Water Table in a Habitat

>
> Also, as this is a closed
> systems, you could also use remote sensors to
> determine the health of the fields similar to
> something of a landsat's thermatic mapper
> functionality and tie this into the water management
> system.
>
> Oh, OK. Yeah, I could imagine some thermatic mapping going on much
more
> easily than I could imagine a sensor under every tree, bush, or
shrub in
> several square miles of countryside.
>
> I am not optimistic that a true closed system could
> ever retain all the water. Some water will be lost
> eventually. How will a closed system collect water
> excreted from sweat glands? Will we all be forced to
> wear stilsuits (ala dune)? Will we drain the water
> from dead people?
>
> Where would the water go? Unless the habitat shell is a permeable
membrane
> (which it shouldn't be) the water will still be inside the habitat,
> regardless of its location.
>
> It will be necessary to cool habitats with heat radiators, and these
> radiators will inevitably reclaim huge amounts of condensed water.
This
> will be the water evaporated off the surfaces of ponds and streams,
given
> off by plants via transpiration, and evaporated sweat (but that
will be a
> very small percentage of the total). I doubt that any truly
significant
> amounts of water would wind up "locked away" from the ecology in
the form of
> dead bodies. But a person who had concerns about this might opt
for a
> biodegradable casket, or better yet, cremation.
>
> When people leave the habitat, must
> they leave behind all water?
>
> People will be entering and leaving the habitat all of the time.
Those
> entering will bring a certain amount of water with them that they
will leave
> behind. On the other hand, they'll take some other water with them
when
> they leave. It'll come pretty close to balancing out.
>
> Now I know hydrogen and oxygen exist throughout the
> universe, (especially when you get out towards the
> kuiper belt area) but I am not confident in the early
> days of an o'niel habitat (those being the ones in the
> inner solar system) that we will be able to take
> advantage of those resources or be able to survive in
> a true closed loop environment system.
>
> You may not be aware that SSI has funded a bit of CLLSS work. They
seem to
> consider the water cycle to be a piece of cake compared to the
nitrogen
> cycle.
>
> Heck, we still haven't been able to successfully run a
> closed-loop biosphere here on earth. much less in
> space!
>
> Don't get too discouraged by the failings of Biosphere II.
Humanity's first
> few attempts at heavier-than-air flight were not successful either,
and
> Biosphere II was the first significant, large-scale attempt.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike Combs

For the most part, the habitats must be closed systems with respect
to air and water, but with respect to people and commerce, they must
be open systems. I would suspect that there would be a continual
loss of volatiles over the life of the habitat. Air (and water) can
escape through airlocks leaks, accidental discharges and so-on.
But, there will be opportunities for pioneering businessmen to go out
to the belt and bring back frozen volatiles.

Keep in Mind the Biosphere was an attempt at a truly closed system,
and they were very close to succeeding at that. They could have used
some "less natural" techniques to reduce CO2 build-up, but they
wanted to use techniques that were "sustainable" and "organic". The
compost pile alone probably produced as much CO2 as two people.
Instead I would have recommended a box of miracle grow.