Slashdot Mirror


NASA's Next Frontier: Growing Plants On the Moon

An anonymous reader writes in with news about a NASA project that aims to grow plants on the moon in specially made containers. "In 2015, NASA will attempt to make history by growing plants on the Moon. If they are successful, it will be the first time humans have ever brought life to another planetary body. The Lunar Plant Growth Habitat team, a group of NASA scientists, contractors, students and volunteers, is finally bringing to life an idea that has been discussed and debated for decades. They will try to grow arabidopsis, basil, sunflowers, and turnips in coffee-can-sized aluminum cylinders that will serve as plant habitats. But these are no ordinary containers – they’re packed to the brim with cameras, sensors, and electronics that will allow the team to receive image broadcasts of the plants as they grow. These habitats will have to be able to successfully regulate their own temperature, water intake, and power supply in order to brave the harsh lunar climate."

34 of 193 comments (clear)

  1. As exciting as... by Schrockwell · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...watching grass grow.

    1. Re:As exciting as... by d3m0nCr4t · · Score: 4, Funny

      Reminds me of the R.E.M. song: If you believe, they put a plant on the moon, plant on the moon...

  2. Awesome by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Ok this is awesome.

    Its been on my wishlist for unmanned travel that we'd try packaging up Earth plants and sending them to grow on alien worlds in some way. The Moon is a good starting point - Elon Musk got into SpaceX because he wanted to do it on Mars with a Greenhouse.

    Personally I wish we'd just man up and shoot the appropriate organisms into Venus' atmosphere to start the terraforming process.

    1. Re:Awesome by Thanshin · · Score: 5, Funny

      Personally I wish we'd just man up and shoot the appropriate organisms into Venus' atmosphere to start the terraforming process.

      I agree.

      And as appropriate organisms, my vote goes for: Lawyers, politicians and lobbyists, in that order.

    2. Re:Awesome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I suggest that we put lobbyists before politicians on that list, otherwise we will end up with a brief period where we have lobbyists with no natural target, that could be ugly.

    3. Re:Awesome by Jade_Wayfarer · · Score: 4, Funny

      Egads, man, just think what they'll do to poor Venus! It won't be terraforming, it would be terracide!

      --
      Absence of proof != proof of absence.
    4. Re:Awesome by aurb · · Score: 2

      And then nuke the entire site from orbit - it's the only way to be sure.

    5. Re:Awesome by andrewbaldwin · · Score: 2

      What about the phone sanitisers?

      (http://hitchhikers.wikia.com/wiki/Golgafrincham)

    6. Re:Awesome by Sockatume · · Score: 2

      How do you terraform a planet which has lost most of its hydrogen to space? The water's got to come from somewhere.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    7. Re:Awesome by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Informative

      We don't have any such organisms, Venus suffered a major runaway greenhouse, it has virtually no hydrogen, it's oceans boiled and radiation blew the hydrogen into space over time. It's now deader than Mars, and we don't have the technology to resurrect it.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    8. Re:Awesome by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 2

      You collect large amounts of H20 or frozen H2 somewhere in the solar system. Since it's frozen, you only need to give it a bump once to set it on a collision course with the planet, where it will rain down in gigantic torrents.

      Admittedly, I've just made this up and have no clue. Would this work in principle?

    9. Re:Awesome by Type44Q · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And as appropriate organisms, my vote goes for: Lawyers, politicians and lobbyists, in that order.

      They'll need clergy to minister to their spiritual needs...

    10. Re:Awesome by Vanderhoth · · Score: 2

      I don't want to start a huge global warming debate, but the problem is you're talking huge expense and several hundred human generations before the desired effect would take place, and probably several hundred more generations before the planet could sustain any kind of life. We can't even get *one* generation of humans to agree to anything about climate on Earth without it degrading into a massive conspiracy name calling argument. Even if it means saving money in just twenty years by switching to renewable fuel sources like wind, solar and tidal power.

      Reading comments on any CBC news story even remotely related to climate change has made me lose all hope for humanity. We're doomed whether we do something or not. Even if we did manage to reverse, or mitigate, climate change there's just too much stupid to believe we'd continue on as a species for much longer. I give it maybe two more generations before we forget how to breath and people start dying of asphyxiation syndrome.

    11. Re:Awesome by Dthief · · Score: 2

      house on wheels.....slowly moving, and always sunset

      --
      www.RacquetUp.org - Helping Detroit Youth
    12. Re:Awesome by foobar+bazbot · · Score: 3, Informative

      It would have to travel 4 miles an hour over every possible type of terrain. Better to just live in orbit.

      Or just skip the terraforming and live in huge floating bubble-cities. An Earth-standard atmosphere turns out to be a lifting gas in Venus's atmosphere, and there's a region of Venus's atmosphere where both pressure and temperature are confortably Earth-like, and it's got nice steady winds to carry your bubble around the planet much faster than the surface rotation -- depends on latitude, but on the order of 100 hours.

      "All" you need is to engineer a nearly-closed biosphere (same as needed for long-term orbiting habitats), and the ability to synthesize the needed inputs from Venusian atmosphere. (In contrast to space habitats, where there's no resources with zero transport costs, but low-energy transfers permit resources from a wide range of places with nearly-uniform transport costs, floating colonies give you access to the upper atmosphere for free, decreasing altitude with increasing cost, the surface with insane difficulty and cost, and orbital (or higher) space at costs similar to those for accessing LEO from Earth's surface.)

    13. Re:Awesome by dargaud · · Score: 2

      Well, it completely depends on how brutal you want to be in the case of Venus (Earth is a whole other problem as you point out). A monomolecular film at the right angle could reflect a good portion of the sun. If you make it large enough to covert a sizable portion of the planet, take away 20% of the sunlight, it wouldn't take long. Such films do exist and aren't even hard to manufacture, but how stable would it be, gravitationally, resistance to UV, radiation, cosmic dust, static electricity trying to fold it on itself, solar wind pushing it, etc...? We are in the realm of SF.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    14. Re:Awesome by khallow · · Score: 2

      Several implies more than three, so yes a minimum of 3,000 would fit in there, but I was implying it would take an arbitrarily long time.

      Which isn't that long as I noted. A few centuries to millennia and the end result could be a second Earth which sticks around being useful for a few tens of millions of years.

      I say, "hay, you know if we switched to solar or wind power we could save money in the long run and as a bonus it would be good for the environment" and I'm accused of hyperventilating.

      Because your claim was exaggerated and you followed it with the hyperbole that people would forget how to breathe merely because they don't buy into a belief system that isn't founded on reality.

      You mean like switching to sustainable energy sources?

      Something we can do even easier in a few decades than we can do now.

      or perhaps cutting down on air pollution that's causing smog in large cities leading to increases in lung diseases like cancer and asthma?

      Already been done. Pollution was much worse in the 50s.

      or perhaps reducing the number of accidents while extracting and transporting dangerous toxic liquid (oil) that's lead to huge issues in fishing and agricultural industries?

      Yes, already done.

      How are things going down there in the Gulf of Mexico by the way?

      The place hasn't gone anywhere.

      Got that BP oil cleaned up yet?

      It's being cleaned up as we speak and would continue to be even if we stopped doing anything at all. Dump a bunch of food into the ocean and surprise, it gets eaten.

      We don't even need to bring climate change in to the argument to say it would be better for everyone to move away from fossil fuels. Yet even mentioning the thought brings people out of the wood work frothing at the mouth to start a "climate change" argument, as you've clearly proven.

      It's because I understand the stakes at hand. We wouldn't just be using less fossil fuels. We'd be abandoning global infrastructure that helps many billions of people feed themselves and better their lives.

  3. I knew it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...it will be the first time humans have ever brought life to another planetary body.

    So NASA is finally admitting that it never sent life [Astronauts] to another planetary body. Am guessing they may have sent dead ones in order to be able truthfully say yes we sent astronauts to the moon.

  4. Non SI units by mikewilsonuk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The "coffee can" is a US unit unknown to the rest of the world. We buy our coffee in packets or jars (of differing sizes). How big is a coffee can?

    1. Re:Non SI units by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      American baristas' cans average around 34DD.

    2. Re:Non SI units by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I just looked this up - to me "coffee can" meant a 180ml can of liquid coffee (around half the size of a can of coke) that's ready to drink, but apparently this isn't popular outside East Asia. According to Wikipedia, a standard coffee can, also known as a #10 can, has a volume of 13 cups and holds 3 lb of coffee. A cup is a US unit, distinct from the imperial unit of the same name, measuring 16 US tablespoons (again different from imperial tablespoons) or around 237 ml. So a coffee can is not quite 3.1 litres - slightly more than Thanshin's reply of 169.56 cubic inches (which is around 2.8 litres) but slightly less than ksemlerK's reply which comes out as 3.45 litres (unless that's the exterior dimensions?). It also seems kind of weird that the can is so big as it's also called a 3 lb coffee can, which is less than 1.5 kg and coffee is denser than water; perhaps when you open the can it's more than half empty?

    3. Re:Non SI units by Sockatume · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's not liquid coffee, it's ground coffee beans. They're about one third of the density of water.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    4. Re:Non SI units by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      How big is an inch ?

      0.1mm for genital measurement, 25.4mm for everything else.

    5. Re:Non SI units by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 2

      To my knowledge drinkable coffee is actually forbidden in the united states. Something to do with temperature and the danger of spilling it.

      --
      Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
    6. Re:Non SI units by Sockatume · · Score: 3, Informative

      I suspect the actual grains are more dense than water, but the powder packs inefficiently. (Instant coffee? You're a monster.)

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  5. Careful what you ask for by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

    Those majestic plants 'braving the harsh lunar climate'.

    You just might end up with something like this.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  6. Purpose? by sinktank · · Score: 3, Interesting

    From TFA:

    This experiment will test whether plants can survive radiation, flourish in partial gravity, and thrive in a small, controlled environment.

    We can (and have) test all those things here on Earth. IIRC, NASA successfully grew lettuce in zero-g on a shuttle mission.
    The moon is a terrible place to grow plants:

    - 13-day/night cycle
    - 275 Kelvin temperature variation
    - 25 rem/yr radiation with no solar flare protection
    - no water
    - lunar regolith useless as soil

    In other words you have to take the whole environment with you. Growing plants on a scale sufficient to be considered food on the moon is a long way off.

    It makes for a good kids public outreach program, but let's be realistic: the moon is basically good for 2 things - a huge radio telescope on the far side, and the 1-50 ppb He-3 in the lunar regolith. By the time we're ready to do those things, robots will be good enough to do it all for us.

    1. Re:Purpose? by MozeeToby · · Score: 2

      - 13-day/night cycle
      - 275 Kelvin temperature variation

      There are areas near the poles that have basically unending sunshine, neatly taking care of those 2 issues.

      no water

      Those same areas have been show to contain a surprising amount of water in the regolith, in the range of cups per cubic meter.

      lunar regolith useless as soil

      Soil is overrated anyway. Hydroponics (or even aeroponics) allows better production with more efficient use of resources. Of course, eventually it'd be nice to work out exactly what it will take to break down the regolith into something earth plant life can survive in; but in it's simply not necessary.

  7. Weed and Dandilions by flyingfsck · · Score: 3, Funny

    They should plant weed and dandelions. It will grow anywhere. Pretty soon the whole moon will be green.

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  8. Re:unmanned, but let's imply and mislead! by gweilo8888 · · Score: 2

    It's also flat-out wrong on the first point. No, it is not the first time humans have ever brought life to another planetary body, even if by life you read an implication that they mean non-human life.

    We've brought all manner of microscopic life with us -- much of it inside or on the surface of us -- when we were on the moon previously. Doubtless at least some amount has been sent as microscopic residue even on unmanned missions. OK, the vast majority of the lunar passengers also came back with us, and it's unlikely any of what we've unintentionally brought along has survived, but to say that we've never brought life to another planetary body? Demonstrably not true.

  9. Moon Pot by Required+Snark · · Score: 2
    Now that pot is becoming legal in the US, maybe the final frontier will be growing pot on the moon.

    Think about it. What's needed is a really high (pun intended) profit margin product to drive space exploration. Think how much stoners would pay for pot grown on the moon. Astronomical profit!

    Unlike mineral extraction, there is minimal extra-terrestrial processing involved. It's like a sample and return mission, except you don't have to find anything.

    Now we can finally fill in item number two:

    1) Grow pot on Moon

    2) Return it to Earth.

    3) Profit!

    --
    Why is Snark Required?
  10. Soil by sandertje · · Score: 2

    This might sound a bit stupid, but in my opinion it is more interesting to see how the soil survives than how the plants do. Most people think soil is dead material, while in fact it is full with activity of bacteria, fungi, insects, earthworms, nematodes and more. Growing anything usefull requires good soil. Once we know how soil biology behaves in Lunar conditions, we might be able to come up with a way to convert Lunar regolith into useable soil.

  11. Weeds first, THEN interesting plants by ReallyEvilCanine · · Score: 2
    You'd think NASA didn't know about taking baby steps, as if they'd gone to the Moon first and decided to work on that boring stable orbit shit later. They should be growing crabgrass, dandelions, and kudzu first. Shit that you have to fight like hell to get to stop growing. Shit that doesn't care how badly you treat it or how poor the conditions are. Bonus: dandelion leaves and kudzu are edible.

    While regolith ain't soil, it can be used as a basic substrate which hearty weeds wouldn't complain about.

    1. Re:Weeds first, THEN interesting plants by VortexCortex · · Score: 2

      If you can grow crabgrass, dandelions, and kudzu, then you could grow basil and turnips instead with no substantial difference in difficulty. What's the real difference? Astronauts would rather eat basil-turnips stew than kudzu crabgrass salad. The experiment is actually somewhat needed since it'll give us better estimates on the amount of area food production will take (it depends on the growth rate of the foods).

      If we're talking terraforming and not just growing goodies to eat in a mostly closed cycle (poo is fertilizer, albeit rather 'hot' with bacteria), then we'll want some kind of genetically engineered microbes and lichen, etc which can survive on water mixed with regolith + heat and break down the rocks into more useful soil. You'd be wanting that under a dome of sorts, maybe in a crater or two on the south pole, so any gases produced wouldn't be blown away by solar winds.

      We're a long way off from lunar dome construction and genetically engineered lunar microbes. However, we have all the technology required to put a habitat on the moon -- Just not funding to do so. You want funding you need to aim for getting people off the planet. Joe sixpack is inspired by people, not probes or plants. Folks atrophy in low G, so it limits the time humans can spend in a habitat; One that's big enough for long term missions and food cultivation would have to be cycled like the ISS does, but the gravity may let them stay longer than orbital platforms -- It's the radiation I'd be worried about.

      Actually, this just reminded me I need to catch up on Space Brothers -- An anime series about the human element involved in becoming a JAXA astronaut, international cooperation, brotherly love and rivalry, and performing Lunar and other missions. I recognized many Houstonian landmarks in their episodes at NASA / Johnson Space Center. There were episodes about such a lunar habitat, and while I'm sure artistic license is taken, the show demonstrates some impressive real life space agency involvement for an show. The current arc includes training in an international undersea platform must be inspired by actual plans. Space Brothers includes the first voice acting to ever be recorded in space (by Akihiko Hoshide). In the live action movie based on the anime / manga, Buzz Aldrin makes a cameo appearance as himself.

      I don't mean to ramble on about this series (which you can find free streaming online w/ ads on crunchroll among other places), but IMO, this sort of thing I think about as "baby steps". I agree with you on that front. NASA needs more Community Involvement, sparking public interest especially among children. They're getting a bit better with social media, and we have NASA TV, but it's not half as entertaining to minds young or old as comic books, animations, or movies about what it would be like to live in space in the future. All around the world I see cultures becoming more excited about space, and yet here in the USA most common people are disenchanted with it, and many are actively negative towards awarding any funding. That Gravity film was in the right vein, but far more expensive than a manga or anime. It's a shame the stigma western societies have over art mediums like these (and even games) -- It's just as valid a medium as film, radio, theater, or painting, but western animation studios (like Dreamworks or Pixar) are hampered by the expectation that animation is for kids, and thereby kid-safe and lacking most mature dramatic elements. I'd much rather see something like an American version of Space Brothers on prime time TV than yet another Simpsons wannabe.

      Ultimately space exploration's goal must include spreading life beyond our planet.