Rapid population growth saps development

"Dave & Janelle" wrote in message
...

Why not assume that space habitats will grow food in the same manner we
do
here on Earth?

Because on Earth, we need at least 1000 square meters per person, and that
is a fairly minimal figure.

I think in space, the area will be at a premium,

Why? I worry you may think this because you can't stop thinking of it in
the terms you've seen on Star Trek and elsewhe that living in space will
mean living in small metal rooms.

When I think "space habitats", I think of the designs of Gerard O'Neill
which NASA studied back in the 70's. In those, sufficient room was set
aside for traditional (though sensibly optimized) agriculture, and nobody
involved in the studies saw that as anything which would kill the economics.

and if we can decrease it
by a factor of over 100 (which AFAIK is reasonable but not yet
demonstrated)
by moving to algae, we won't be able to ignore the area savings in space.

Maybe the habitat which had to construct 100x the agricultural area might
make the money back from immigrants who are actually willing to live in the
habitat and eat its food. To assume that the algae habitat might be
economically competitive is to assume some pretty remarkable advancements in
making algae seem like the kind of food most people prefer to eat.

They may, but since some constraints are harder in space (like food
generation), I think they'll impose their own limits that we don't have on
Earth.

Why would do you view food generation as having harder constraints in space?
In a sufficiently-high orbit, sunlight is available continuously.

Hey, lefties can jump high too!

Hah!


--


Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Member of the National Non-sequitur Society. We may not make
much sense, but we do like pizza.

I think in space, the area will be at a premium,

Why? I worry you may think this because you can't stop thinking of it in
the terms you've seen on Star Trek and elsewhe that living in space
will
mean living in small metal rooms.

Hmmm - you may be right.

Maybe the habitat which had to construct 100x the agricultural area might
make the money back from immigrants who are actually willing to live in
the
habitat and eat its food. To assume that the algae habitat might be
economically competitive is to assume some pretty remarkable advancements
in
making algae seem like the kind of food most people prefer to eat.

I think the question is, is expanding the 'crop area' by a factor of 100
harder(*) than making algae palatable. Today, I don't think this question is
answerable.

(*) harder = more difficult, more costly, etc.

Why would do you view food generation as having harder constraints in
space?
In a sufficiently-high orbit, sunlight is available continuously.

But water and essential nutrients aren't, and the cost of getting them there
could be high. Right now, we could ponder a 'algae hab' for a small number
of people, but we're (IMHO) a century away at least from an O'Neill colony.
IOW, I could see the algae hab someday, but at best, I'd be pushing up the
O'Neill crops!

Regards,

-Dave Boll
http://www.daveboll.com/

On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 07:51:03 -0600, Dave & Janelle wrote:


Why not assume that space habitats will grow food in the same manner we
do
here on Earth?

Because on Earth, we need at least 1000 square meters per person, and
that
is a fairly minimal figure.

It seems exaggerated. This is what NASA/AMES came up with in a summer
study in 1975.
http://lifesci3.arc.nasa.gov/SpaceSe...3.html#Summary


They may, but since some constraints are harder in space (like food
generation), I think they'll impose their own limits that we don't have
on
Earth.



--
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/

"Dave & Janelle" wrote in message
...

I think the question is, is expanding the 'crop area' by a factor of 100
harder(*) than making algae palatable. Today, I don't think this question
is
answerable.

I think you're right. I think people like Marshal Savage who make lots of
assumptions about edible algae in space assume food technologies not
currently in hand.

But water and essential nutrients aren't, and the cost of getting them
there
could be high.

True, but the water and nutrients can be recycled. So they contribute a lot
to startup costs, but not so much to ongoing costs.

Right now, we could ponder a 'algae hab' for a small number
of people, but we're (IMHO) a century away at least from an O'Neill
colony.

Oh, let's say several decades.


--


Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Member of the National Non-sequitur Society. We may not make
much sense, but we do like pizza.