<< Bob: I didn't mean to say that we can make such Biospheres NOW. What
I meant was that if we had the technology to make closed ecosystems in
space it would still be much much cheaper to build them on earth.
I agree with you on this and think it wise to try to do this on earth first.
My point was that we can't even do it on earth now. So how could we
contemplate doing it in space.
As for materials, there are plenty of materials in space. Asteroid
mining only makes sense if you decide to stay in the asteroid belt and
set up shop there. It makes no sense to try to bring megatons of
metals back to the earth's surface, especially since the earth is
mostly made of metals. All we have to do is process it, and all this
takes is energy. And anyway, how much metal do we need? Our standing
stock of metals is getting higher and higher, metals have always been
recycled throughout history.
But in order to build a habitat in space we have to lug a lot of metal out of
the gravity well of our planet. we need gases to breath, earth to grow things
in. if we are to create a stable ecology we will need plants and some
animals; we will have parasites whether we want them or not so we made to add
a few predators (aside from ourselves). This is a big deal it seems to me. I
can't see how this will ever make sense economically unless the business of
the near earth space habitiat is the harvesting of solar energy. But you
don't need people for this. I think we will end up going out there (I
certainly hope so) but it will be a one way trip. Those that go will (if they
have the technology) set up shop somewhere and get on with it. it is just
that it seems to me that it is hard to get from here to there. it may be like
the history of life on earth. quick start, slow to know change for billions
of years and then an explosion when conditions were finally rigth for complex
multi-celled forms like us.
And I agree with Christopher that Biosphere II was not really a
failure. It didn't demonstrate what the builders hoped it would
demonstrate, but we did learn a lot from it. Perhaps the same amount
of money spent on less grandiose projects would have been wiser, but it
wasn't a complete waste. Has it been conclusively decided whether the
dropping oxygen levels were due to concrete curing or very organic
soils?
Come on guys. Let us call a spade a spade. the goals of biosphere 2 were not
met not close. the organizers lost whatever money they put in. their
grandiose plans came to naught. It is one thing to learn from your failures.
this is good and admirable but failure is failure. In my professional carreer
I have learned to savor my erros. they are always unpleasent and in my line
of work mistakes can be devastating but you have to see what went wrong,
analyze your part in the problem and try to do better the next time. this is
painful but it will not happen if you deny the mistake in the first place.
But anyway, consider this. Biosphere II cost millions of dollars, and was
only able to keep a half dozen people alive for a year or so as long as they
worked like dogs farming and maintaining the machinery and
if they could get shipments of extra raw materials.
Sounds like a failure to me.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Thousands of Stores. Millions of Products. All in one Place.
http://shopping.yahoo.com/
>>
