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

71–80 of 91 posts

Re: History of Biosphere 2

#71

Post by rdl »

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.

For me, virtually all of those are worth solving through whatever effort is required, as it gains one advantage you can't get on earth:

You're very far away from all the people who can't/won't/etc. go to Mars. For the foreseeable future you'd still be subject to needing resources sent periodically, but this would at least be a pretty limited interface. Hopefully science would be a good enough export to pay for it, otherwise some kind of nonprofit endowment would be needed.

Re: History of Biosphere 2

#72

Post by amelius »

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…

> The concrete used in the construction was sucking up carbon dioxide

This is the first time I hear about concrete sucking up CO2. Usually it's the other way around.

Re: History of Biosphere 2

#73

Post by hutzlibu »

maxxxxx wrote: post #68
njarboe wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"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. " Gravity is probably one of the smaller problems. I don't see the point of going to Mars until we have a lot of experience doing similar things on…

"Right now a Mars colony would be plain suicide. "

If the plan is to have a self-sustaining colony, then yes. But if supply flights are guarantied, I don't see the problem.

You can grow food in space. We do. We just can't have a enclosed system yet and are probably quite far away from it.

But I agree, that I think it makes much sense to do more ground- and moonwork first.

Re: History of Biosphere 2

#74

Post by eximius »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #29
gryfft wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

Much less flat, though.

Re: History of Biosphere 2

#75

Post by [deleted] »

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

[deleted]

Re: History of Biosphere 2

#76

Post by dragonwriter »

hutzlibu wrote: post #73
maxxxxx wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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. " Gravity is probably one of the smaller problems. I don't see the point of going to Mars until we have a lot of experience doing similar things on…

"Right now a Mars colony would be plain suicide. " If the plan is to have a self-sustaining colony, then yes. But if supply flights are guarantied, I don't see the problem. You can grow food in space. We do. We just can't have a enclosed system yet and are probably quite far away from it. But I agree, that I think it makes much sense to do more ground- and moonwork first.

> But if supply flights are guarantied

Nothing in spaceflight is guaranteed, and Earth-Mars spaceflight is a lot less subject to guarantee than Earth-ISS spaceflight, which hasn't been trouble free.

Re: History of Biosphere 2

#77

Post by ajuc »

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.

We can make sustainable space habitats now. They solve the same problems a Mars colony do, for a fraction of cost, with no huge rockets, months-long trips, and certain death if something goes wrong.

Re: History of Biosphere 2

#78

Post by JoeAltmaier »

eximius wrote: post #74
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.

Much less flat, though.

Mars, flat? It has the highest mountain in the Solar System, Olympus Mons. Plenty of rugged places on Mars that outshine anything Earth can put up.

But yeah, we probably wouldn't put a base those places, not initially. Though I wonder if a volcano base would tell us more about the planet's interior...and its fairly flat including lots of high walls to protect against winds/storms?

https://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Mars_Expres...

Re: History of Biosphere 2

#79

Post by stcredzero »

Here's an experiment which could be started relatively inexpensively, but which would yield significant results: Start with just recycling water. Build a similar facility, or build a new one, but at first, just try to completely recycle the water. This could be done through greenhouses completely enclosing an artificial wetlands, which would be used to recycle human wastes. Pure water could be recovered by running dehumidifiers.

Such a facility could be built in the desert, much smaller, but incorporating the lessons of Biosphere 2. (For example, that conventional glass blocks too much sunlight, and that curing concrete releases CO2.)

Next, just completely recycle the air.

Only after that, see if the ecosystem could be expanded and food grown for the inhabitants. That should also be staged, with the 1st part involving just supplying enough calories, the next parts working towards complete nutrition.

Instead of sealing the system from the get-go, first build it "leaky," then prevent the leaks.

Re: History of Biosphere 2

#80

Post by stcredzero »

dragonwriter wrote: post #63
apocalypstyx wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Getting there would be. Living there would be constant danger plus tedium, the space equivalent of working on a farm barely making ends meet for the rest of your life. Such lives don't have enough dopamine hits to keep people of such dispositions around long.

Getting there would be lots of tedium, too.

One could try to turn it into a nonstop zero-G orgy. But that would become lots of tedium too.
Post reply on HN