Life Support Project
From: Terry Kok
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 10:34:59 -0800 (PST) From: Terry Kok
Add Addresses
Someone asked about a week ago about the standards of purity of the CELSS outputs. I don't have the time right now to post these but NASA has them very well worked out for the space station. The Russians also have standards (a bit lower than the US). If I get a chance I will post them of find a link. For now, let's just say that we must at least meet the Russian standards and that we should try for the US version. - Terry at biostar_a@yahoo.com
Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 14:02:34 -0800 (PST) From: Terry Kok
Add Addresses
10 people = 263 m2 surface/growbed space (2830 square feet). Cubic feet depends on how we stack the beds internally. These are MAXIMUM SIZE figures based on an average between 9 professional studies. I think we can do better. - Terry at biostar_a@yahoo.com
--- Curtis Snow
From: Kmicheels@aol.com | Block address Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 14:59:48 EST Subject: Re: Mars_Arct/ variety of topics To: biostar_a@yahoo.com, Arctic-sig@lists.marssociety.org
Add Addresses
In a message dated 3/29/00 12:59:35 PM EST, biostar_a@yahoo.com writes:
<< WE NEED A MEASUREMENT STANDARD! I don't care what it is but I do INSIST we come to some agreement on metric or what and stick with it. Why? Look at the last two Mars probes and the reason why they messed up: incompatible measurement systems confused by humans. Someone make an executive decision here. Due to the international nature of this project I suggest using metric.>>
The hab is and has been metric. Most of the space industry is as well. So...all Mars Society Projects will be metric. Its easier when you get used to it.
<
Agree 100%
<
Perhap Terry and David should have a telecon to discuss co-management
<
This all true, but the station will be operational for only 2-3 months a year. So logistics cost are not that high. We want to build a second hab in the lower 48. That one could be used for detailed systems closure.
<
agree 100%. hopefully we can integrate with a send hab.
Reply-to: "Dean Calahan, FoB"
Add
Addresses
Hi everybody. The folks on the cc: line are those of us who consider ourselves members of the Life Support Project of the TTF. For those of you on the arctic-sig and NOT on the cc: line, you're welcome to join the LSP, just let me know your preferred email address! For those of you on the cc: line and NOT on the arctic-sig, I invite you to join (see the bottom of this message for info!)
A few changes are impending to our electronic communications:
First, I am preparing to create a mailing list to support our life support system discussions. I thought of creating two, one for the FMARS 2001 module, another for the "Subarctic Module" Kurt mentioned. But that seems too artificial a division. So I'll just create one. I'm hoping that this won't take more than a week or so. This will help keep the arctic-sig and LSP email separate, but easily accessible.
Second, I am planning to add content and functionality to the website soon. I'd really LOVE it if one of our longer term members who has saved all or most of the mail, (folks in the CC: line) could go through all the email about the Life Support Project (both from the arctic-sig list and the ad-hoc to: line list) and somehow pull it together into one or more text files (questions asked and their answers, lists of hyperlinks, tables of data are at least three kinds of work product I envision from this project. There could easily be more). With a mailing list, this won't be so much of a chore (and will in fact be automated), but since we've been doing lots of individual emails, it is impossible to effectively bring people up to date with the discussion so far.
Third, For our electronic collaboration, I am presently in the process of implementing parts of "Practical Internet Groupware" by John Udell (an O'Reilly Book). I'll be preparing a manifesto on this topic, as part of the content addition. I'm hoping that one use we can get out of it is as a "Paper Mill", to help coauthor the impending literature review, and any other papers (or designs, or other publications) we might choose to collaborate on. Anybody who wants to participate in THAT project should get together with me electronically, and we can see how we might divide up the work.
For info on this list, send to: majordomo@lists.MarsSociety.org Put in body of message: info Arctic-sig To stop future messages, add: unsubscribe Arctic-sig
Sonja, We talking about basicly the same thing. CELSS = Controled (or Closed) Ecological Life Support System .... CELSS is easier to say than ECLSS and, to me, CELSS (in the Closed mode) denotes that the system is sealed from the outside environment where an ECLSS is not necessarily so. - Terry at biostar_a@yahoo.com
--- sonja g holmes
--- Curtis Snow
Okay Curtis, you have me interested. What are you thinking of building? Where? Why 10 people? The main expense is not the "guts" of the CELSS but the "containment vessel/greenhouse". A real cost estimate would have to take into consideration the locality of the CELSS and it's potential energy-interface with the local environment (seasonal weather shifts, light periodicy and intensity, outside temperature, etc.). Once I knew where I could give a more accurate cost estimate based on the type of containment and auxiliary (or main) lighting and heating requirements. Let me know.
- Terry at biostar_a@yahoo.com
--- Kmicheels@aol.com wrote: > [ to Mars Society Arctic Base TF & discussion ] > [ from Kmicheels@aol.com ] > [ see end of message to unsubscribe ]
the station will be operational > for only 2-3 months a > year. So logistics cost are not that high. We want > to build a second hab in > the lower 48. That one could be used for detailed > systems closure.
Now I know why there is going to be only a 6" fiberglass insulation layer in the HAB and not something with a higher R value.
If you don't mind me asking, why is FMARS going to be operational for only 2-3 months per year when it will be sitting there all year 'round? This aspect has a few of us puzzled as it does definitely limit the possibilities for long term (sustainable) life support experiments in a Mars analog (cold) environment. Is there any talk about, after the first year, extending the operational time to include a full year (like on Mars)?
Detailed systems closure can be achieved in a warmer climate (lower 48 states or somewhere) but it sure would be nice to not have to build a freezer large enough to contain the CELSS (to simulate the Martian environment).
Yes, I'm grumbling again - not mad - just disappointed. Please KAM, I know you must be having a lot of pressure put on you to make FMAR happen (and I commend you for taking the bull by the horns), but DO CONSIDER the possibility of extending the operational status to a full year after the HAB checks out for a season or so.
Keep up the good work good buddy! Terry Ryan Kok - Starlight Technology POB 1328, Bloomington, In 47402-1328 812-275-0694 biostar_a@yahoo.com
--- Kmicheels@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 3/30/00 11:29:37 AM EST, > biostar_a@yahoo.com writes: >> Actually in NASAese usage, CELSS denotes a > bioregenerative system, ECLSS a > physicochemical mechanical system. Both may have > varying degrees of closure. > In fact, at this time, only mechanical systems > demonstrate the ability to > "close the loop" to at least 96%. Much work remains > to be done in the bio > area. As I'm sure Terry knows. >> kam
BIOS 1 (Soviet Union) closed the loop with an algae based system. It worked but Chlorela stinks, isn't very tasty, and generates biogas in the human intestines. BIOS 3 (Russia) closed the loop with mostly higher plant eco-based systems. The trouble here is that they imported nutrient solutions and exported human feces. The Biosphere 2 TEST MODULE (not the main structure) closed the loop using biology. Yes, there is a lot of work to do but it is not as much as many folks imagine. The main problem is not necessarily with the ecosystems but with the COST OF THE CONTAINMENT VESSEL. it is very hard to achieve a low enough leak rate to be considered a "closed system". ECLSS and CELSS research are bogged down in the NASA context due to several reasons: 1) lack of funding 2) lack of a clear mission - no long term flight plans 3) narrowly focusing on the space station 4) not enough hippies in the field (I was told by a top NASA administrator that they needed more hippies because the "suits" aren't smart enough, always overcharge, and miss deadlines)
Be that what it may, if CELSS research is going to flourish, it will be, like the Mars Society itself, grown from the grassroots.
Terry R. Kok at biostar_a@yahoo.com
I think you have a GREAT IDEA here Peter. I see no reason why this wouldn't work if we stick to shallow water to avoid the cost of a much stronger containment vessel to handle deep water.
- Terry
--- KokhMMM@aol.com wrote: >> In a message dated 03/30/2000 11:22:00 AM, > biostar_a@yahoo.com writes: >><< The main problem is not > necessarily with the ecosystems but with the COST OF > THE CONTAINMENT VESSEL. it is very hard to achieve a > low enough leak rate to be considered a "closed > system". >>>> Perhaps I am naieve, but wouldn't a > (water-)submerged test vessel provide > adequate containment? As long as you have no water > leaks! You'd be sure of > getting no air leaks, at least inward. Outward leaks > could be detected by > bubble streams. >
[ to Mars Society Arctic Base TF & discussion ] [ from Curtis Snow
At 08:30 -0800 2000.03.30, Terry Kok wrote: >[ to Mars Society Arctic Base TF & discussion ]
>Okay Curtis, you have me interested...
we`re all interested
>...What are you thinking of building?
I`m working to get my "arms" around the potential for individual contribution(s) and some personal idea ("grok" if you will) of exactly the resources needed to instantiate (to use a software development term) "local" experiments
"local" in the sense that said testbed occupies some defined physical location(s) for some specified period of time
>...Where?
personally I have a several locations (varying severity) in mind but let us assume for our purposes here that the "base system" shall reside inside a "shell" that buffers it from the demands of "complete constant closure"
of course the location (air temp, rain, solar angle, wind) changes set points for the systems (buffer sizing etc) but let us assume a membrane-like shell with an inner "wall" w/any climate you like (your local one maybe or some others I`ll mention later) "outside" it (and "inside" the outer "wall" portion of the membrane)
>...Why 10 people?
itz a good and interesting number of humans
enough to really push any solution drawn from the average household supply and maritime industry
my favorite when thinking about "small groups"
2 groups of five and so on
3 groups of three + 1
over historical time human military organizations have used this scale number to base much of their behavior on w/good success
while having no experience myself, I have known some folks that were experienced in military field operations of small groups and from a human factors perspective 10 is a solid number that works very well under extreme conditions
it offers some commercial options
finally, and more important to moi, itz probably the most I can reasonably expect to be able to put together...I`m sure I can find 9 other folks to give it some exercise in the 3-4 locales I have "in mind"
soooo...for my purposes :
locale one is Western Washington state (or British Columbia, Canada) "somewhere"; a wet maritime/temperate rain forest climate
locale two is Eastern Washington state "somewhere" around the Channeled Scablands (twixt Davenport, Ephrata, Grand Coulee, Ritzville); a dry arid plateau between (~500km) two major mountain ranges (Cascades and Rockies)
both, let us pretend, year round
locale three is outside Veneta, Oregon; again a wet maritime/temperate rain forest climate, this one located near the head end of a river valley (~60km across) w/the Cascades to the east, mountains to the south and Oregon Coast Range to the west
locale four is near Gerlach Nevada on the "surface" of the Black Rock desert (a "dry in summer" lake bed at 4,000 ft above mean sea level - where the sound barrier was broken w/a jet car) running somewhat sw to ne with mountains (around 4K ft above ground level) to the west and east (~about 12km wide)
these would, most likely, be "less than year round"
West Central North American variations on the theme
>...The main >expense is not the "guts" of the CELSS but the >"containment vessel/greenhouse".
obviously w/these examples I`m not too worried about the "outside wall" of the membrane and coming close to total closure so "we" can mostly ignore da larger costs
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com