Space Colonization Studies Center

> Yep, even get Paul all fired up on keeping it sustainable and off
> the grid as much as possible.

While I think that Biosphere II is probably one of the neatest technical
and exploratory projects ever done, I have a couple issues with it from
an SSI standpoint:

1. Managing Biosphere II might best be done by a group like the Mars
Society (since it fits their notion of space colonization, and they have
an ongoing related projects already).
http://www.marssociety.org/
http://www.marssociety.org/mdrs/index.asp
http://www.marssociety.org/arctic/index.asp

2. There is/was no focus in the project on the notion of
self-replication or in-situ resource us for manufacturing, IMHO the key
problem for space settlement -- living off the land.

As far as science, the Biosphere II project has proven:
A. concrete consumes oxygen for a couple years as it sets, and
B. (partial example confirmation) that complexity of ecosystems is
mostly a function of scale (size or network extent, etc.) rather than
particular configuration, which is as predicted by island biogeography.
http://www.sciencebooknet.com/The_Theory_of_Island_Biogeography_0691088365.html

I joined a PhD program in Ecology and Evolution to study related issues
for space settlement and sustainable living on Earth -- though only got
a masters out of it, since, as can be predicted, professors thought at
that time that sort of research or related simulation was inappropriate
for PhD work -- but I am glad for all I learned. Same problem with doing
OR & Statistics earlier, trying Industrial Engineering before that, and
Computer Science and Psychology before that. Profs want mainly cannon
fodder for their businesses and labs. That was before I understood the
pyramid scheme nature of academia. :-).
http://www.house.gov/science/goodstein_04-01.htm
Probably one reason why Gerry O'Neill had better luck with unusual ideas
in the 1950s-1970s. While I think what Columbia University did (or
didn't do) with Biosphere II is unspeakable, it is to be expected if you
think about academia today in practice as opposed to in theory. Still,
there are some few academic projects that are ongoing in these area
often funded by NASA. Had I been smarter and more energetic and more
willing and able to move around the country, I would have tried to work
with one of those groups.

Still, Biosphere II would probably be a better "science" experiment if
the ecosystems used were simpler (like just one biome). For my opinion,
their simpler test ecosystem (one person) is in some ways more
interesting -- complete waste recycling in a small space. It's more like
the NASA Stennis work.

Now if Bass wanted to focus on how to replicate Biosphere II's from
local resources using tools fitting inside a Biosphere, I'd be more
interested in it. In general, anybody with money and energy can build
and maintain a garden of arbitrary complexity (which is what Biosphere
II was)-- what is new would be replicating it -- as a "self-replicating
garden" [a title of a paper I wrote way back on the topic...].

I met some Biosphereians (or support staff) when they made a
presentation at Princeton about fifteen years ago -- one said they put
acres of stainless steel under the whole thing to make it air tight -- I
suggested they could have tried fused the sand with lots of heat (like
SSI's support of Nader Khalili's work).

--Paul Fernhout