Slashdot Mirror


Space Food From Space Farms

Modern Farmer magazine has an article about NASA's efforts into growing food in space, a slow, difficult process that's nonetheless necessary if humanity is to have any significant presence away from Earth's surface. Quoting: "This December, NASA plans to launch a set of Kevlar pillow-packs, filled with a material akin to kitty litter, functioning as planters for six romaine lettuce plants. The burgundy-hued lettuce (NASA favors the 'Outredgeous' strain) will be grown under bright-pink LED lights, ready to harvest after just 28 days. NASA has a long history of testing plant growth in space, but the goals have been largely academic. Experiments have included figuring out the effects of zero-gravity on plant growth, testing quick-grow sprouts on shuttle missions and assessing the viability of different kinds of artificial light. But [the Vegetable Production System] is NASA's first attempt to grow produce that could actually sustain space travelers. Naturally, the dream is to create a regenerative growth system, so food could be continually grown on the space station — or, potentially, on moon colonies or Mars. ... Plant size is a vital calculation in determining what to grow on the space station, where every square foot is carefully allotted. Harvest time is also of extreme importance; the program wants to maximize growth cycles within each crew’s (on average) six-month stay."

168 comments

  1. Fertilizer... by Joce640k · · Score: 2

    What will they use as fertilizer?

    --
    No sig today...
    1. Re:Fertilizer... by ketomax · · Score: 2

      MANure

    2. Re:Fertilizer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fertilizer is covered under the don't ask don't tell article.

    3. Re:Fertilizer... by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      Why not make it?
      http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.ie/2007/11/314-peak-oil-and-fertilizer-no-problem.html

      There's an abundance of everything we need in space, although I can see stations being a far more convenient platform for future exploration than planetary colonisation. Even the best candidate, Mars, is terrible - where it's warm there is no water, where there's water it's in the -30s at least, an atmosphere as close to vacuum as makes no odds and while it does have gravity I doubt it's enough to stop bone weakening.

      Venus now, if we could fix the atmospherre there it could be earth 2 pretty easily. And I suppose add water.

      But really for the short to mid term I can't see many valid reasons beyond science that we'd want to colonise nearby worlds. Ultimately I guess we'll be producing most of our food and manufactured goods on space stations, earth will be the place where people live, with much of it returned to virgin wilderness.

    4. Re:Fertilizer... by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 3, Informative

      I suppose you mean humanure. See the Humanure Handbook. Not exactly rocket science, and it is widely tested on earth.

      --
      Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
    5. Re:Fertilizer... by deburg · · Score: 2

      This reminded me of an old SF story by Asimov. Humans stranded on hostile environment planet, struggling to terraform the environment. Dying one by one, their bodies finally providing the soil for the earth seedstock, but alas not in time for the last survivor. Sniff.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Father_(short_story)

    6. Re:Fertilizer... by websitebroke · · Score: 1

      Maybe the "kitty-litter like" substance is a clue?

    7. Re:Fertilizer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "There's an abundance of everything we need in space"

      1)If that were true, how come we need to bring everything?

      2)Space is a dead vacuum, with a few rocks here and there separated by light hours of nothing. If that's "abundant" to you, can I send you there one way?

      " if we could fix the atmospherre there it could be earth 2 pretty easily."

      Oh of course and if farts were turbofans I'd be supersonic. Any other poo brain nonsense you want to share with us today before the nurse adjusts your drip?

    8. Re:Fertilizer... by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      The "kitty-litter like" substance sounded like (to me) just material to hold the plant in place, since you don't have gravity to do it for you. However, it seems they would go with aeroponics instead?

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    9. Re:Fertilizer... by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 0

      "There's an abundance of everything we need in space"

      1)If that were true, how come we need to bring everything?

      Yes, because European colonists in the new world went forth boldly into the wilderness stark bollock naked, preferring to gnaw their tools from the deadfalls and cliffs they encountered. It takes time to set things up, but once you're set up you have an abundance in virgin territory. The tools are different but the principle is the same.

      2)Space is a dead vacuum, with a few rocks here and there separated by light hours of nothing. If that's "abundant" to you, can I send you there one way?

      Doesn't matter how far away the resources are as long as you have a steady supply line. Although in terms of the time it will take to get there, they aren't that far away at all. One such resource is the asteroid Eros.

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/401227.stm

      Oh gosh, more base and precious metals than have ever or could ever be mined from the surface of the earth you say, and a giant natural furnace at your back to help extract and refine them, without ever having to care about environmental issues? I can see why nobody would be interested in doing that, or even call it abundance.

      And that's just one rock. There are millions of them.

    10. Re:Fertilizer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "Yes, because European colonists in the new world went forth boldly into the wilderness stark bollock naked, preferring to gnaw their tools from the deadfalls and cliffs they encountered. It takes time to set things up, but once you're set up you have an abundance in virgin territory. The tools are different but the principle is the same."

      So you're comparing the environment of the new world, which is ON this planet, with space? Really? REALLY?

      "Doesn't matter how far away the resources are as long as you have a steady supply line."

      Again, you're postulating fantasy-levels of non-existent technology, and just glossing it over.

      "Oh gosh, more base and precious metals than have ever or could ever be mined from the surface of the earth you say,"

      And sadly, so far away and so resource intensive to get, that it makes no sense. If you had the massive resources and energy required to get them, you don't HAVE a resource and energy problem. Sadly, after having read your posting history here, I must conclude that you are either a child or mentally challenged.

      None of your posts ever goes beyond hopeful and wishful thinking, there isn't a shred of practical or feasible engineering there.

    11. Re:Fertilizer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I grow lettuce hydroponically and you can just about grow it with just hard water. Good luck growing anything that fruits under LED's though.

    12. Re:Fertilizer... by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      Never heard of maglaunch eh? :D

      Anyway I'll stop feeding the troll now, although it was a useful opportunity to get the knowledge out there, playtime is over.

    13. Re:Fertilizer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "knowledge"? Cartoon physics and over the top hypotheticals that will never happen? This is "knowledge" to you!?? Grow up you pathetic clown. In ten years when nothing at all will have changed what will you do then?

    14. Re:Fertilizer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it a Space Nutter's brain?

    15. Re:Fertilizer... by mcgrew · · Score: 3, Informative

      Full text of the story, thank you, that was one I hadn't seen.

    16. Re:Fertilizer... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      If they're smart, they'll use solid salt extracts from seawater (look up SEA-90,) supplement the lacking N and P with potash and solid nitrates, and use the water onboard in a very conservative capillary-action root mat + NFT system that will drastically reduce the water usage and waste.

      Trying to recycle human waste into fertilizer would be extremely energy intensive and potentially hazardous contamination-wise.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    17. Re:Fertilizer... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "There's an abundance of everything we need in space"

      Yes, you tell me where we're going to get nitrogen, phosphorous, potassium, and other trace elements IN ORBIT.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    18. Re:Fertilizer... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Your knowledge is garbage.

      You said there was everything we needed in space. Your vaunted maglaunch recommendation hints at the fact that THERE IS NOTHING IN SPACE TO BE USED.

      Please try again when you actually do this for a living and have worked with NASA on these things before.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    19. Re:Fertilizer... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      No, you would not do aeroponics. You would do a mat-based NFT system that would utilize capillary action to ensure even moisture and nutrient content at the roots and contain water (as aeroponics in zero gravity is a huge mistake.)

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    20. Re:Fertilizer... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "Good luck growing anything that fruits under LED's though."

      I've had no problems getting jalapenos, soybeans, bush beans, tomatoes, cannabis, bell peppers, and other vegetables to fruit under LED and yield great.

      What nonsense are you spilling?

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    21. Re:Fertilizer... by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Then why is/was NASA the one doing all those aeroponics experiments (successfully) in orbit?

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    22. Re:Fertilizer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From Intrepid's unending stream of bullshit? On top of all his other faults, he's also a peak oil debunker. We're dealing with a pretty peculiar person here.

    23. Re:Fertilizer... by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      I see you responded to every comment except the one that actually answered your question, despite having undoubtedly read it. This link will tell you all you need to know.

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci/tech/401227.stm

      And hey, when you combine that with maglaunch it actually becomes more cost effectiove to pull the stuff out of the sky, taking into account externalities like environmental damage and pollution. All of the raw materials are up there in far more than trace amounts. To respond to your other comment, phosphorus? Scientists believe that most of the earth's supply came from asteroids in the first place:

      http://www.astrobio.net/exclusive/1155/meteorites-donated-lifes-phosphorus

      Nitrogen? It's right up there:

      http://www.ibiblio.org/lunar/minecarb.html

      Potassium? The moon is rotten with the stuff.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_differentiation#Moon.27s_KREEP

      Thing about the earth is, it's basically a big ball of rock floating among a bunch of other balls and lumps of rock which all formed around the same time and are made of the same stuff. Not always in the same proportions but you can find what you're looking for easily enough and tear it out with nukes if you want to because there's nothing up there to care. Solar furnaces are a better option of course.

      So, yeah, anyway, I'll leave you to it.

    24. Re:Fertilizer... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      They're utilizing a bulky sealed system. Good luck getting any decent yield per cubic meter.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    25. Re:Fertilizer... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Ahem, now what does that have to do with availablity IN ORBIT?

      Oh, wait, we'll still need to expend insane amounts of energy and time trying to get shit from asteroids and the moon just to get the stuff in orbit. The caloric cost alone is disparate by many many orders of magnitude. It's a total waste.

      Your links provide no answers, just thoughts that have nothing to do with what you said in regards to a station IN ORBIT. You said 'They can make it' in answer to someone asking 'What will they use for fertilizer?' with 'They' being the people in orbit on the ISS.

      Now you tell me how the fuck people from the ISS RIGHT NOW are going to find the time and resources to go mining something from the moon or passing asteroids? There's not enough crew, not enough fuel, not enough resources. Period.

      Please try again when your logic circuits actually work and you can follow a conversation.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    26. Re:Fertilizer... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "By weight"
      Nitrogen 0.2%

      That's piss-fucking poor given the typical ratio of NPK most plants thrive best under. Give me a fucking break. That's a shit resource.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    27. Re:Fertilizer... by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      You know if you capitalise all of the words in your post it will make what you're saying much more compelling.

      If you could point to all of the asteroid resources in orbit, that's be great. If not, why would you imagine I'm talking about staying in orbit? I mean really, even for someone as determined to shriek until the bad facts go away as yourself, that's a bit much in terms of cognitive dissonance.

      The ISS, as poor an example as it is, still represents progress. And there's no reason to believe that progress need stop with the ISS. However as we're talking in hypotheticals here my guess and expectation is that history will not agree with your hysteria.

      Regarding your other post, the low levels of nitrogen in that kind of asteroid is why you don't just extract nitrogen from them, but oxygen and metals simultaneously. If you wanted to go on a purely nitrogen run you'd just hit up an icy body...

      http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1991ApJ...367..641W

      Oh yes and those icy bodies are an enormous source of volatiles which can be readily transformed into rocket fuel and a wide variety of other substances for half nothing.

      Really, you haven't a leg to stand on here, and I'm not trying to convince you of anything. This information is being made available for others reading the discussion.

    28. Re:Fertilizer... by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Really? we've been testing manure made from humans?

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    29. Re:Fertilizer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Usually insane people don't know they're insane. It's a self-discovery process and I wish you get all the help you need.

    30. Re:Fertilizer... by cusco · · Score: 1

      Fish seem to be pretty good at breaking down human waste into something that is easier for plants and bacteria to deal with, talapia and fresh water anchovies in particular IIRC.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    31. Re:Fertilizer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pictures or it didn't happen, every time I hear people going on about the wonders of LED's and ask them for proof they suddenly go silent. Come on post your loose bud heads, one tomato per plant and miniature bell pepper pictures. It's OK to admit you got ripped off when choosing your lights.

    32. Re:Fertilizer... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "It's OK to admit you got ripped off when choosing your lights."

      I design my own.

      "Pictures or it didn't happen"

      There're thousands all across the internet from other companies showing LEDs producing just freaking fine.

      "Come on post your loose bud heads"

      Oh, you mean my 2009 High Times Pix of the Crop winner?

      http://i.imgur.com/Kh04ew9.jpg

      There ya go! 3-4" wide colas.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    33. Re:Fertilizer... by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "I mean really, even for someone as determined to shriek until the bad facts go away as yourself"

      Very funny coming from a peak oil shill. Please, child.

      "Regarding your other post, the low levels of nitrogen in that kind of asteroid is why you don't just extract nitrogen from them,"

      Apparently you're failing to understand why I'm disappointed regarding the low nitrogen content. You're not growing anything without nitrogen, pal. Go back to your basic high school biology classes.

      Ain't growing shit in space from asteroids when they don't even have a useful supply of essential macronutrients.

      Your supposition is a complete failure.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    34. Re:Fertilizer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod this up please. This is the good shit!

      One of the major problems with "humanure" (known as "night soil" on the Chinese black market) are the introduction of pharmaceuticals into the soil. On a space station, the inputs are controlled (something that's much more difficult to manage on Spaceship Earth).

    35. Re:Fertilizer... by Rob+Bos · · Score: 1

      Re-reading that story today, it's profoundly disturbing. These intrepid "explorers", on encountering an incredibly unique biosphere, proceed to destroy it.

      It's pretty terrible.

    36. Re:Fertilizer... by Phoghat · · Score: 1

      otherwise known as shite

      --
      Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
  2. Vertical or Urban Farms? by delt0r · · Score: 2

    I would be more interested in terrestrial applications. Removing pressure on habitats or even letting current farmland revert back to natural habitats would have a large impact on the plasticity of many ecosystems. In short making them more robust to changes in climate for example.

    --
    If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    1. Re:Vertical or Urban Farms? by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      Why? Earth hydroponics already works fantastically. We already have the technology to do it here significantly more efficient. I can grown in a 20X60 greenhouse enough food to easily feed 20 people. The problem is that it's more expensive and takes more labor. 14 foot tall tomato plants take a lot of care, you havet orun pumps 24/7, etc...

      It's a lot cheaper to just spread seed over a giant farm ad hope for the best.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:Vertical or Urban Farms? by delt0r · · Score: 1

      Interesting. I would have thought it would be much less labor since everything is closer and in a more controlled environment. That could even lend itself to more automation. Why is it more labor? After all you can't really just "spread seed" for tomatoes in general, at least in my limited experience.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    3. Re:Vertical or Urban Farms? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is a field of grass more natural than field of wheat?

    4. Re:Vertical or Urban Farms? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not an artificial monoculture, not subject to erosion related to harvest cycles, not losing soil organic content due to artificial nitrogen fixing, etc.

      The other issue is that there is a lot of energy used in harvesting a low-density plot of conventional agriculture (tractors, etc). Plus, using up the space means that the _next_ plot has an even higher energy consumption since you have to ship everything past it.

      The vertical approach is far more sustainable and scalable, in the long term. I agree with the parent comment in that it also seems like the good first step to going into space with it but this sounds more like this mission is just to test out some ideas. Real space deployment would benefit from the terrestrial vertical knowledge, I would expect.

    5. Re:Vertical or Urban Farms? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      ". The problem is that it's more expensive and takes more labor. "

      Not even close. It's more expensive on fuel alone to do open-land farming.

      More labor? With everything packed into a dense area that's LESS labor (and expended energy and fuel.)

      "you havet orun pumps 24/7, "

      Not even close AGAIN! NFT systems only roll three watering cycles a day.

      Methinks you're looking at the least efficient methods of hydroponics, or you're horrible at the entire thing in the first place.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    6. Re:Vertical or Urban Farms? by delt0r · · Score: 1

      Where i came from, it was all Forrest and bush. We have chopped down and burnt a lot of trees.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    7. Re:Vertical or Urban Farms? by IAmStrider · · Score: 1

      In a station with gravity equivalent to the surface of the moon or greater, go with aquaponics. Aquaponics is hydroponics with fish and bacteria included in the system. Instead of soil, you use expanded shale as the growth medium in the grow bed. Red worms live in GB and digest any dead roots or leaves, nitrobacter converts the ammonia waste from the fish into nitrite and nitrate which the plants then take up as nutrients. There are certain plants that can be grown that can provide a good portion of the food required by the fish but you may need to provide an external protein source. Black soldier fly larvae are an excellent choice here for protein as they could readily digest the food waste in the station's compost pile.

    8. Re:Vertical or Urban Farms? by MickLinux · · Score: 1

      This. If you can avoid importing pests and diseases, then variants of the French biointensive method are probably best for (1) diet (2) converting CO2 to O2, (3) space constraints. Likewise, very little is as effective at energy-efficiency, as human labor. Again, the human labor provides the astronauts with something to do.

      I'd suggest that one should calculate how much plant space you need to support each astronaut's breathing, and then go from there. Use the mechanical scrubbers as an automated emergency backup (with alarms), but other than that, let them remain unused.

      --
      Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
    9. Re:Vertical or Urban Farms? by N1AK · · Score: 1

      And that is why traditional agriculture died out and everything is grown in multi-story, controlled environment greenhouses today...

      Unless you're suggesting that there is a conspiracy to stop hydroponics then the very fact that it is the exception and not the norm is evidence enough; however if you're sure that it is so much more profitable then by all means set up a firm and make a killing and I'll be the first to admit that Khyber was not, in fact, making shit up.

    10. Re:Vertical or Urban Farms? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      " however if you're sure that it is so much more profitable then by all means set up a firm and make a killing and I'll be the first to admit that Khyber was not, in fact, making shit up."

      Okay, done deal.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZTikdxj8AI

      Hey, look! There's my old company ON THE FUCKING BBC WITH ZERO-LIGHT PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY COMBINED WITH VERTICAL SYSTEMS.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    11. Re:Vertical or Urban Farms? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Again, you have never done ANY hydroponics yet pass yourself off as an expert.
      Hydro farming takes DAILY attention. you cant plant them and look at the field in a month. you must tend to the whole habitat multiple times a day.

      Come on back when you know what you are talking about as lumpy is technically correct and you are just grasping at straws based on very basic assumptions.

    12. Re:Vertical or Urban Farms? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "Hydro farming takes DAILY attention."

      Actually, a well-built hydro system runs itself.

      But you wouldn't know jack shit about the systems involved in automating such a process, now would you?

      On the other hand, I know way more than you or lumpy combined, as it's my fucking job.

      I also design new methods of lighting plants in said systems.

      And what would YOU know, child?

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    13. Re:Vertical or Urban Farms? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Oh to add on your point of "Hydro farming takes DAILY attention."

      A typical DWC system only requires attention once a week (or two weeks depending upon reservoir size and crop type.)

      Try again when this is your job.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    14. Re:Vertical or Urban Farms? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While a bunch of the people you argue with don't work with such things at their jobs, you're not the only here that actually works with lighting systems, for agricultural purposes or otherwise. But you've probably painted yourself into a corner, by whipping out this argument every time someone disagrees with you: "Obviously you've never worked with this before, but it is my job." If you want to slowly turn every argument into a pissing match about jobs, fine, but don't think it is only a coincidence that idiots argue with you. It is more of a self-fulfilling prophecy as such repeated crap reminds some of the other people how pointless it is to argue with you in your one person industry.

      At least you obviously know how it feels to be accused of never having worked with such things before (but are a lot more touchy about it...).

    15. Re:Vertical or Urban Farms? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "But you've probably painted yourself into a corner"

      Not even close. Anyone with even a miniscule amount experience with hydroponics systems knows that you don't need to give it daily attention.

      Most DWC systems can go two weeks without a change or even a few simple water tests. These tend to run themselves.

      Most NFT systems can go for three assuming you don't have a heavy water flow and at least partially-sealed channels.

      Ebb and Flow/table systems need to be checked twice a week to ensure no garbage has come from the rockwool slabs and gotten stuck in your lines.

      Aeroponics needs to be checked once a week for nutrient/water change, and checking the sprayer heads to ensure none have clogged.

      But you keep talking about that which you obviously know nothing of.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    16. Re:Vertical or Urban Farms? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The post your replied to had zero to do with hydroponics or aeroponics. It was merely pointing out that the way you reply and treat people, it is not surprising 90+% of the people you end up getting replies from are idiots, because non-idiots or even those with professional experience on the subject see it is pointless to disagree or point out your mistakes. That is the corner you've painted yourself into. Some people here have said stupid things you corrected, others have pointed out some obvious mistakes in what you've said, but you respond all the same and there is no reason to reiterate what has been said to assume you would pay attention if it were said a little slower. I don't know if you have anger issues, or some deep seated need to establish yourself regardless of the costs, but actually discussing the topics you claim to be an expert in seems to take a relatively low priority.

  3. Wasted effort by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I think it's a waste of time trying to solve issues of maintaining a biosphere in space, when a push into space will be much easier after we've reached the Singularity: machine bodies don't need food, air or water.

    1. Re:Wasted effort by somersault · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Machines don't need bodies at all. In fact, machines don't want or need anything. Humans are curious though, and like to do essentially pointless things just because we can. So we're going to have our biosphere in space.

      Besides, the Singularity is just about AI. It doesn't follow that humans are immediately going to go extinct. We may have decent cyborg bodies before then anyway, and so could reduce our food/air/water requirements too.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    2. Re:Wasted effort by fritsd · · Score: 2
      --
      To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
    3. Re:Wasted effort by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's a waste of time trying to solve issues of maintaining a biosphere in space, when a push into space will be much easier after we've reached the Singularity: machine bodies don't need food, air or water.

      I think it's a waste of time trying to solve issues of maintaining a biosphere in space, when giving up the whole idea is much easier. Then we don't need to produce food, air or water in space.

    4. Re:Wasted effort by khallow · · Score: 2

      I think it's a waste of time trying to solve issues of maintaining a biosphere in space, when a push into space will be much easier after we've reached the Singularity: machine bodies don't need food, air or water.

      I was told back in 2000 that the Singularity would solve the problem of cheap access to space in twenty years. So we have about seven years to go.

      Second, we are already machines. But machines that happen to need food, air, and water. There's no particular reason to wait for the Singularity to do things which we can do now.

    5. Re:Wasted effort by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      Besides, the Singularity is just about AI.

      You clearly haven't read the book. Short answer is no it's not. Kurzwell goes into great detail how AI, nanotech, and other technology will allow us to slowly merge with technology until we are no longer just biological. If you are going to make pronouncements as what the singularity is, at least read the damn book.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
    6. Re:Wasted effort by somersault · · Score: 1

      What makes you think that the idea of the singularity is from a single book? Presumably you're referring to Kurzweil's 2005 book. That's just one person's vision of a general concept that has been around since the 1950s:

      The technological singularity, or simply the singularity, is a theoretical point in time when human technology (and, particularly, technological intelligence) will have so rapidly progressed that, ultimately, a greater-than-human intelligence will emerge

      --
      which is totally what she said
    7. Re:Wasted effort by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Besides, the Singularity is just about AI.

      You clearly haven't read the book. Short answer is no it's not. Kurzwell goes into great detail how AI, nanotech, and other technology will allow us to slowly merge with technology until we are no longer just biological. If you are going to make pronouncements as what the singularity is, at least read the damn book.

      Kurzwell?
      You should stop taking your information from Wikipedia and popular TV sitcoms.
      Arthur C. Clark was one of the first to popularize the idea, and did so in 1953 in his novel Childhood's End. There are numerous examples of the idea all through Sci-Fi, the Wikipedia page you obviously ripped from is only one version of it. Another version is the one put forward by Asimov in his robot novels, and doesn't deal with evolution of human intelligence at all- it's the point at which AI becomes indistinguishable from human intelligence.

    8. Re:Wasted effort by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      Waiting for the Singularity is like waiting for the Messiah. Or Godot.

      It may happen in 10 years, or in 10 thousand years. It may not happen at all. We have no idea.

  4. per square foot or square meter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Plant size is a vital calculation in determining what to grow on the space station, where every square foot is carefully allotted. "

    Square ft on the US part of ISS, square meters (or square decimeters) on the Russian/European parts

    1. Re:per square foot or square meter? by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      So, you're saying that the Russians, and Euro's by using Metric don't really know how big the sizes are? Oh, oh; this is not good.

    2. Re:per square foot or square meter? by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 1

      Or the other way around. I remember that the mirror of the space telescope was placed awfully exact 1" wrong. I don't remember who did that, though.

      --
      Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
  5. Spacecraft are Three Dimensional by barlevg · · Score: 2

    every square foot is carefully allotted

    Shouldn't that be CUBIC foot (or, more likely, meter, as the AC above pointed out)? Square footage is only a good measure when you're tethered to the floor.

    1. Re:Spacecraft are Three Dimensional by dywolf · · Score: 1

      gardens are laid out by square footage.
      given that they probably dont want their plants floating in balls of soil in the middle of the room....they would be secured to the wall or floor of the module.
      you said yourself "tethered to the floor" ... well thats exactly what happens with plants.

      also, quibbling over units used for a phrase uttered to illustrrate a concept rather than an actual measurement is silly.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    2. Re:Spacecraft are Three Dimensional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They could be placed on stacks of shelves.

    3. Re:Spacecraft are Three Dimensional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's unrelated to being in space, though.

  6. plants don't like zero gravity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so grow 'em in a rotating capsule with lights in the middle.

    problem solved.

    1. Re:plants don't like zero gravity by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Capsule will have to be large as you will lose artificial gravity as you approach the center.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:plants don't like zero gravity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stays are light and cheap.

    3. Re:plants don't like zero gravity by Mitchell314 · · Score: 1

      I don't see why we have to use land plants. Why not something like fungi or algae genetically modified to supply the essentials? Or a combination of such things.

      --
      I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
    4. Re:plants don't like zero gravity by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      Largely coz they don't exist. The closest is mycoprotein for synethic meat products, and its still a labor intensive process. Plants, if they grow, pretty much handle it themselves.

  7. SPACE !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The final frontier ??

    No it is not !!

  8. oxigen by Thanshin · · Score: 2

    Will this bring a significant improvement in oxygen recycling?

    1. Re:oxigen by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not yet. Eventually, yes. They could grow basil onboard the station. Basil respirates all night (baby) and it's edible and has a ton of health benefits, so it's a logical choice.

      However, it makes less than no sense to grow in a soil-like medium. They should be using aeroponics. Growing in any solid medium at all is just fucking stupid, because it's unnecessary mass.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:oxigen by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Informative

      They are looking to reduce maintenance and power use. Aero and hydroponics requires constant power. Dirt medium does not.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    3. Re:oxigen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are going to need mass for radiation shielding anyways, and were going to just fill the outside of the ship with a lot of water, there might be mass budget for soil too. It would be a good placement if you were going to try to use a rotation scheme to simulate gravity. But I would be more worried about the messy nature of soil, and that it can also end up as a breeding ground for various bacteria and fungi. You could try sterilizing it, but that just means as soon as something gets into it from someplace you missed, it has no competition.

      And while basil is great, I'm not sure if I would want to eat a big heaping bowl of it. A couple pots worth in a warm, humid environment ends up making more than enough for a year's supply of pesto for a small household.

    4. Re:oxigen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they're trying to isolate variables. Maybe also they have several reasons I can't image. Though, I suppose you're right that the NASA scientists are just fucking stupid.

    5. Re:oxigen by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 3, Informative

      Aeroponics has containment issues. If you're misting water constantly, it's going to go everywhere. In fact it's probably not going to behave quite right either since the water doesn't fall - droplets can aggregate and just float around forever. So you're then looking at a complex vacuum system to keep the water moving through properly.

      Much easier just to absorb it into something near the plant roots.

    6. Re:oxigen by dywolf · · Score: 1

      ya mist droplets floating around in microgravity. thats exactly what they need on a space station ...
      no.

      Look, most plants simply dont even know how to grow without gravity being present, and the simplest solution is for any actual space farm to be given spin, however slight. so then, rather than using a mister/atomizer (too much energy for droplet size) you can simply run drip lines or semi-permeable hoses through a "soil" medium, for simple and efficient watering. therefore, soil, also being needful for optimum growth for most plants, would hardly be "uneccesary" mass. PLUS soil then also allows a medium for the dispoal and composting of the biowastes on board as well....oh which also just happens to benefit the space farm module by supplying fertilizer, so they dont need to bring any of that along either. soil, or an equivlent engineered product, actually makes a lot of sense.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    7. Re:oxigen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Duh, they need to use a salad spinner for make artifical grav in the air ponics bay.

      Seriously, it wouldn't need to spin fast, and wouldn't disorient the man-monkeys since they wouldn't need to go inside.

    8. Re:oxigen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're then looking at a complex vacuum system to keep the water moving through properly.

      Like a fan?

    9. Re:oxigen by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "However, it makes less than no sense to grow in a soil-like medium. They should be using aeroponics."

      Not even close. The idea of fine mist floating around to get into equipment is just absolutely ball-to-the-wall stupid.

      Sealed hydroponics or a solid-mat capillary action growing medium are what's called for here.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    10. Re:oxigen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're smart enough to seal a hydroponics system, but not smart enough to think of sealing a aeroponics system so that mist can't just float into equipment?

    11. Re:oxigen by cusco · · Score: 1

      Problem with basil is that it also excretes its scent 24x7, especially if anything brushes against it. It wouldn't take long before everyone got really, really tired of smelling it and ripped it out.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    12. Re:oxigen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or the opposite, they would stop smelling it, and it would lose most of its flavor if their senses have nulled out the smell.

    13. Re:oxigen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Growing terrestrial food in orbit, or even a mile high, is a great idea hands down. So instead of high mass dirt, why not use low mass foam/sponge? I guess dirt has the advantage of infinite reuse provided proper PH care. Foam might work better in capillary terms though. Maybe some kind of chemical recycler for new foam blocks.

    14. Re:oxigen by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      Again: water doesn't behave the same in zero-g.

      A fan will blow air from one point to the other, it will pull some water through. But it's just going to blow it into another compartment where it will have the same behavior - coating the walls as much as the plants and then just staying there. It won't run down or run off anything on its own, so you're heading towards gale-force strength winds to try and keep it all moving.

    15. Re:oxigen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This isn't only a problem in space, there are plenty of cases of airborne materials on Earth that have to be dealt with that won't settle from gravity. Having used simple fans with a little care in design of the airflow, the issue is quite easy to deal with, and that is with materials that don't aggregate or evaporate. With just a fan pulling in air, there is only three places for it to go: stuck someplace with no air flow, stuck to a surface, pulled into the fan. Likely the first two will be the same area, as the only place that has no airflow should be in the inner corner of some surface.

    16. Re:oxigen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      salad spinners work on perpetual motion and require no power input to work? AMAZING!

    17. Re:oxigen by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      I suggest reading the article, as they are not using high mass dirt but a low mass artificial growth medium that acts like dirt.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    18. Re:oxigen by Khyber · · Score: 1

      The problem with sealing an aeroponics system is that there needs to be some room to allow pressure to escape. No pressure, aeroponics system goes 'pop' and your lid is suddenly half-off, with water droplets floating around.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  9. Water for plants = a real problem. Game over. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And by the way, I'd like to see all the current Slashdot editors used
    as fertilizer.

    Articles like this one are proof of incompetence and idiocy of the first order.

  10. Chi-chi-chia! by mschaffer · · Score: 1

    I wonder if they have tried "Chia Pets"?

  11. Lettuce? by onealone · · Score: 1

    Surely of all the vegetables, lettuce is one we could do without?

    1. Re:Lettuce? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They should test a more calories-protein-vitamins rich vegetable. For sure lettuce has nothing nutritive. It is a vegetable use for his fibers and low content of carbohidrates. It is exactly what we do not need in space.

    2. Re:Lettuce? by fritsd · · Score: 1
      According to the Russians, it had a positive effect on the Moscow-Tin-Can-nauts' psychological well-being.
      This is also mentioned of Pettit's Space Zucchini on the ISS, in TFA.

      The Zarya module was launched in 1998, why did it take until 2013 for NASA to launch this VEGGIE program??? Obviously, food in space doesn't seem to have such a high priority in the ISS program.

      During this six-month stay Pettit brought the space zucchini up with “two new crewmates” — broccoli and sunflower plants — as a personal project. He didn’t have fancy equipment, and only a little soil.
      He gave the plants sun by shuttling them between space station windows, and grew them in a plastic bag, feeding them a liquid made from composted food scraps. The crew never tried eating the plants; Pettit jokes it would have felt like cannibalism.
      “We considered them crew members,” he says. “It was delightful to have those plants around, to feel the little hairs on a leaf tickle your nose, to see that sunflower in full bloom. It changed our whole experience.”

      I'm a bit shocked that it was this one astronaut's own project, and not an official mission objective.

      Can any Russians reading this comment on why Roscosmos hasn't launched their "salad machine" from the IMBP?

      --
      To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
    3. Re:Lettuce? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "For sure lettuce has nothing nutritive."

      Maybe you mean ICEBERG lettuce. Romaine, red leaf, etc. have much better nutritional densities.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  12. Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Have there seriously been no attempts to grow produce in orbit yet? I would have thought it would have been an insanely easy & cheap experiment. Just slap some tomato seeds in a small fabric bag filled with dirt, let them grow a bit and send them up into orbit in a small net enclosure to see how well they grow by one of the stations/shuttles windows.

  13. Finally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now they can grow space weed on Juniper. I could sure go for some space weed myself.

  14. Eating space food from space farms, by Goaway · · Score: 1

    Gonna drink space beer at the space bar

    1. Re:Eating space food from space farms, by JustOK · · Score: 2

      don't hit the alt space bar

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    2. Re:Eating space food from space farms, by JustOK · · Score: 2

      I drink at the space bar alot. But sometimes I step away from the keyboard and drink somewheres else.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    3. Re:Eating space food from space farms, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I drink at the space bar alot.

      How large is the allotment?

    4. Re:Eating space food from space farms, by JustOK · · Score: 1

      Irregardless of the size, it's literally as big as the planet Pluto.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
  15. Pay attention, dweebs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yet another reason no one is going anywhere. You can keep chugging Musk's musk if you want, but I wouldn't make Mars plans just yet.

  16. Why are they using LED lights? by DeathToBill · · Score: 2

    It's not like they're further from the sun. So why not grow it using sunlight?

    --
    Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
    1. Re:Why are they using LED lights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not just use LEDs? They suffer from far less redundancy that LED lights.

    2. Re:Why are they using LED lights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      To test the conditions of deep space missions. That's the only time they'd need a regenerative growth system. They don't need such a system in orbit of the Earth.

    3. Re:Why are they using LED lights? by Drewdad · · Score: 1

      Where are they getting PINK LED lights? There is no wavelength of light that is pink.

    4. Re:Why are they using LED lights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plants use blue and red photons. That's why they are green.

    5. Re:Why are they using LED lights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For starters, because the ISS has 90 minute day/night cycles which would probably be detrimental to plants. If using LEDs you can control the cycle to best benefit the plant. Some plants actually grow much faster by tweaking the cycle (day/night lengths). I've personally been trying to figure out if it would be cost effective to grow veggies in my basement over the long dark winter in MN. Anybody have advice on this?

      Also, the ISS doesn't have a greenhouse attached to it. Window space is extremely limited and non of them always face the sun.

    6. Re:Why are they using LED lights? by Ignacio · · Score: 1

      You can create a pink LED by putting some fluorescent material in a blue or white LED. The problem is that some of the materials used for them are not stable, and will break down within a matter of weeks to months.

    7. Re:Why are they using LED lights? by PraiseBob · · Score: 1

      As AC says, ISS rotates around the earth every 90 minutes. However, the orbit it maintains in relation to the sun is variable: "For the next few days, the International Space Station (ISS) will be orbiting Earth in constant sunlight, as its orbit lines up with Earth’s day-night terminator." Taken from: http://www.universetoday.com/67280/iss-will-be-in-constant-sunlight-the-next-few-days/

      Sometimes it has 24/7 sunlight, but it normally does not. Plants like conditions to simulate day and night from their region. In a sense, they have sleep cycles, similar to animals. When they have 16 hours of sunlight a day, they believe it is summer, and grow. When they have 14 hours they think it is autumn and produce veggies. During some orbits you could use window shades, and timing everything perfectly to open and shut them. If you are in an orbit that switches between sunlight and darkness for 45 minutes at a time, then your plants can probably survive. But, if you expect to feed people, then you need optimal growth conditions.

    8. Re:Why are they using LED lights? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      WRONG.

      WRONG.

      WRONG.

      http://pcp.oxfordjournals.org/content/50/4/684.full

      Try again when you actually study this for a living.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    9. Re:Why are they using LED lights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      solar panels are more effecient in gathering light then plants. Also the spectrum is not in the optimum spectrum plants need. Also radiation. also, One less piece of transparent material that can break.

    10. Re:Why are they using LED lights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First off, that paper is talking about a monochrome component in the presence of white light, which is not particularly applicable to the case of generating the minimum number of wavelengths necessary. Even within the paper itself it shows how red light is more efficient in a monochrome case. While it makes the case that piling on more and more light of the same wavelength is going to have diminishing returns (no surprise), in a lot of cases green is still not going to be more efficiency. And regardless of how high the quantum efficiency is within the plant, if you can't get 80+% of your green light into the leaf, there is not enough head room for the improved quantum efficiency to make up the difference.

    11. Re:Why are they using LED lights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't you just link a picture above showing you using red and blue leds for growing? Was that picture more than a couple years old, or are you behind the times? Shouldn't you be switching over to green leds? Or are you purposely misreading others posts for the sake of inflating your ego?

    12. Re:Why are they using LED lights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dunno, probably not ebay:

      http://www.ebay.com/bhp/pink-led-lights

    13. Re:Why are they using LED lights? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      It's not like they're further from the sun. So why not grow it using sunlight?

      Because that requires windows... which are heavy, and vulnerable to damage, etc... etc...

    14. Re:Why are they using LED lights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are most likely red and blue LEDs, this would give an overall pink look to it. Photosynthetic pigments have absorption peaks in the red and blue parts of the spectrum. It's just additional experimentation to see if tailoring the light spectrum can allow more efficient plant growth.

    15. Re:Why are they using LED lights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Regardless of what is occurring inside a plant's leaves. They appear green because green light is being reflected back at our eyes. That is not to say that all green light is wasted on plants, but it does say that more green than anything else is bouncing back to our eyes.

    16. Re:Why are they using LED lights? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      That picture/video was over 5 years old.

      But hey, you keep making assumptions.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    17. Re:Why are they using LED lights? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I at least knew that was a stupid post when I made it. The question is if you thought it was so stupid, why did you respond only to the stupid one and not the ones with actual content?

  17. Food in Space by fast+turtle · · Score: 1

    sounds like a hydroponic media that is not good for root production. They'd be better off using rock wool to promote root growth and give the plants something to bind to. Rock wool is pretty easy to create, especially in space where the energy is readily available using a sinmple solar concentrator and feed the matterial through the focal point.

    Another advantage of rock wool is the ability to retain a nutrient solution near the root ball to promote plant growth

    --
    Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
    1. Re:Food in Space by cusco · · Score: 1

      Wet rock wool makes a happy home for fungi and bacteria (speaking as one who has pulled it out of leaking attics). If pre-seeded with the correct varieties this could be a good thing I suppose, but it could be very dangerous if the wrong varieties take over.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  18. just be sure by digitalvendetta · · Score: 1

    To have to space soup, and not the space special.

  19. shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would be illegal to dispose of your own droppings. You *have* to save it all to fertilize the crops or you're committing a felonious space crime!

  20. Maybe the wrong perspective by SuperCharlie · · Score: 1

    Maybe Im lookin at this wrong, but it seems that you are dealing with a closed system with a leak in that there is only X amount of organic material and Y amount of energy being continually expended by at minimum the people existing (breathing, radiating heat, expending energey..etc) so it seems to be a matter of scale problem at that point..like.. how long you want this thing to go would eventually be determined by how big X is.

  21. can I haz CATstronaut now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NASA needs to get with the 21st freakin' century and launch a cats in space program right now. Teh intarwebs demands livestreaming zero-g lolcats 24-7. No wonder Congress keeps screwing with their funding.

  22. Re:Fertilizer... Pigs in Space! by pubwvj · · Score: 1

    The same thing we use for fertilizer here on earth. The good shit. Animal agriculture is a vital part of the equation. Plants and animals co-evolved to use each others wastes.

  23. Guess they'll insist on animal products too.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... because otherwise they'd have to question what they eat on earth, and we can't have that...

    This is the level of insanity most people live by - just you wait - they will desperately try to implement some sort of livestock, then eggs, then milk, along with all the evil and filth they entail...

    1. Re:Guess they'll insist on animal products too.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Poor baby. It's ok. All the animals go to heaven when we eat them. Now run back home to mommy, someday you'll understand food chains and the value of a diverse diet.

  24. NASA, Behind the times as always by Khyber · · Score: 1

    " The burgundy-hued lettuce (NASA favors the 'Outredgeous' strain) will be grown under bright-pink LED lights, ready to harvest after just 28 days."

    Ignoring the higher quantum yields of green light is going to be a bad mistake. Catch up with the research done not even 4 years ago, NASA. No wonder you can't get a budget when you can't even keep up with the pace of research.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    1. Re:NASA, Behind the times as always by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are they 4-5X as efficient to make up for the crappy efficiency photosynthesis has in that part of the spectrum?

    2. Re:NASA, Behind the times as always by Khyber · · Score: 1

      Apparently you fail to grasp what higher quantum yield means.

      That means green light drives photosynthesis more efficiently.

      http://pcp.oxfordjournals.org/content/50/4/684.full

      Try actually paying attention to what is being said before commenting, eh?

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    3. Re:NASA, Behind the times as always by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is something that is easy enough that it is recommended as a science fair project for students. I've seen it come up multiple times, and the students quite clearly show that green light sucks for growing plants compared to a blue-red mixture. That paper doesn't contradict this at all, since it says the same thing that red is more efficient than green except when lighting with a strong white light source at the same time. Maybe that would be relevant if you are trying to augment sun light, or had another white light source on hand, but it isn't very relevant when stuck with led based growing.

      Of course, when dealing with a subject where more than one quantum efficiency is involved, maybe you should make it more clear that you were referring to the efficiency of the plant and not light source, instead of assuming people don't know what it means. And yes, just because a plant has higher quantum efficiency in a particular situation does not mean that is the highest efficiency option in a more real world situation, where there might not be a white light source, or you don't have your leaves sandwiched between light sources.

    4. Re:NASA, Behind the times as always by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "This is something that is easy enough that it is recommended as a science fair project for students"

      Umm, what level of student? That link is university-level paper using laboratory-grade equipment that no high school has access to.

      "I've seen it come up multiple times, and the students quite clearly show that green light sucks for growing plants compared to a blue-red mixture"

      And you'd be wrong as that link clearly demonstrates separate monochromatic testing as well.

      "That paper doesn't contradict this at all, since it says the same thing that red is more efficient than green except when lighting with a strong white light source at the same time"

      You didn't read the paper, not even the abstract. If you had, you wouldn't even be saying this.

      "maybe you should make it more clear that you were referring to the efficiency of the plant and not light source"

      We're talking about the plant here, and anyone with half a brain could realize that off the bat.

      But keep on talking nonsense.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    5. Re:NASA, Behind the times as always by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Figure 8 and 11 quite clearly show that monochromatic red light has a higher quantum efficiency, it is only when mixed in with a white light source that the green efficiency increases. If it was as simple as you try to construe it, you could have linked to a paper that was testing directly what you are talking about, instead of some other situation or arguing over one particular paper.

      Umm, what level of student?

      I don't know what age the previous AC was talking about, but it is something I've seen done as young as elementary school, but has been done with quite a bit of thoroughness at the high school level. You just grow a bunch of plants, with different lighting sources and appropriate controls, and the same thing comes up every time I've seen it done: the green light plants are stunted, and the red, or red blue mix plants do quite well, with little or no difference from those exposed to a white light source.

    6. Re:NASA, Behind the times as always by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm, what level of student?

      As the AC you replied to, while I've worked mainly with high school students doing such experiment in detail, the basic experiment of seeing what spectrum of lights makes plants grow better gets pitched to middle school or even younger if you have some help setting up the different color light sources. Very little equipment is needed for a real world test where you try different light sources in a typical growing setup and see how well each works. It doesn't take anything advanced to test something as simple what works better "a bunch of green leds" or a "bunch of red leds" or some mix, etc. They might not be carefully examining the spectra of the light sources or intensities, but I've seen some go as far as making sure they use constant power between sources at that level.

      That said, the students I've helped were at the high school level and doing things more carefully, among other experiments, because a couple of the local science teachers that coordinate science fair stuff know to direct students to me if they need radiometric or spectroscopic related equipment. Those students are working with some university level equipment and a bit of training. Although students doing full university level work are not uncommon, and about half of the research groups I know end up with a high school student each year trying to do a project. Our group doesn't have any, but maybe because developing semiconductor photodetectors is kind of boring or tedious at that level.

      I don't know how to respond to your charge of not reading the paper, as I read through it before replying. Instead now it looks more like you didn't read it, as it explicitly states the opposite of what you are saying it does now:

      "When a sunflower leaf was irradiated from the adaxial side, red was at first greater than green "

      " When the leaf was irradiated from the abaxial side, red was greater only at the lowest PPFD, and green light was more effective in higher PPFDs"

      "Namely, red light is more effective than green light in white light at low PPFDs, but as PPFD increases"

      (At the weak end, their monochromatic "weak" light was stronger or as large as the white light source).

      The start of the "Theory" section is where they make it quite clear they are talking about a white light source and not monochromatic source, that instead they are instead looking at a differential measurement. Although that should have been pretty obvious from not only the abstract, but the title.

    7. Re:NASA, Behind the times as always by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somehow managed to cut off the most important point I was going to put at the end: their efficiency is defined relative to the absorbed light. That efficiency does not take into account the amount of light lost due to reflection from the leaf, and as such, green is still at a disadvantage regardless of the other points.

    8. Re:NASA, Behind the times as always by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "As the AC you replied to, while I've worked mainly with high school students doing such experiment in detail,"

      Then you won't mind telling us what school you teach at, as a public figure, yes?

      After all, academia doesn't go hiding.

      Of course, you'll keep hiding and fail to provide citable proof that you teach this to students.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    9. Re:NASA, Behind the times as always by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem more interested in conflict than actual discussing any of the actual subject or even the paper you've been beating. I'm not sure why you would expect someone to give you contact info at this point. But to answer your exact question anyway: I don't teach at any school, and never said I did. I work at a university doing research full time, and help students with science fair projects and outreach on the side. I don't know what citations can even be given for one-on-one conversations, or why you would need some sort of formal validation of that anyway.

    10. Re:NASA, Behind the times as always by Khyber · · Score: 1

      " I work at a university doing research full time"

      Your appeal by authority is pretty weak. That's the whole point of the argument, to address that nonsense.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  25. No need for fertilizer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    The soil replacement substrate they are testing (arcillite) is highly absorbent and probably is pretreated with the fertilizers. I know that similar experiments (SVET, russian ) were done on the Russion Mir station (my father was leading the team that developed the soil substrate). They used naturally occurring mineral (zeolite) which is extremely good absorbent. You can pretreat it with a fertilizer mix and it will leach small amounts of nutrients and support plant growth for years. All you need to do is add water. The zeolite is also very light - the dry stones will actually float when placed in water, until they absorb enough of it to sink. The zeolites and I assume the arcillite substrate that NASA is testing can also serve as base for soil formation. On long missions you can mix them with waste and let it rot. Because of their absorbent properties the zeolites will actually reduce the smell that comes out of the mix. I would guess that in a confined box with no external supply of fresh air, this would be quite an advantage.

    Here are some references for the substrate description and the experiment results.

  26. Bigelow Aerospace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This seems like a good fit for testing a Bigelow module. If Bigelow buys the farm...so to speak...it wouldn't be as bad as losing something that the inhabitants couldn't live without.

  27. Plants in micro-gravity by MarginalWatcher · · Score: 1

    OT: Are they growing them in microgravity or some sort of spin-induced inertial "gravity" close to Earth's? Just wonder what plants growing in zero-G conditions would look like...

  28. space cash by dickplaus · · Score: 1

    I better start saving up my space cash i stole from baby fark mcgee zax

  29. Will it come from the vine... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    already freeze-dried?

  30. CO2 by jacerie · · Score: 1

    What I'm curious about is how much they're going to have to play with the atmosphere scrubbers to provide a consistent level of CO2 for the plants to metabolize. Too little CO2 and the plants grow slowly or stunted, too much CO2 and the astronauts suffer. Finding that happy medium is going to be critical for any long-term orbital farming.

    1. Re:CO2 by cusco · · Score: 1

      They already try to maintain the CO2 balance fairly close to Earth-normal. They tried high-oxygen/low CO2/low air pressure environments early in the space program but the risk of fire was too high.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  31. Re:Fertilizer... Pigs in Space! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who knew the Muppets were so forward thinking?

  32. in space, no one can you you "whoosh" by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    Trying to recycle human waste into fertilizer would be extremely energy intensive and potentially hazardous contamination-wise.

    Exposing human waste to hard vacuum and direct sunlight for a while wouldn't be sufficient to sterilize it? I'm actually curious about that.
    That would make space toilet design a lot easier. You just need to avoid what happened to U-1206

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:in space, no one can you you "whoosh" by Khyber · · Score: 1

      It's the breaking down of the materials afterwards into bioavailable nutrient salts that's the issue. Also, bacteria and such can survive a hard vacuum of space and some can even withstand UV bombardment well past UVC range.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  33. That seems great until stage 2: Cooking! by scorp1us · · Score: 2

    How the heck are you to make any kind of food other than raw in space? Your microwave oven is going to take 1kW, and you'll get mushy carrots at best. How do you dice in 0g? What about stir-fry? That seems very messy!

    --
    Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
    1. Re:That seems great until stage 2: Cooking! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rather explains the invention of the pancake intake duct above the main cooking area.

  34. Pig Farmers in Space, Already by pubwvj · · Score: 1

    To go where no farmer has gone before...

    http://sugarmtnfarm.com/2009/04/01/pig-farmers-in-space/

  35. SALAD! by Cow007 · · Score: 1

    Eating salad in space; sounds like the next viral video sensation... Could get pretty messy!

    --
    411 Y0UR 8453 4R3 8310NG 70 U5!! -NSA
  36. Re:Fertilizer... Pigs in Space! by cusco · · Score: 1

    Guinea pigs are probably a better choice. Reproduce faster, less fat, need less space, and the pellet-type manure is easier to deal with. They thrive on kitchen waste and weeds, and are dumber than pigs so less likely to cause trouble. They're also MUCH less aggressive than a sow in heat (or a boar any time), and the males don't need to be castrated to make the meat eatable. The only disadvantage is that they won't eat meat or fish offal like a pig would, but there are plenty of fish that will do that.

    --
    "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  37. space weed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NASA grows weed in space? Sign me up.

  38. Screw that lettuce crap... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I want research into weightless sex, and then free tickets to ride.

  39. I will bet if pink leds work on lettuce by ralphaostrander · · Score: 1

    I bet it works on pot too. Shazam.

  40. Re:Fertilizer... Pigs in Space! by pubwvj · · Score: 1

    Wow, so much mythunderstanding and so little real knowledge in your reply:

    1) Fat is a necessary dietary component. If you don't get it you won't be healthy. Even in space you'll need fat.

    2) Pigs don't actually have much fat unless you breed and feed them for it. "Fat Pigs" are made that way primarily through miss-management since few people have lard type pigs now. Even lard type pigs aren't fat if kept on a proper feed.

    3) Pigs thrive on kitchen wastes, weeds, pasture and just about anything making them a perfect animal for space. We raise our pigs on pasture. In fact, they can eat a more varied diet than guinea pigs. They'll even eat you when you die so we can avoid wasting resources by spacing you. Hey, in space nothing can go to waste...

    4) Pigs make food for us much faster than guinea pigs. Real farm pigs grow from birth (3 lbs) to finisher size (250 lbs) in about six months on pasture. Farm pigs have eight to 20 piglets per litter and two to three litters a year. That's around 7,000 lbs of continuous production per year. You'll never find guinea pigs doing that efficient production of food.

    5) Aggressive pigs should be eaten, not bred. If you're breeding aggressive boars and sows then you're making a big mistake. But based on what you're saying I have the distinct impression you know little to nothing about pigs so I don't think you're doing any pig raising or breeding. I actually breed and raise them so I'm very familiar with them. I have hundreds out on pasture. Our pigs aren't aggressive. Like with any large animal you need to handle them with care - they can step on you or bite.

    6) Male pigs don't need to be castrated. There is plenty of research on that. The meat of non-castrated male (boar) pigs is very good. We sell the meat from thousands of boars to tens of thousands of people.

    7) Most of all I have one word for you: Bacon.

    Next time pick a topic you understand rather than spreading false information and myths.

    Walter Jeffries
    SugarMtnFarm.com
    Pastured Pigs

  41. Re:Fertilizer... Pigs in Space! by cusco · · Score: 1

    Most of my knowledge of pigs comes from those raised by my dad in the '40s/'50s and my wife's relatives in Peru, so probably none of them would have been the breeds you use. Perfectly willing to be educated, that's what I come to SlashDot for.

    A dozen guinea pigs (which do have some fat on them, but not the lard belly that I associate with pork) can be raised on the potato peelings, banana skins, etc. of a family, with a few greens on occasion to round out the diet. In a very large habitat you might have enough fodder for a herd of pigs, but in a smaller habitat you'd be limited to just a few. Guinea pigs are better than rabbits and near chickens for pound of animal grown per pound of feed, aren't pigs close to the middle between chickens and cattle?

    Can you inbreed your porkers, or would you need to have sperm for insemination brought in? Guinea pigs don't have much problem with that, at least in Peru an inbred line can go at least 10 or 12 generations without outbreeding and probably longer. We generally end up wiping them out for someone's birthday or anniversary and starting over every couple of years, so I'm not sure how long they can go. My brother-in-law would know for sure, he's raised them for sale.

    I've had meat from uncastrated boars, it's eatable but not good. Again, they probably weren't the breeds that you work with, but just cooking it made the whole house reek like spoiled urine. Is there something you need to do at slaughter time to prevent that, or is it the breed you use? I know with buck deer you remove the scent glands as soon as you kill it or the venison doesn't taste as good.

    7) You win. :-)

    I think we're probably both right. In a small pioneer situation where meat is an occasional luxury and there isn't a lot of fodder guinea pigs win, in a large environment with surplus greens or pasture pigs could probably provide a more steady supply of meat.

    --
    "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
  42. Re:Fertilizer... Pigs in Space! by pubwvj · · Score: 1

    "Can you inbreed your porkers, or would you need to have sperm for insemination brought in?"

    You can inbreed. It is just like any animal, or plant. Breed the best of the best and eat the rest. Inbreeding problems don't appear by magic but are from recessive genes that become visible. Cull them. That is the problem with inbreeding where people aren't willing to cull the offspring. This is why inbreeding humans is generally frowned on. :)

    "I've had meat from uncastrated boars, it's eatable but not good."

    Then you had either the unfortunate result of the few breeds that have a problem with boar taint or it was miss-management. See this for more on taint. I've done a lot of research on it, we don't castrate and there is a growing movement in the industry to end castration. Basically have good genetics (most pigs don't have taint), feed correctly and manage correctly and there won't be taint.

    http://www.google.com/search?q=site:sugarmtnfarm.com+taint

    "7) You win. :-)" :) Bacon is the gateway meat. :)

    I'm thinking that when we go into space, space, as in room, isn't going to be a big deal. We're going to make huge habitats. Lots of sunlight. Lots of solar energy. Pastures! Pig farmers in space! I would take some chickens too for a complete breakfast. :)