Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

History of Biosphere 2

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 91 posts

Re: History of Biosphere 2

#41

Post by Symmetry »

maxxxxx wrote: post #17
pram wrote: post #14

I took a tour of Biosphere 2 when I was young. I remember the guide talking about two specific problems they didn't anticipate that dramatically altered the outcome of the experiment: The 'domes' are supported by a metal lattice framework. That structure actually blocked too much sun and created extra shade which affected the plant growth. The concrete used in the construction was sucking up carbon dioxide and changi…

This just shows that we have to do a lot of tedious testing before there is a chance to go to Mars. Even pretty innocent looking things can cause huge problems that can’t be anticipated beforehand

The particular atmospheric problem here would have been pretty easy to solve on Mars since settlers would be allowed to exchange gasses with the atmosphere. But that wouldn't work on a space station. Come to think of it, I wonder if Space Lab, Mir, and the ISS have had their share of unexpected gas mixture related close calls.

Re: History of Biosphere 2

#42

Post by JoeAltmaier »

maxxxxx wrote: post #30
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heck how about a colony on top of Mt Everest? Its actually more congenial there, than on Mars. And a hell of a lot closer.

An autonomous station in Antarctica or maybe the Atacama desert would probably be pretty realistic.

Not as good as Everest - there's still breathable air in the desert. And its warmer in those places.

Re: History of Biosphere 2

#43

Post by dpatrick86 »

Interestingly, the legacy of Biosphere 2 includes the recently emerging fasting and fasting-mimicking science demonstrating some interesting healthspan promoting properties. Dr. Roy Walford of Biosphere 2 helped kick off the caloric restriction field thanks to his experiences.

Valter Longo explains that his tenure in Walford's lab as one of the preludes to some of his great work demonstrating that some of the benefits of CR are achievable by using discrete periods of fasting as opposed to long-term restriction, which has obvious challenges of practicality and undesirable effects like emaciation just to name a few.

He talks about Dr. Walford's time in biosphere 2 and how it impacted both Walford's work and, ultimately, his own.

Starts around here around 00:01:45... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6PyyatqJSE&t=00h01m43s

Re: History of Biosphere 2

#44

Post by jws »

nobody_nowhere wrote: post #4

I toured the facility around 2005-6 (iirc). Looks like you still can. It had a futuristic and lightly post-apocalyptic vibe. The jungle plants were growing out of control, pressing up against the glass panes of one of the habitats. Ants streamed in and out from the desert outside through a crack in a glass panel. If you check it out ( http://biosphere2.org/visit/tour-schedule-hours ), you can have a full post-apocaly…

And while you are enjoying a buffet of extinction level mass homicide, I always recommend a stop at Rooster Cogburn’s Ostrich Ranch between Tucson and Phoenix. Check the internet, they aren’t open every day. But you can spend an hour feeding tiny livestock, giant nightmare birds, and end up covered in lorikeets. (Hint: the fallow deer have gross saliva. Feed them before the Sicilian donkeys. The donkeys will clean you up.)

Re: History of Biosphere 2

#45

Post by MayeulC »

nullwiz wrote: post #10

I cant read because of the paywall. Sometimes inspecting and removing works, but not now.

I typically block javascript on that site, as it forbids browsing in private mode. I am not against ads, but I dislike trackers.

Re: History of Biosphere 2

#46

Post by NelsonMinar »

I spent a week at the Biosphere during the transition, after the old crew had been fired and they were trying to figure out how to salvage something useful out of the project. It was a big a mess as every article written about it, including this one, said. One fact that stuck with me was all the sensor data was useless because no one had calibrated any of the sensors on installation. The other was that everyone universally agreed banana wine was disgusting.

The sensors were a dumb mistake. But some of the other mistakes, like trying to get the gas balances right. Those seem like useful learning lessons. Ed Bass sure didn't get his money's worth out of the project and I'm not sure any of us did. But some useful stuff came out of it.

Re: History of Biosphere 2

#47

Post by njarboe »

jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #25
maxxxxx wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This just shows that we have to do a lot of tedious testing before there is a chance to go to Mars. Even pretty innocent looking things can cause huge problems that can’t be anticipated beforehand

I always get downvoted to oblivion for pointing this out, but the Elon Musk hype squad is just not being realistic about how far we are from establishing a permanent colony on mars. Severe issues remain.

If people look at creating a Mars colony as a voluntary extreme sport, like climbing Everest, BASE jumping, or wingsuit flying, with their corresponding death rates, you might understand the motivation of the people wanting to go to mars a bit better. For those types of people risking death to do something extreme is fun and going to Mars would be both very high risk and extreme.

A safety first attitude won't build a spacefaring civilization, but hopefully the Elon Musk anti-hype squad does not stop people from using their own resources to try and build one.

You won't know the what the severe issues are till you are there and trying to stay alive will be a great motivator to solve problems quickly. Simulating Mars gravity on Earth is impossible so Mars is going to be the best place to build a working model of a Mars colony.

Re: History of Biosphere 2

#48

Post by asark »

gryfft wrote: post #27
jasonwatkinspdx wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always get downvoted to oblivion for pointing this out, but the Elon Musk hype squad is just not being realistic about how far we are from establishing a permanent colony on mars. Severe issues remain.

A Mars colony is something humanity should start thinking seriously about once we successfully run a production-grade lunar colony for about a decade-- long enough to recognize and tackle the worst bugs.

I understand a Martian colony as a kind of romantic dream. I understand a longish-term Martian outpost for scientific purposes. I don't get a Martian colony as a serious proposal for pretty much any reason. It's like 1000x more expensive, dangerous, and inconvenient than colonizing any number of very-inhospitable places on Earth.

To survive planetary disaster? Well 1) Mars is already worse than most imaginable post-disaster Earths would likely be, and 2) you could build a couple highly-survivable emergency bunker-habitats and pay people to live in them (in shifts, say, so there are always enough inside to ensure survival but they're not stuck in there full time) for, surely, less money than Martian colony establishment & maintenance would cost. You might still screw it up and they might not succeed if things really got that bad, but I'd bet their odds are better than any Martian colony we're likely to manage to put up in the next 100 years.

Re: History of Biosphere 2

#49

Post by hvs »

jedberg wrote: post #16
pram wrote: post #14

I took a tour of Biosphere 2 when I was young. I remember the guide talking about two specific problems they didn't anticipate that dramatically altered the outcome of the experiment: The 'domes' are supported by a metal lattice framework. That structure actually blocked too much sun and created extra shade which affected the plant growth. The concrete used in the construction was sucking up carbon dioxide and changi…

My favorite failure mode was that the trees started to fall over under their own weight when they got too tall, because there was no wind inside the dome. As they learned, wind is essential for trees because they must grow stronger trunks in reaction to the wind, and the wind helps blow off parts of the tree that aren't strong enough.

That's explicitly why you remove supports for new trees fairly early on in the planting process. If they indeed just learned that upon this experiment, they probably needed better horticulturists.

Re: History of Biosphere 2

#50

Post by nobody_nowhere »

jws wrote: post #44
nobody_nowhere wrote: post #4

I toured the facility around 2005-6 (iirc). Looks like you still can. It had a futuristic and lightly post-apocalyptic vibe. The jungle plants were growing out of control, pressing up against the glass panes of one of the habitats. Ants streamed in and out from the desert outside through a crack in a glass panel. If you check it out ( http://biosphere2.org/visit/tour-schedule-hours ), you can have a full post-apocaly…

And while you are enjoying a buffet of extinction level mass homicide, I always recommend a stop at Rooster Cogburn’s Ostrich Ranch between Tucson and Phoenix. Check the internet, they aren’t open every day. But you can spend an hour feeding tiny livestock, giant nightmare birds, and end up covered in lorikeets. (Hint: the fallow deer have gross saliva. Feed them before the Sicilian donkeys. The donkeys will clean yo…

The ostriches are vicious! They had that pail of feed ripped out of my hand and spread on the ground before I could even flinch.
Post reply on HN