to do. If they are featsable,
Dexler's nano-assembers will help. Besides, with popluations in
millions (for O'Neill Island Three, at lest), there will be enugh
people to recrut to do the job.

> At least scrap the mirrors.
>
> Please.

I think that there is designs of colony w/o the mirrors. Like the
Grey Vivarium: Sunlight is refracted through translucent
optical "pipes" into a central radiant core to illuminate the inner
hull. See http://www.dyarstraights.com/msgundam/vivarium.html

> In my opinion, the ideal space city would have multiple structures,
> some of which would rotate. Not all. Not everything rotating.

The centres of the habitats don't rotate.

> Then from that, and on that, scenario we always work to make
> improvements.
>
> It's highly unlikely we'll decide to start rotating everything and
> installing mirrors.
>
> Large structures should be segmented, or in cells, to reduce the
> likelihood of everyone perishing inside that structure in the event
> of a disaster.
>
> I would also like to see mobility. The capacity to move the most
> essential structures is important I think.

We could just make the cylinders into tori.