Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Growing Flowers In Space (nasa.gov)

Posted by Soulskill on from the just-don't-try-any-trifids dept.

An anonymous reader writes: This weekend, NASA astronaut Scott Kelly posted a picture of the first flower to bloom in space. The International Space Station has been home to the Veggie plant growth facility for almost two years, and scientists have been working hard to figure out how to keep crops alive in microgravity. It's a challenge to keep plants properly heated and hydrated, and their current specimens been attacked by mold as well. "More crops for Veggie are heading to the orbiting laboratory aboard SpaceX-8. The Veg-03 run will include two sets of Chinese cabbage, and one set of red romaine lettuce. In 2018, there are plans to launch dwarf tomato seeds to the space station. Smith said the lessons learned from growing zinnia flowers will be critical in the process of growing tomatoes, a fellow flowering plant. Studies are also in progress to see how adjusting the lighting in the Veggie plant growth facility can affect plan mineral composition. There will be preflight testing to determine what 'light recipe' to use aboard the station."

44 comments

  1. Plants by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

    This is important if we're to ever have long space flights.

    1. Re: Plants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No shit Sherlock

    2. Re:Plants by DigiShaman · · Score: 0

      Or just get biology completely out of the mix and instead upload human consciousness into computers?. I'm sorry, but if we're really talking about long duration to trek the farthest reaches of space, even to planets such as Jupiter, supporting fragile biology doesn't seem very logical.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    3. Re:Plants by vtcodger · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > This is important if we're to ever have long space flights.

      According to the article, mold was a problem with the zinnia. Perhaps we should forget trying to replicate terrestrial horticulture just like back in Kansas, and focus on growing edible and/or decorative molds.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    4. Re:Plants by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 2

      You cannot "upload" a consciousness into a computer. At the very best, you'll be able to make a copy.

      And if you happen to be able to makes a perfect copy, it means it will think like a human. Wouldn't a human mind go insane on a centuries-long trip?

    5. Re:Plants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      1) Can you define exactly what you mean by "consciousness"? And how do we extract it from your head to upload anywhere else?

      2) Is it OK if I upload your consciousness to my prototype quantum computer here so that I can send you on a trip to around the galaxy in said machine?

      I hope it's OK with you that your biological brain is killed in the upload process. Quantum mechanics does not allow copying of information like that.

      3) What's the point of populating the universe with robots as you suggest? The human race stays stuck at home and dies out.

       

    6. Re:Plants by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      Well, gee, we can look at supporting the fragile biology because it exists and we can do real science around that ... or we can rely on something which is nowhere near existing (uploading human consciousness into computers).

      So basically you're saying we should wait until we perfect technology we don't even remotely have, and not bother doing stuff we actually can?

      I'm sorry, but saying we should halt science to wait for science fiction means we'd never fucking do anything, because we'd all be sitting around waiting for the science fiction to magically happen.

      I'll put my faith in real science instead of something have no idea will ever be possible.

      You might as well say we should wait until we've evolved to be able to survive in space. Like that's gonna just happen by magic.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    7. Re:Plants by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      I don't have the absolute answer to refute your comment; maybe you're right, maybe you're not. But I will leave you with the following question: If you had a machine that cloned a copy of you atom for atom as an exact replica, which version is "you"?

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    8. Re:Plants by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      I will leave you with the following question: If you had a unicorn, would it shit skittles and piss moonbeams?

      Because, really, mine is just as likely as yours given existing technology.

      So, why even consider it?

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    9. Re:Plants by alvinrod · · Score: 2

      If you could make a perfect copy to hardware, you can reset it back to a known good state whenever you need to or it goes insane. Also, if you could put a human consciousness into a computer, you'd need some hardware to interface with or some other way to approximate human sensations. Imagine your brain waking up and having no sense of sight, hearing, touch, etc. You wouldn't need a centuries-long trip through space for a mind to go insane.

      Putting it in a computer would be a neat trick, but downloading it back into a new meat sack would be far more interesting. Upload the consciousness to a computer and store it and drift through space for hundreds of years or more. When you get to the other end, start growing some perfect clones and reinstate the consciousness. As far as the person is concerned, practically no time has passed,

    10. Re: Plants by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      I don't know about skittles, but certainly a creamy desert in a cone.

      http://youtu.be/YbYWhdLO43Q

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    11. Re:Plants by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      I think the argument is that lots of research is going into supporting this fragile biology and yet comparatively little is going into transferring consciousness into computers. So rather than devoting the resources to figure out how to keep people alive in a hostile environment, perhaps we should devote those resources into figuring out how to make a "person" that can survive in the hostile environment.

      The reason, as you state, is that we know more about our fragile biology than we know about that thing called "consciousness."

    12. Re:Plants by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      Well if you didn't know, I'll file your comment under "wild speculation disguised as analysis."

      And the answer to your question, of course, is "The original." You didn't even consider if your phrasing made sense, did you?

      Also, "atom for atom" isn't even the right scale to attempt what you think you're describing. :o

    13. Re:Plants by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      From my experience with unicorns, it really depends on diet. If they're shitting skittles you should reduce their food intake before bed. If they're pissing moonbeams, you smoked the exact right amount.

    14. Re:Plants by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Or, we could just scan his brain, show him the scan to prove he's in the computer, "delete" the original, and call it a day. If you don't feel the magic that doesn't mean you have to rain on his parade.

    15. Re:Plants by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Logitech and many others are doing quite a nice business selling keyboards and mice. Is that not a good enough method for transferring consciousness into computers?

      Yes, I know, you're asking for something like "rsync -asv /mnt/Joe /backup". The problem is so difficult that we don't really know what questions to ask, so we have to focus on biology first.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  2. What's wrong with American cabbage? by Tokolosh · · Score: 2

    Sheesh, the Chinese are taking over everywhere!

    --
    Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
    1. Re:What's wrong with American cabbage? by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 1

      And you get free shipping as a bonus!

      Also, please leave them happy good positive feedback for success future!

  3. can we still grow our own? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    does it have to be tasteless like the stuff at the store is now? new GMOwn program to rescind what could be referred to as gottiesque gardening... some still calling this 'weather'? better days ahead...

    1. Re:can we still grow our own? by arth1 · · Score: 1

      does it have to be tasteless like the stuff at the store is now?

      Quite possibly, yes. Strong odours are discouraged in close quarters, and apart from salt, capsaicin and a couple of alkaloids, there are not a lot of strong flavors that aren't also pungent, either while eating or sometime later.

    2. Re:can we still grow our own? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...there are not a lot of strong flavors that aren't also pungent..."

      Strong flavors aren't necessary. Are you aware of the digestive consequences of eating mass quantities of Chinese Cabbage in a confined environment? Actually, this could prove useful as a propellant. I remember the Flaming Flatulence Experiments of my youth.

      As to the other issue, if life gives you mold, make moldy cheese.
      The ISS is the ideal place to experiment on new types of cheeses. There are hunchbacked workers in French and Swiss caves whose sole job is to turn over wheels of Cheese on a regular basis so that they cure evenly. Cheese In Space...
      But molds are not the only thing needed-

      Cows In Space...
      I'm not just thinking of Milk, and Cheese, and perhaps Yogurt, I'm also thinking of the wrap-up BBQ at the conclusion, out on the back porch. It would have to be held there, because that BBQ sauce gets _everywhere_.

  4. Nope, not the first by Subgenius · · Score: 4, Informative

    Sorry to be a wet blank here, but these were not the first blooms in space; the Soviets did it back in 1982

    Plant growth, development and embryogenesis during Salyut-7 flight, Adv Space Res. 1984;4(10):55-63.

    (info courtesy nasawatch.com)

    --
    Toil is Stupid. Don't be Stupid.
    1. Re:Nope, not the first by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 3, Funny

      Soviet flowers, American flowers... all from seeds made in Taiwan!

    2. Re:Nope, not the first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A "wet blank"? What's that supposed to mean? I can put any word I want instead of "blank"?

    3. Re:Nope, not the first by qaz123 · · Score: 1

      Not even the second
      http://nasawatch.com/archives/...

    4. Re:Nope, not the first by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      Not even the first American flower as Don Pettit grew sunflowers, zucchini and broccoli. You can see photos of them here - http://www.pri.org/stories/201...

  5. next a bowl of petunias by dominux · · Score: 1

    and perhaps a sperm whale

    1. Re:next a bowl of petunias by U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M · · Score: 2

      That sounds very improbable.

    2. Re:next a bowl of petunias by Ranbot · · Score: 1

      On a related topic... NASA should try Brawndo because it's got what plants crave! It's got electrolytes!

  6. This is not seious science by duckintheface · · Score: 1, Funny

    The way you can tell is that the article mentions that their plants had been attacked by mold. Really? And why were mold spores allowed to come into the plant growth facility? This reminds me of a comment by the agronomist in the Biosphere 2 building in Arizona, which was supposed to be a test of the ability of humans to survive in a closed environment such as a Mars habitat. She said she spent two thirds of her time weeding the vegetable garden.

    There are lots of difficulties related to space agriculture, including light, heat, and hydration as mentioned in this article. But the ONE ADVANTAGE of off-world farming is that you can guarantee pest free, disease free, weed free environments for the plants. Once the plants are in a space habitat that is clean, there is no reason for ever allowing them to be infected. There are no weeds or bugs on Mars.

    Failure to make use of that one big advantage tells you that this Space Shuttle plant stuff is just a publicity stunt.

    --
    "He took a duck in the face at 250 knots." -- William Gibson, Pattern Recognition
    1. Re:This is not seious science by Anon-Admin · · Score: 4, Informative

      The way you can tell is that the article mentions that their plants had been attacked by mold. Really? And why were mold spores allowed to come into the plant growth facility?

      I take it you have never worked in mycology.

      You can't eliminate them, they are everywhere and in amazing quantities. Even in my ISO Class 100 clean room working under a laminar flow hood, I still get the rare unintended mold growth in a culture. Normally from a simple procedure mistake.

      You have mold spores on your skin, in your hair, on everything you own, etc.

      Just for the fun of it I set up the laser particle counter in my kitchen one day, gave an average reading of 6,954,652 particles, at a flow rate of 0.1 CFM, between .3 microns and .5 microns per cubic foot of air.

    2. Re:This is not seious science by drewsup · · Score: 1

      the ISS is a perfect mold growth meduim, damp, coolish in temp, why do think Mir was allowed to crash and burn, the mold was getting out of control.no matter how you clean, how much you inspect what goes in, mold spores are VERY hard to contain, I would think even cobalt irradiation of supplies wouldnt get everything.....

    3. Re:This is not seious science by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      And why were mold spores allowed to come into the plant growth facility?

      LOL, what??? Are you joking??

      A quick google says that mold spores are 3 to 40 microns.

      Allowed?? How the hell do you plan on filtering out everything on the 3-40 micron scale? From the same article:

      they are literally everywhere. There is no reasonable, reliable and cost-effective means of eliminating them from environments that humans inhabit. So, trying to control mold growth through the elimination of mold spores is not feasible.

      You clearly don't understand what you're talking about.

      Nobody "allows" mold spores in. Nobody can really prevent them.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    4. Re:This is not seious science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3D print everything you need. Don't bring mold filament. It's really that simple if you read enough sci-fi. Oh, and computers got better, therefore anything is possible.

    5. Re: This is not seious science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ISS is kept at much lower humidity than Mir and has better air filtration. There haven't been any serious issues with mold so far. Hydroponic growers on earth are able to nearly eliminate mold on their plants by keeping the air well filtered, so presumably that works in space too. Though it does seem that mold grows very well in microgravity.

    6. Re:This is not seious science by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Indeed, and the spores are already floating around in orbit too. They don't even need to bring them in.

    7. Re:This is not seious science by Blaskowicz · · Score: 1

      Do you really want to kill off all bacterias, microscopic mushrooms and whatever else? Assuming you can do it my uneducated guess is that your plants will die off.

      Perhaps the microbial life present on and inside humans will find its ways into interacting with the plants, maybe that'll help them, maybe they'll be worse off than with the original "pests" and "germs" you exterminated.
      Want to get rid of all that microbial life infesting humans? Then the humans die off.
      In fact poo transplantation is a medical procedure sometimes used in humans at risk of imminent death because of lack of suitable microbial "parasites".

    8. Re:This is not seious science by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Don't forget to bathe the astronauts in undiluted nitric acid, followed by a chlorine colonic.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    9. Re: This is not seious science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're still not getting it. Fungus spores are literally ubiquitous. Apart from autoclaving the astronauts themselves, you will never ever ever stop spores.

    10. Re:This is not seious science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You thinking is as bad as your spelling. ISS has been populated for 15 years by people who never bathe - for six months to over a year at a time! IT STINKS! Mir stunk was well. People are the biggest carrier of microbes and spores to the ISS. From all over the world!

      Each attempt at each plant grown in zero gee in this environment adds our knowledge. Eventually, the best plants to provide oxygen will be determined as well as food and even plants that recycle waste. What plants will work? You got try them!

      And don't discount the psychological importance of a little life-giving greenery and familiar flowers on a long space mission. This is serious stuff, to live in space.

  7. What species and how does it look in 1g? by Theovon · · Score: 1

    Maybe I missed the species of flower, but I’d like to know what this flower looks like when grown on earth and how being on 0-g has affected its appearance.

    1. Re:What species and how does it look in 1g? by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      The flower was a Zinnia. If you look at the orlandosentinal link you can see photos of the plant as a whole. It looks like 0-g has messed with it pretty significantly, lots of ingrown leaves and not the arrangement you would expect on earth.

      Also Zinnias are a many many petalled flower in multiple layers and the one grown appears to only be a single layer and a much smaller count of petals. It could be a different sub-species but the difference is significant. http://www.photos-public-domai...

  8. Simple Answer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Grow Moulds, then....

  9. Interesting choice of flower to grow. by dsmatthews9379 · · Score: 1

    https://youtu.be/XiIFeru-ufQ?l...