Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Scoobywagon t1_j8dk71v wrote

I don't know about doing it in space, but it HAS been done on Earth. Twice. Now, both of THOSE experiments were done to test the effects of long term isolation on a group of human beings. But they were both completely sealed, self-sufficient environments that satisfy the parameters you state, aside from being in space.

Building such a thing in space is more difficult, because the structure would likely need to be much larger than anything we've lifted into space at this point. So that would mean more lifts into space, more potential points of failure in space, more things to break, etc. So, yes it is PROBABLY possible, but also not terribly feasible yet.

7

genericrich t1_j8dl72p wrote

Biospheres were failures, though. Nobody has succeeded in this yet.

9

billtowson1982 t1_j8e6ryc wrote

Didn't biosphere 2 fail due to CO2 off-gassing from the concrete they used to make it? And that was in the 90s. That both seems like an avoidable problem and in general it seems like we ought to be able to do somewhat better anyway a 1/4 century on.

Of course it would be vastly more expensive in space regardless.

4

genericrich t1_j8edv7b wrote

Sure. But the time to do it is now and the place to do it is on Earth, before we send some poor slobs on a one way trip to a Martian grave.

3

billtowson1982 t1_j8eef8j wrote

I'm fine with doing it either way. If people want to volunteeer for a Mars trip, knowing the severe risks, good for them. People with explorer spirits have been doing that since time immemorial. In general it makes much more sense to risk the lives of a few volunteers than it does to spend extra 10s or 100s of millions on safety procedures for a few folks, when the same money could easily be spent on healthcare services for the poor that would save many more lives.

Hell, I'd probably do it myself. What's the value of a life here on Earth? You live, you die, it was all pointless and your only legacy is the resources you used and the environment you wrecked along the way. Whereas if you die on Mars...well at least you got to see Mars!

3

Scoobywagon t1_j8frew9 wrote

I'd need to go look them up (which I'm too lazy to do right at the moment), but as I recall, one of them failed due to outgassing of something or other. Obviously, that's a solvable problem since we already know how to build sealed modules for the space station that do not have outgassing (i.e. materials) problems. The other, I think, failed because the crew were having problems, not because the structure itself failed. If you know otherwise, that'd be interesting to know.

2

peregrinkm OP t1_j8dkjt3 wrote

I see, thank you. What if it could be made primarily from materials available in space, like on the moon, in asteroids, or on Mars?

1

honbeee t1_j8eraip wrote

If the materials were gathered in space, they would need to go back down to earth in order to be made into the parts of an arcology that would then be assembled in space.

The cost of moving that much material from Earth into space would be immense. If I were to guess, it'd probably be more likely that we'd need to build factories (or whatever means of production is necessary) in space. Factories on the moon

2

peregrinkm OP t1_j8g041f wrote

Yes, factories on the moon would make it less energy consuming to assemble it in space. But they should put them on the side of the moon that faces away from earth, so they don't make it ugly.

0

Scoobywagon t1_j8frqq0 wrote

we do not have the ability, for the moment, to gather and process materials in space, either from an asteroid, or the moon, or Mars. There have been several thought experiments centered on how to do that sort of thing and what we should expect in terms of the materials produced. But we have not built anything that I know of to try and prove or disprove any of that.

1