Space Colonization Studies Center

> [lots of good questions about complexity..]
> Rather than building a special-purpose structure in the middle of
> the desert, could the experiment be performed in another way using
> an existing structure close to a major city? Does it make sense to
> build a huge glass and steel structure in the middle of nowhere? or
> to seal off a windowless Quonset hut, perhaps by inflating a plastic
> liner on the inside, building a CELSS inside, then monitoring the
> energy usage, getting power right off the grid?

Now that's an idea! But it kind of leaves Biosphere II behind.

I've found that there are at least three components to successful
[space] projects: idea, money, and execution. Unfortunately, the three
rarely come together. In the case of Biosphere II, the initial idea
(from an SSI perspective) is somewhat flawed -- focusing more on
gardening as opposed to replication from local resources (as much as I
love gardening and related education!). Also, as you point out, the
design is not applicable to lunar habitats, or likely by extension space
habitats. What you point out here is that from an educational or tourism
perspective, Biosphere II is also flawed because of location as well. I
like your idea of something underground (or opaque inflated) with energy
and other inputs monitored -- still, I'd say studying the replication of
it must be essential too.

Perhaps Bass needs to accept he is pursuing a great concept (Space
habitats) but the idea wasn't quite fully thought out. [Another reason I
had problems with Biosphere II and didn't pursue working there was their
notion everything would be proprietary with money made off of selling
the technology.] In any case, tens of millions spent directly on a free
technology database related to space settlement by developing
simulations, with Biosphere II as a concrete (pun intended) example
which formed the basis for some of the research (as an arbitrary
starting point to ask how can we make everything that went into it)
could accomplish a lot for humanity. Then the technology could be used
to replicate example habitats near major population centers for
educational visits and tours. Something like this was what I wanted to
do 15 years ago. Still, it might be hard to justify the Biospere II
upkeep if it was not designed to be energy effieicnet and low
maintenance (potentially making it as obsolete in that sense as most
other US living structures. :-)

More on David Goodstein and science literacy issues in the US:
https://list.terc.edu/pipermail/impact/2001-September/000587.html
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid/08/23/1323238&mode=nested&threshold=2
A deeper problem is addressing this technology and science illiteracy
issue Goodstein raises, and perhaps such an aproach could be one way to
do it.

I am sometimes too harsh on PhDs and academia -- I should add to my
previous post that some good science does come out of academia despite
the system, that 5-10% of people who get PhDs aren't completely ruined
by the process and so still remain decent human beings trying to do
something worthwhile, etc. I'd even say the same of business and
non-profits. :-) In my case, I am a bit bitter at academia because I
stated what I wanted to do in my application each time (self-replicating
technology related to space habitats and sustainable development) and
was accepted only to see that stated purpose ignored when actually
developing a plan of studies or research (and feeling a bit betrayed or
perhaps used because of having valueable at the time computer etc.
skills). Still, a better choice of less convenient grad schools might
have made a difference (or not. :-). Nonetheless, had I understood the
pyramid scheme of academia at the time as what is applying the
fundamental pressure to make academia problematical (TangoMan pointed
indirectly to the post-autistic economics network
http://www.paecon.net/ which is perhaps the best example detailing how
much of a mainstream academic department has become irrelevant while at
the same time having a stranglehold on daily life in the US), I probably
would not have touched it at all and wasted some much time, life, and
energy on trying to work within it. Still, I'm glad for what I learned.
So, anyway, I'm not surprised Bass got raked over for similar reasons.
Still, perhaps the right acadmeic match might have gotten him (or me)
further -- since academia is kind of like a big city: walk down the
wrong academic alley carrying a fat wallet of skills and you are likely
to get mugged. Nice bunch of links here for potentially interested
groups to work with:
http://home.marssociety.org/tech/life_support/htm/email/digest11.htm
Personally, If I were Bass and wanted to make a go of Biosphere II, I'd
be talking to people like John Todd at Ocean Arks:
http://www.oceanarks.org/education/
I think though the idea of making Biosphere II self-supporting as is may
never happen -- it's kind of the same with any research prototype, learn
something from it and move on. Still, I think Biosphere II should be
preserved as a historic land mark (but then I thought the same of Mir).

--Paul Fernhout