Work Breakdown Structufor SCSC

--- In ssi_list@... "Combs, Mike"
>
> Taking a lunar base as an example (although this somewhat applies
to
> an orbital settlement as well): such a facility would be
> underground, with at least two meters of rock between the habitat
> and the surface. Energy collected on the surface (huge solar
> panels? some kind of Stirling engine? doesn't matter) would be
> converted to electricity and then piped into the facility, where
it
> would again be converted to light (probably fluorescent) to grow
the
> plants. There wouldn't be any windows, or if any surely not on
the
> scale of Biosphere 2.
>
> Such a setup might be OK for a partially-closed LSS for a base
with a few
> tens of people, but probably not for permanent human settlements
on the
> scale O'Neill envisioned. I'd agree with O'Neill that electrical
efficiency
> losses at that scale would leave using natural sunlight for
agriculture as
> the only practical alternative. Which will mean large windows,
even if they
> are behind radiation shields.

Just how big would these windows have to be? How much solar energy
would be necessary to sustain the population? We can guess, but
unless the energy use is precisely measured (impossible in Biosphere
2) we are only waving our hands around.

Also, I very much doubt that the first, or second, or hundredth
space settlement would be an Island 3 or even an Island 1. They
will start small and grow incrementally (this would definitely be
the case for a lunar base; for orbital settlements, don't hold your
breath for a Stanford Torus or an Island 1 until several smaller
versions, each larger than the last, have been built). So we don't
get to the large-window requirements until we know precisely how
much energy is required (don't want to make the windows too big or
everyone fries; too small and they freeze).

Ed