Keeping your habitat on the track

Greetings from downunder Tom,
(of course it's only downunder from the perspective of those in the
North ;-))

"Tom Tucker (Olympia)" wrote:

> Darren, and all interested,
>
> We appear to have a semantic misunderstanding. When I said that 100%
> recycling is a good goal, I did not mean to say that we must achieve
> 100% at
> all costs, etc. Using a fusion torch to vaporize non-recyclable
> garbage
> such a chlorinated hydrocarbons, is easy to say, but the practicality
> of
> making new products out of a mixture of gas containing hydrogen, and
> chlorine in a tank also half filled with soot, is not nearly a easy as
>
> melting plastics such as chopped-up milk jugs and molding them into
> another
> plastic product.
>
> Your fear of restricting innovation could just as easily have been
> said by a
> toy manufacturer who desires to use toxic or the cheapest materials
> rather
> than durable and recyclable materials.
>
> Lets get specific, shall we. What products from our economy do you
> think
> would be on a colony that can not or should not be recycled?
>
> Sure we will have visitors, cargo, refueling, waste disposal, etc.
> This is a
> given.
>
> What trash will have to be disposed of and not recycled?
>
> I contend that there is no good reason why all products can no be
> recycled
> except for perhaps medical drugs for which there are no substitutes
> and
> which nature can not break-down. In this case, perhaps ozone in the
> water
> may do the trick.
>
> In summary, setting a goal of 100% is a bit like trying to do you very
> best
> or of not breaking one of the ten commandments between now and next
> confession. It is a target, not an absolute. OK?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tom
>

You may be right, perhaps we are talking about different things or at
lest taking you too literally. Let me try to state my option.

We have to consider what we mean when talking about a habitat, first
there is the small (relatively) orbiting workshop/factory that may have
a number of long term, by that I mean as long as several years,
residents acting as a workforce. I hesitate to call this a habitat,
its more like a station but given that such a structure would most
probably only happen where the cost to orbit is lower than today but
still too high to allow the building of a large habitat of the type
envisioned by most members of this forum, the cost of getting mass to it
would make a stringent recycling/conservation program very attractive.
Such a station would be used to only for high value work, this could be
military, scientific, industrial or perhaps just national ego. In this
scenario the population would be disciplined and motivated to follow
whatever conservation rules are put in place by whoever is running the
place. It is very likely that if it was economically sound then total
recycling (or as close as possible) would be followed but if the cost of
the equipment either in shipping or running was too high then I expect
they would just throw the stuff overboard and resupply as needed, of
course they may send the trash back to Earth instead of jettisoning it,
not because of concern for what happens to it but to keep it from
upsetting any outside projects.

Now if we scale up to the kind of structure that could hold a large
population that intend to make it home with shopkeepers, teachers,
babies, churches, gardeners, doctors and all the other occupations you
need in a living city, then we also need a way to orbit that is very
cheap and then we need a way build and work with the huge mass involved
in such an object. With transport so cheap and mass sitting around just
waiting for you tap, basic economics is going to play a huge part in how
the habitat works. Money doesnt just make the world go round it also
works with habitats, people need a special reason to do something in an
expensive way rather than a cheap way, be it religion, ideology,
security, ego or because they are forced to. Unless it is cheaper to
recycle something than to throw it away and get new ones, people wont
do it. Here on Earth we can say that you need to include the cost to
the environment in any cost analysis but in space that becomes
irrelevant, after all, what environment? With some of the processes
going on in a habitat recycling becomes the best way to go, the movement
of organic material is one example and in others the elements in the
trash may have an intrinsic value that makes a recycling process the
most economical or have other significant factors involved. But over
all it comes down to money and convenience and in rare cases some other
special factor. Going back a few posts somebody pointed out that mass,
any mass would be important to the inhabitant of a habitat because of
the cost of lifting it to orbit, this is totally wrong, if the cost was
that high then this kind of large habitat would not be there for it to
be an issue.

A final point, if you were using a fusion torch (not sure what that is
but I get the idea) or a very concentrated beam of sunlight or any other
kind of energy source to rip your trash into a plasma then what you will
have is not a container of mixed gas and soot. This was raised sometime
ago and I have read a little about since and it seems that you can use
magnetic fields to sort out the charged ions from the plasma and then
store your output as separate elements. Why dont we do that now with
our garbage? Simple, the cost of building the equipment, the cost of
the energy and I dont think anybody has a fully working model yet but
really this is just engineering and in space the main cost, the energy,
should be very cheap. Mind you, I really dont think that many things
would need this kind of work and in general what they will have in a
large habitat is limited recycling and a lot of new material entering
the system with about the same amount going out. I just hope that most
of what goes out is in the form of cargo.

All of this Tom is not to say that I disagree with the idea of
recycling, I just know how hard it is to get people to do the things
that they should do as opposed to what they want to do.

And thank you for an interesting discussion, some of the things I've
seen in this forum have made me scratch my head and think, always worth
doing.

Darren Brown

(of course it's only downunder from the perspective of those in theNorth ;-))

"Tom Tucker (Olympia)" wrote:
Darren, and all interested,
We appear to have a semantic misunderstanding. When I saidthat 100%
recycling is a good goal, I did not mean to say that we must achieve100% at
all costs, etc. Using a fusion torch to vaporize non-recyclablegarbage
such a chlorinated hydrocarbons, is easy to say, but the practicalityof
making new products out of a mixture of gas containing hydrogen,and
chlorine in a tank also half filled with soot, is not nearly aeasy as
melting plastics such as chopped-up milk jugs and molding theminto another
plastic product.
Your fear of restricting innovation could just as easily have beensaid by a
toy manufacturer who desires to use toxic or the cheapest materialsrather
than durable and recyclable materials.
Lets get specific, shall we. What products from our economy do youthink
would be on a colony that can not or should not be recycled?
Sure we will have visitors, cargo, refueling, waste disposal, etc.This is a
given.
What trash will have to be disposed of and not recycled?
I contend that there is no good reason why all products can no berecycled
except for perhaps medical drugs for which there are no substitutesand
which nature can not break-down. In this case, perhaps ozonein the water
may do the trick.
In summary, setting a goal of 100% is a bit like trying to do youvery best
or of not breaking one of the ten commandments between now andnext
confession. It is a target, not an absolute. OK?
Cheers,
Tom

You may be right, perhaps we are talking about different things or at lesttaking you too literally. Let me try to state my option.
We have to consider what we mean when talking about a habitat, firstthere is the small (relatively) orbiting workshop/factory that may havea number of long term, by that I mean as long as several years, residentsacting as a workforce. I hesitate to call this a habitat, its morelike a station but given that such a structure would most probably onlyhappen where the cost to orbit is lower than today but still too high toallow the building of a large habitat of the type envisioned by most membersof this forum, the cost of getting mass to it would make a stringent recycling/conservationprogram very attractive. Such a station would be used to only forhigh value work, this could be military, scientific, industrial or perhapsjust national ego. In this scenario the population would be disciplinedand motivated to follow whatever conservation rules are put in place bywhoever is running the place. It is very likely that if it was economicallysound then total recycling (or as close as possible) would be followedbut if the cost of the equipment either in shipping or running was toohigh then I expect they would just throw the stuff overboard and resupplyas needed, of course they may send the trash back to Earth instead of jettisoningit, not because of concern for what happens to it but to keep it from upsettingany outside projects.
Now if we scale up to the kind of structure that could hold a largepopulation that intend to make it home with shopkeepers, teachers, babies,churches, gardeners, doctors and all the other occupations you need ina living city, then we also need a way to orbit that is very cheap andthen we need a way build and work with the huge mass involved in such anobject. With transport so cheap and mass sitting around just waitingfor you tap, basic economics is going to play a huge part in how the habitatworks. Money doesnt just make the world go round it also works withhabitats, people need a special reason to do something in an expensiveway rather than a cheap way, be it religion, ideology, security, ego orbecause they are forced to. Unless it is cheaper to recycle somethingthan to throw it away and get new ones, people wont do it. Hereon Earth we can say that you need to include the cost to the environmentin any cost analysis but in space that becomes irrelevant, after all, whatenvironment? With some of the processes going on in a habitat recyclingbecomes the best way to go, the movement of organic material is one exampleand in others the elements in the trash may have an intrinsic value thatmakes a recycling process the most economical or have other significantfactors involved. But over all it comes down to money and convenienceand in rare cases some other special factor. Going back a few postssomebody pointed out that mass, any mass would be important to the inhabitantof a habitat because of the cost of lifting it to orbit, this is totallywrong, if the cost was that high then this kind of large habitat wouldnot be there for it to be an issue.
A final point, if you were using a fusion torch (not sure what thatis but I get the idea) or a very concentrated beam of sunlight or any otherkind of energy source to rip your trash into a plasma then what you willhave is not a container of mixed gas and soot. This was raised sometimeago and I have read a little about since and it seems that you can usemagnetic fields to sort out the charged ions from the plasma and then storeyour output as separate elements. Why dont we do that now with ourgarbage? Simple, the cost of building the equipment, the cost ofthe energy and I dont think anybody has a fully working model yet butreally this is just engineering and in space the main cost, the energy,should be very cheap. Mind you, I really dont think that many thingswould need this kind of work and in general what they will have in a largehabitat is limited recycling and a lot of new material entering the systemwith about the same amount going out. I just hope that most of whatgoes out is in the form of cargo.
All of this Tom is not to say that I disagree with the idea of recycling,I just know how hard it is to get people to do the things that they shoulddo as opposed to what they want to do.
And thank you for an interesting discussion, some of the things I'veseen in this forum have made me scratch my head and think, always worthdoing.

Darren Brown