Jan 17, 17 / Aqu 17, 01 13:31 UTC

Re: Space Agriculture  


I think you understood me wrong though. What I meant to ask with "Would it be profitable?" is if we could get enough food out of aquaponics to sustain ourselves, not to sell to earth, which you proofed to be not the case. We should indeed search for another foodsource, although it is a thing to consider when starting with a few people.

Grtz Jens

Jan 18, 17 / Aqu 18, 01 07:45 UTC

We are ignoring a central point of this, we NEED new inventions, reology(fluid studies) are all studies in gravity, but as explained before, we can't waste our gravity in stuff that is not vital, coming with that idea. Why not having separated orbital farms? the main station will be always working, but a farm is keep in a passive state the most of the time. The problem of flux of wather in zero or micro gravity can be done with a mix of hell of an perpetual motion machine(lot's of designs in internet) and a tesla valve. Certanly people will have problems of only eating fish and veggetables, but is nearby the in-vitro-meat, wich will be (I supose) faster an easier to grow at micro gravity. About another flux idea is using tesla's turbine to produce mechanical strenght from fluid movement. That fluid movement can be done in a heating chamber using sunlight, to produce steam and then diferential vapour pressure, wich means energy :)

Actually searched and dind't found a fish that can live in Zero G, is something that no one studied. Plants can grow in other soils, not always earth one, that means, can be moon's soil or martian soil, or asteroid soil, just having enought nutrients for plant growth.

Jan 18, 17 / Aqu 18, 01 08:24 UTC

How do you "waste" gravity? Even if it is simulated by axial rotation, it's either there or not.

Fish and plants would be like humans - they would behave in a predictable manner when subject to "normal" gravity. Putting zero / microgravity into the equation created unnessary issues and unpredictability.

Jan 26, 17 / Aqu 26, 01 13:11 UTC

Scrabs, I think what Adolru means by 'wasting gravity' is that 'making' artificial gravity costs extra money. Therefore it is best that everything that can be done in microgravity, should be done in microgravity, so that we don't 'waste' precious gravity.

Greeting Jens

  Last edited by:  Jens Voorpyl (Asgardian)  on Jan 26, 17 / Aqu 26, 01 13:38 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

Jan 27, 17 / Aqu 27, 01 11:29 UTC

It doesn't have to be profitable, that's just unavoidable.

The opening statement suggests it's indeed the case, And not just for sale to earth, the amount of space available combined with the fact we already know it's possible suggests it's assuredly giving returns. For the sale to Earth, by 2050, definitely. And not just novelty. Food will be a valuable comodity. Arable farming space is already at a premium, and population growth will make that problematic. Look into it.

Microgravity isn't good for long term exposure for people - sure, there might be farming potential, but long term habitation is a problem. A whole list of problems. As to "wasting gravity" - providing axial rotation to an entire vessel, or even a small part therof - isn't overly difficult to achieve. It doesn't cost money as much as it costs energy - and with establishing energy farms as well as traditional, this can be rendered "costless". Besides, to get to realistically consider such endeavours such concepts will of been rendered moot, and even something primitive like solar panels can provide enough to get it spinning "costless", either as a total mass or just a toroid section connected to a static spire buffered with fluid bearings.