Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Monday January 14 2019, @10:31AM   Printer-friendly
from the beans-beans-the-musical-fruit dept.

Astronauts Could Be Growing Beans in Space in 2021

Following the much-celebrated harvest of a head of romaine lettuce aboard the International Space Station (ISS) in 2015, astronauts' vacuum-packed vittles may be kicked up a notch as early as 2021 with the addition of space-grown beans. More salad fixings are also in the cards. After that? The galaxy's the limit.

"The dream of every astronaut is to be able to eat fresh food like strawberries, cherry tomatoes or anything that's really flavorful," Silje Wolff, a plant physiologist at the Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in Space (CIRiS) at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), said in a statement. "Someday that will certainly be possible. We envision a greenhouse with several varieties of vegetables."

Wolff recently wrapped up an experiment where lettuce grew in space in specialized planters that regulate all the water, nutrients, gas and air the plants need.

Though she used artificial soil derived from lava rock as a substrate, Wolff says the goal is for the plants to grow directly in water infused with life-sustaining nutrients. In space, she noted, all the water and food must be recovered, which means that plant fertilization needs to be "as precise as possible."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday January 15 2019, @04:54AM (2 children)

    by Immerman (3985) on Tuesday January 15 2019, @04:54AM (#786791)

    >1G of stress isn't even close to an engineering problem.
    You're right, it's not. Not until you weigh the cost of the stronger superstructure against the much larger and more capable station you could build for the same price if you only had to withstand half of that.

    >Any solar panels don't have to be on the station at all,
    True, we could have satellite solar stations for a space station - wireless power transmission is currently fairly inefficient at any distance, but isn't so bad for just a mile or two.

    > Venus is considerably less friendly to human life. The planet could go that way.
    No. It couldn't. Not unless we burned every ounce of fossil fuel available on the planet, and then burnt down all the forests and grasslands to intentionally cause such an outcome, and quite possibly not even then. It'd probably take global megavolcanos unleashing deep-earth carbon reserves to even put it on the table.

    >I didn't say "collapse of civilization." I specified extinction.
    Yes, you did. And my reply was that in space, they're the same thing. And civilization collapses far more regularly than planetary extinction events occur. Eventually we'll be spread far enough that the collapse wouldn't take down everyone, a single Mars colony of a few million people though? It'd be touch and go at best. It's better than nothing I guess, and would only get more viable over time.

    >Also, a sudden change from what we have to something awful would pretty much do us in;
    Are you not aware that there are *already* many vast underground bunkers on Earth, designed to keep chosen members of humanity alive through pretty much any apocalypse? Major governments, various religious groups, and probably several ridiculously wealthy "preppers". The scope of such a habitat that you can build on Earth for a given budget far exceeds what you could build elsewhere. Plus even the onset of most "fast" problems will be measured in decades or centuries, which means plenty of time to build domes over cities, etc. Heck, they considered doing that to some northern cities 50-100 years ago.

    In fact that's one of the big things I *do* see planet colonization realistically providing - experience and technologies for creating and operating such semi-closed ecosystems. If domes and arcologies are needed for some reason, it'll be a lot faster and cheaper to build them if there's already mature technology available to adapt to the situation.

    And I'm a big fan of getting life off this rock - a lot more of it than just humanity. Eventually *something* will wipe all life off this planet, and it'd be nice if Earth life continued to spread across the galaxy after that happens. So far we have no evidence of life anywhere else in the universe, and I think it's a wonderful enough thing to spread as far as possible. In that same vein, I think the big goal that really justifies learning to live in space is interstellar colonization - we want to have the technology well developed before we take on that challenge. But that's so far in the future that it's not worth making strategic decisions around today - there's so much development that must be done first that trying to anticipate future needs is pointless.

    But, what is really needed, before any of that can happen, is a business plan.

    I suspect that asteroid colonization will happen naturally - not because there's any need for humans there, but because it will get cheap enough to build well-shielded, self-sustaining space stations that any moderately wealthy group who's sick of broader society will be able to found their own city-state so far away that nobody will bother them. Just as they did time and again here on Earth. I just don't see that there's any motive for the people who stay on Earth to help them pay for it.

    I have a similar objection to a Mars colony - I think it's hands-down the best planet to colonize - it just has nothing to offer Earth to justify the long-term ongoing expense. And until we find that, it remains interesting territory for those sufficiently inspired and wealthy to to try to build a world from scratch. I wish them well of it - but I also wish they'd wait until we've had a chance to do a proper search for life, because that would offer a truly phenomenal font of knowledge. And finding native Martian life, assuming it's there, will be far more difficult once Earth microorganisms inevitably start colonizing the planet (Heck, tardigrades might not even have to do any evolving first, just follow the spreading food).

    A Moon colony though - that's a bigger technical challenge, but a much smaller logistical one. Excellent for trial runs, and close enough to be a hugely valuable resource almost immediately. With a lunar industrial base, and an unending supply of lunar fuel, oxygen, and concrete for radiation shielding, colonizing orbit and the L-points becomes feasible - not because of any particular need, but because the rich like novelty, so why not? Plus there's all that valuable ore in the asteroids, so they might even turn a profit on the endeavor. And once we have an economically viable foothold in space, then the *real* magic can start.

    We have limited resources for this endeavor, and look to be about to have some much more pressing environmental challenges on our hands over the next decades and centuries. If we want our species to maintain a foothold in space through that, then we need to focus on establishing that first precious enabling industry as quickly as possible. We will need to be bold, without being careless or wasting any effort. Would I like an orbital centrifuge testing facility? Yes. But that will be expensive, and we know we want the moon regardless, so lets just go straight for that instead. If we learn that we need to build centrifugal recreation or maternity centers, we'll build those as we need them. We can even use them for testing to determine the tolerable and optimal levels of "gravity". And if the moon *is* sufficient, then we know gravity won't be a problem pretty much anywhere else we'd want to colonize early on.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Tuesday January 15 2019, @08:03AM (1 child)

    by fyngyrz (6567) on Tuesday January 15 2019, @08:03AM (#786833) Journal

    Not until you weigh the cost of the stronger superstructure against the much larger and more capable station you could build for the same price if you only had to withstand half of that.

    Cost? I fully expect the materials to be mined, refined, and manufactured by robots operating in and between the asteroid belt and earth orbit. The materials will be irrelevant; there shouldn't be any shortage and there will be no significant transport costs, or any other costs, either — once an automated presence is established. That's where the money will have to go. Until that step is done, we're just pretending. But having done so, everything else will follow, and rather nicely I think.

    No. It [the planet going the way of Venus] couldn't.

    Yes, it most certainly could. Which is the very next thing you acknowledge:

    It'd probably take global megavolcanos unleashing deep-earth carbon reserves to even put it on the table.

    Or a major comet / asteroid impact that triggers same. Like I said: Like Venus. Extinction, if all we have is us, here. And of course, a comet or an asteroid could finish us off all by itself.

    a single Mars colony of a few million people though?

    Again: I am not talking about a Mars colony. I am talking about multiple independent space habitats. Robotically built, as many as seem like a good idea. A lunar colony is a much better idea than a mars colony. Neither our moon or mars are exactly "friendly" to us; but the moon has several advantages, including more concentrated sunlight, less gravity, shorter distance / comm delay / transport from earth, no wind (no atmosphere), no dust storms, and so forth.

    vast underground bunkers

    Those will work, somewhat, for short-term events. They will not work for longer term events. Certainly they are not a reason to fail to get all of our eggs out of the single basket they currently reside in.

    I think it's a wonderful enough thing to spread [our forms of life] as far as possible.

    Agreed. Also prudent. Kind of my point.

    But, what is really needed, before any of that can happen, is a business plan.

    ...and a lot of tech advances, particularly in robotics, because without that, it's all manual labor and progress will make snails look fast.

    I just don't see that there's any motive for the people who stay on Earth to help them pay for it.

    That's what government is for. To find the reasons and apply the motivation. That's how we here in the USA got to the moon, how we got an interstate highway system, etc. The money is / will be there. It remains to acquire it over time, as needed. Again, automation is likely to be a big part of this. The current economy is all trickle-up into a very few private hands and there isn't enough money in the hands of everyone else. That needs to change, and I am reasonably sure it will. If not, well, then we're probably stuck.

    A Moon colony

    Yes, we're on the same page here. It's a good first step, once we have the materials supply (again, automation) in place. Otherwise all the initial manufactured material has to come from this gravity well, and that will make it much harder than it really needs to be. The most important step is to get started utilizing the resources that are just waiting for us. And for that — machine intelligence has to come along a bit further. Stacked LDNLS [fyngyrz.com] is my guess for what will comprise the initial level of "good enough", but of course I'll be perfectly happy to see something better should it come along.

    --
    Every once in a while declare peace. It confuses your enemies.

    • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday January 17 2019, @06:04PM

      by Immerman (3985) on Thursday January 17 2019, @06:04PM (#787961)

      I think we're mainly talking about different timescales - in the long term I'm all for huge rotating space colonies - but the only reason I can think of to build such a thing is because all the more desirable places have already been filled up. And certainly not before you've even decided what the spin rate would be.

      >Cost? I fully expect the materials to be mined, refined, and manufactured by robots operating in and between the asteroid belt and earth orbit. The materials will be irrelevant
      Right, the same way buildings made of wood, steel, and concrete are free today? There's always an opportunity cost for any decision. You always have a limited amount of materials, time, and production capacity at your disposal, and spending them on one thing means you can't spend them on anything else. Building a thing optimized for one set of conditions, means you waste resources that could have improved it in other ways for a different set of conditions.

      >> I think it's a wonderful enough thing to spread [our forms of life] as far as possible.
      > Agreed. Also prudent. Kind of my point.
      I disagree - I want to see humanity endure and life spread across the galaxy, but I can't think of any rational reason for it. It's art and vanity, prudence has nothing to do with it.

      > That's how we here in the USA got to the moon, how we got an interstate highway system, etc.
      We got to the moon because we were engaged in a cold-war pissing contest - showing off military technology in feats of glory rather than mass destruction. Profitable for everyone.
      We got the interstate highway to facilitate the transportation of important military resources - it was the military who decided on the routes that were to be developed, and the federal funding was explicitly for developing military potential.

      Where's the profit or military potential for space colonies? Probably lots of profit to be made mining asteroids, and having orbital weapons - but nothing to be gained by having a lot of people up there with them. Planetary research is potentially profitable, and humans on hand are likely to facilitate that significantly, but there's nothing to study in open space.

      When a government funds something, the ideal is that it should be in the best interests of the population paying for it. Space colonization does not do that. At all. The only people who benefit from a space colony, are the people living in the colony. They will always be entirely dependent on imported resources for survival (though for a while they could scavenge those themselves, at least until 100% effective recycling and maintenance is developed), and have precious little to export that couldn't be made more cheaply elsewhere. About the only thing they might offer is zero-G refining or factories - but it's very unlikely that they could be cost-competitve with virtually identical factories that aren't trying to support a space colony.