I am amazed that the same group of people interested in closed life support
space habitat design issues would be so happy to join in attacking the
Biosphere 2 project based on the most ridiculous rumors.

Do you really think these space habitat designs of yours will ever get
started? In 20 years, do you want to be at *exactly* the same place you are
right now? Then you might ask yourself why you are sharing in the attacks
on one of the few projects that tried to address some of these issues.

And in a few years, if you started a project that contributed to building a
space colony, how will you feel when space colony supporters start trashing
your efforts? Or maybe I misunderstood the attraction of these projects -
maybe they are intended to remain idle dreams.

The main failure I see for Biosphere 2 was their public relations. Several
basic concepts about the project were not adequately communicated.

- It was privately funded research trying to develop proprietary life
support technologies - NASA+others bashed them for not making their
research public and somehow convinced the public that *not* taking public
money was a bad thing! (When I had a student study putting a biosphere on
the Moon, they were very good about sending me hundreds of pages of design
details. They had lots of info, but you don't run a business by publishing
proprietary information.)

- Biosphere 2 was built to test the idea of making a system large enough
(size, species, complexity) to see if it could balance itself, as other
ecosystems do. This was an approach that was not in vogue among traditional
life support engineers. NASA promotes the 'one species at a time, in a tin
can' approach. A few years ago, NASA was up to 3 species, while Biosphere 2
was testing one with thousands. And yes, Bio2 collected data for large
spreadsheets to monitor the species, with plant counts, etc. When you hear
the wild attacks, you might consider the source - they include the same
people who visited Biosphere 2, and stole their insect lab design, then
reported to NASA management of their new progress..

- Biosphere 2 was criticized for opening the airlock to get medical
attention for one of the crew after a severe finger cut. But the closed
system was being tested for input/outputs - not with the idea you would
lock the door and ignore crew safety. I can only imagine the reaction if
the crew had stayed inside and let the injury get more serious. They did
try to tough it out with low amounts of food, and serious changes in oxygen
level. (Contrast this to all the happy press over Mars Society 'tests' in
Canada, when nobody asks them what exactly they are testing. 'Look! We can
camp out!')

- With big systems (think of a particle accelerator, in honor of Gerry),
you learn a lot just trying to get it running. You don't build a second
accelerator as a 'control' - you build a system and do science by
perturbing the system. There were lots of unexpected problems - which are
just the kinds of things that teach you lessons. (One lesson - watch out
for long term interactions between building materials - like concrete, and
your atmosphere.) Today the system is being used to test high CO2 effects
on plants.

Biosphere 2 has many lessons that will be important for space colony
design. But what chance does any new space colony project have after how
they were treated? Are you all happy to wait for NASA to build you a space
colony? (I wonder, is NASA up to 4 species yet? At this rate, in 200 years..)

- Eric

________ InternationalSpace.com _________
PO Box 60606 Washington DC 20039-0606 USA

> I am amazed that the same group of people interested in closed life support
> space habitat design issues would be so happy to join in attacking the
> Biosphere 2 project based on the most ridiculous rumors.

> Biosphere 2 has many lessons that will be important for space colony
> design. But what chance does any new space colony project have after how
> they were treated? Are you all happy to wait for NASA to build you a space
> colony? (I wonder, is NASA up to 4 species yet? At this rate, in 200 years..)

Now, now. I only read one message on this entire thread which I
considered to be an "attack" on Biosphere 2. (And one response requesting
more information on said attack.)

Was Biosphere 2 a fairly "squishy" scientific study? Yes. You would have
to be to conduct a study as enormous as Biosphere 2.

Was it an excellent first step towards teaching us how to create and
maintain sealed habitats? Absolutely. We got a ton of data out of the
experiment.

Can we take what we've learned from Biosphere 2 to build an even better
sealed habitat? Sure!

Is NASA helping or hindering advancement in space technology as a
whole? Wellllll, this is a religious argument I don't know that we really
want to get into on this list.

Should NASA's comments on non-NASA projects be taken with a grain of
salt? Absolutely.

Cheers,
--Justin

Justin,

You are right. I was projecting some frustration from hearing other attacks
on Biosphere 2 this past week. There was only one stupid message, and a
couple joking reactions. I shouldn't expect everyone to jump in with a
defense of that project when they hear these dumb remarks. (Hookers! What
an idea! It's not like these people were Congressmen! :-)

As for NASA's role in suppressing space activities, I agree we don't need a
thread on that now. But the whole issue goes back to why SSI was created,
so people should be aware of it.

One of my favorite stories is from John Lewis about AMROC (see page 8 of
Space Manufacturing 7, 1989). Besides AMROC, I suggest learning about more
of the alphabet soup of companies that NASA has tried hard to stop (ISF,
the other SSI, ETCorp, LunaCorp, ITA, MirCorp, Whitaker, Beal, SpaceDev,
even SpaceHab and USA, along with lots of the RLV companies, etc.). NASA
plays hardball, and acts illegally. A US Chamber of Commerce survey found
NASA was considered the number one problem (more than technology, or
investment) by space businesses. Even a NASA-funded KPMG study described
NASA as the major block to commercial space development. (That was brave of
them.) It took me 15 years, but I have come to see NASA's efforts as the
reason we don't have space activities one the scale described by the movie
"2001".

But thank God we still have those free-enterprise Russians! :-)
- Eric

________ InternationalSpace.com _________
PO Box 60606 Washington DC 20039-0606 USA

> Justin,

> But thank God we still have those free-enterprise Russians! :-)

Yes ;-)

Twenty TIMES cheaper rockets! One man was able to pay for a whole
rocket to take him to a space station; all on his own! The rocket
cost about $4 million by all accounts; don't know what Tito paid;
although $12-20 million is rumored.

> - Eric

civilization?"

the part about ''hookers''was meant as humor, next time I'll use a :-) so as
not to confuse ,befuddle,or offend anyone! The O2 shortage was due
mainly to the fact that they had not accounted for the biomass of the
nanoscopic organisms mostly of the kingdom Archea .

> Justin,
>
> You are right. I was projecting some frustration from hearing other
attacks
> on Biosphere 2 this past week. There was only one stupid message, and a
> couple joking reactions. I shouldn't expect everyone to jump in with a
> defense of that project when they hear these dumb remarks. (Hookers! What
> an idea! It's not like these people were Congressmen! :-)
>
> As for NASA's role in suppressing space activities, I agree we don't need
a
> thread on that now. But the whole issue goes back to why SSI was created,
> so people should be aware of it.
>
> One of my favorite stories is from John Lewis about AMROC (see page 8 of
> Space Manufacturing 7, 1989). Besides AMROC, I suggest learning about more
> of the alphabet soup of companies that NASA has tried hard to stop (ISF,
> the other SSI, ETCorp, LunaCorp, ITA, MirCorp, Whitaker, Beal, SpaceDev,
> even SpaceHab and USA, along with lots of the RLV companies, etc.). NASA
> plays hardball, and acts illegally. A US Chamber of Commerce survey found
> NASA was considered the number one problem (more than technology, or
> investment) by space businesses. Even a NASA-funded KPMG study described
> NASA as the major block to commercial space development. (That was brave
of

>

>! The O2 shortage was due
> mainly to the fact that they had not accounted for the biomass of
the
> nanoscopic organisms mostly of the kingdom Archea .

I was under the impression that the O2 loss was slow oxidation with
the concrete used to make the waterfall.
Does there happen to be a Biosphere 2 FAQ handy?

king_rodent (putting the eek in geek)

>
> >! The O2 shortage was due
> > mainly to the fact that they had not accounted for the biomass of
> the
> > nanoscopic organisms mostly of the kingdom Archea .
>
> I was under the impression that the O2 loss was slow oxidation with
> the concrete used to make the waterfall.
> Does there happen to be a Biosphere 2 FAQ handy?
>

According to Taber McAllum (a bionaut) it was the conrete, nothing to do
with any organisms.

> gee ,oxidizing concrete ,not invisible critters , .... is that
not an even
> grosser oversight to admit to, and can we sue the engineers for
negligence
> ,and fouling up an otherwise sound experiment ! ya know that
concrete
> stuff is newfangled cutting edge type material so were still werken
out the
> bugs.!o.k.

>

As silly as it sounds, it was a valid oversite. I mean, you can't
anticipate every chemical interaction in an enclosed environment.
What would have lead anyone to even think about concrete being an O2
obsorber? Although technically, IIRC, it was a CO2 obsorber. I recall
something about calicum carbonate. Concrete is used so commonly in
open air, noone thought what it's chemical reactions would be. You
should see NASA's material outgassing tests.
If you think about it, it may have been B2's most important
discovery in the context of building O'Neil Cylinders. Just think of
what would have happened after Island 1 was built and you found out
that the sidewalks where stealing your O2 :)
On a side note, space habitats will probably not ever be completely
enclosed environments. Organic Life Support Systems are there to just
reduce resupply. You'll never get that reduction down to zero. Close,
but not zero. To keep B2 an enclosed environ, just include bottles of
extra O2. As long as their inside when you seal, it's technically
still and enclosed system. Supplimented, but enclosed.

king_rodent (putting the eek in geek)
"recycle everything, the only thing you
should throw away is propellant"

One of the great advantages of being located near an asteroid or near some
other source of extraterrestrial materials ("near" meaning small amounts of
required delta-V to reach) is that habitats do not need to be completely
closed. Water, oxygen, and other compounds should be readily available in
a variety of NEOs, and these can offset any system losses. If the
sidewalk happens to absorb some O2, then it will be possible to make more
O2.

Ron Menich

king_rodent@...
12:09 AM
Please
respond to
ssi_list

...
On a side note, space habitats will probably not ever be completely
enclosed environments. Organic Life Support Systems are there to just
reduce resupply. You'll never get that reduction down to zero. Close,
but not zero. To keep B2 an enclosed environ, just include bottles of
extra O2. As long as their inside when you seal, it's technically
still and enclosed system. Supplimented, but enclosed.

king_rodent (putting the eek in geek)
"recycle everything, the only thing you
should throw away is propellant"

>

> If the sidewalk happens to absorb some O2,

>

Tee Hee... I've coined a phrase :)

(sorry to be a bit chatty but I'm giddy over getting DSL at the house)

king_rodent (putting the eek in geek)
"recycle everything, the only thing you should
throw away is propellant"