Live data from Hacker News

We can mine asteroids for space food

cambridge.org

91–100 of 216 posts

Re: We can mine asteroids for space food

#91
post #56

I suppose the next step beyond vegetarianism and veganism will be mineralism: Food using molecules certified never to have been part of any known living organism. I remember there was a fictional advertisement for such a product in a sci-fi story, but not exactly where.

This actually makes sense to me in terms of logical coherence. I understand and support people who follow ethically-motivated diets but the fact is a line is always drawn somewhere. Plants are alive. Why is a carrot’s life less important than a rabbit’s? I don’t think we’re good at making claims about where particular organisms sit along a gradient of consciousness we can’t even properly define. I like to imagine oth…

Many years ago my lecturer, Professor Stevan Harnad drew the line at backbones, if you have a spine or similar arrangement it's not OK to eat you. These days Harnad is a Vegan, which entails prohibition against a much larger array of animals being eaten or indeed taken advantage of in any way for your benefit.

There is no reason to imagine that if there was alien life it would be able to comprehend us at all, for fictional convenience it has been usual to depict aliens as basically just humans in Halloween costume and there is every reason to assume they would be entirely incomprehensible instead. Even in soft SF, try say Iain M Banks' repeated reference to other forms of life which show essentially no interest in the scale of events that our human-like characters are engaged with. The Stellar Field Liner, a vast entity living in the magnetosphere of a star, the Excession, seemingly a living portal to other universes, or even just the Dirigible Behemothaurs which are island sized creatures that think a Galactic Cycle (225 million Earth years) is not very long.

Re: We can mine asteroids for space food

#92
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn’t there a requirement for lots of fibre in the diet as well as vitamins, protein, carbohydrates and fats. As well as the psychological effect of eating good food and not mush.

Soluble fiber is broken down partially in the gut by bacteria/fermentation. Lots remains. Insoluble fiber passes through mostly unchanged. You see where this is going. You need only minimal new inputs and the rest can be recycled.

I heard someone call the ISS closed water system the infinite coffee machine. Yesterday’s coffee becomes today’s coffee.

It sounds gross but if we get good enough at it it’ll work.

Like any settlement on a frontier the first people in space aren’t going to eat well. They’ll survive. After a long time I imagine we will get good at growing and manufacturing food up there. It’s honestly not even close to the hardest problem. Full recycling and modular manufacturing for complex items is a lot harder.

Re: We can mine asteroids for space food

#93
post #56

I suppose the next step beyond vegetarianism and veganism will be mineralism: Food using molecules certified never to have been part of any known living organism. I remember there was a fictional advertisement for such a product in a sci-fi story, but not exactly where.

But there will never ever be such guarantee that could be taken seriously. How do you know that 2 star generations ago (so say roughly 10 billion years ago), in our previous neighborhood, a massive hypernova wiped out advanced civilization and you are now just consuming molecules that were once part of sentient living being, even with IQ much higher than yours?

Nah, you can never be 100% sure, its one of those situations reachable only on paper.

Re: We can mine asteroids for space food

#94
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This actually makes sense to me in terms of logical coherence. I understand and support people who follow ethically-motivated diets but the fact is a line is always drawn somewhere. Plants are alive. Why is a carrot’s life less important than a rabbit’s? I don’t think we’re good at making claims about where particular organisms sit along a gradient of consciousness we can’t even properly define. I like to imagine oth…

> Why is a carrot’s life less important than a rabbit’s? A rabbit probably ate a lot of carrots, you are better off eating just the carrot directly if you want to reduce the killing :-)

A trolley hurtling down the tracks towards a rabbit, and if you pull a lever it will go on to a different track that kills the same number of carrot plants that the rabbit has already eaten in its lifetime...

Re: We can mine asteroids for space food

#95
post #93
post #56

I suppose the next step beyond vegetarianism and veganism will be mineralism: Food using molecules certified never to have been part of any known living organism. I remember there was a fictional advertisement for such a product in a sci-fi story, but not exactly where.

But there will never ever be such guarantee that could be taken seriously. How do you know that 2 star generations ago (so say roughly 10 billion years ago), in our previous neighborhood, a massive hypernova wiped out advanced civilization and you are now just consuming molecules that were once part of sentient living being, even with IQ much higher than yours? Nah, you can never be 100% sure, its one of those situat…

The phrasing "any known living organism" already excludes that.

Even if it didn't, a guarantee in product marketing is a promise and quasi-legal committment, not a certification of objective universal cosmic truth.

In some cases, everybody knows that statistically there will be at least one case where the guarantee is broken, but that doesn't void anything.

Re: We can mine asteroids for space food

#96
post #56

I suppose the next step beyond vegetarianism and veganism will be mineralism: Food using molecules certified never to have been part of any known living organism. I remember there was a fictional advertisement for such a product in a sci-fi story, but not exactly where.

This actually makes sense to me in terms of logical coherence. I understand and support people who follow ethically-motivated diets but the fact is a line is always drawn somewhere. Plants are alive. Why is a carrot’s life less important than a rabbit’s? I don’t think we’re good at making claims about where particular organisms sit along a gradient of consciousness we can’t even properly define. I like to imagine oth…

I'm pretty sure you draw the same line:

* Pealing a carrot: not cruel

* Skinning a rabbit alive: unnecessarily cruel

For all the nonsense about plants experiencing "pain", they, uh, don't. Animals do. Outside of bad philosophical arguments, everyone behaves broadly in accordance with that belief.

Re: We can mine asteroids for space food

#97
post #94
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why is a carrot’s life less important than a rabbit’s? A rabbit probably ate a lot of carrots, you are better off eating just the carrot directly if you want to reduce the killing :-)

A trolley hurtling down the tracks towards a rabbit, and if you pull a lever it will go on to a different track that kills the same number of carrot plants that the rabbit has already eaten in its lifetime...

And then the rabbit pulls the reverse lever, and the trolley is speeding back towards Elmer Fudd.

Re: We can mine asteroids for space food

#98
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article says the cost of feeding one astronaut for one year is around 5,000-160,000 tons of ore per year. My understanding is the rule of thumb is about an order of magnitude nutritional drop off each step - that is, to produce 100cal of meat requires 1000cal of plant food. Bumping those yield estimates, especially the pessimistic end, up by another factor of 10 is just a phenomenal amount of material to process…

I didn't read the paper in depth, just skimmed it, but it seems like their assumption is that the astronauts will be eating some sort of microbe slurry; so I think that the cost includes only that, not using microbes to feed higher-order life or growing plants.

Agree, but the post I was responding to was suggesting it be used as an agricultural feedstock to feed things the astronauts eat - that’s where my order-of-magnitude calculation came from.

Re: We can mine asteroids for space food

#99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This actually makes sense to me in terms of logical coherence. I understand and support people who follow ethically-motivated diets but the fact is a line is always drawn somewhere. Plants are alive. Why is a carrot’s life less important than a rabbit’s? I don’t think we’re good at making claims about where particular organisms sit along a gradient of consciousness we can’t even properly define. I like to imagine oth…

Many years ago my lecturer, Professor Stevan Harnad drew the line at backbones, if you have a spine or similar arrangement it's not OK to eat you. These days Harnad is a Vegan, which entails prohibition against a much larger array of animals being eaten or indeed taken advantage of in any way for your benefit. There is no reason to imagine that if there was alien life it would be able to comprehend us at all, for fic…

Mm.

So, are The Affront the literary equivalent of a human in a halloween costume? Extreme sadism as the only definiting trait I can recall, so they probably count as Planet of Hats* even if the physiology is too different to be a costume department's job in a TV show.

* https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PlanetOfHats

Re: We can mine asteroids for space food

#100
> The asteroid mass needed to support one astronaut for one year is between 160 000 metric tons and 5000 metric tons.

Even these orders of magnitude are correct, this is still 14t-438t of material to process /per day/ just for one person.

Post reply on HN