Inside NASA’s Space Farming Labs(motherboard.vice.com)
motherboard.vice.com
Inside NASA’s Space Farming Labs
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/inside-nasas-space-farming-labs
44 comments
Serious question. Given all the difficulties with impact of microgravity on human beings and in this case plant cultivation, why isn't there more serious research/testing of generating artificial gravity through rotation? We only seem to see that in science fiction, never in real life.
Well, for humans it's because you'd need a really big ring to make it actually feel right. If the ring is too small, the difference in outward force created in your head and your feet will be different enough that your blood will rush to your feet and make you pass out.
For the most part, your garden variety of plants wouldn't be affected too much by the force gradient. There actually has been quite a bit of research put into this. I'm trying to find a source for this, but a few years back the Japanese burned a bunch money on this kind of research and didn't end up with anything substantial. If you do it on a smaller scale, just for the plants, it also creates the issue of extra angular momentum added to your spacecraft. This is manageable, but definitely something to take into account.
But, you're right. If you created gravity on a scale large enough for humans, it would definitely get rid of most of the problems for the plants.
For the most part, your garden variety of plants wouldn't be affected too much by the force gradient. There actually has been quite a bit of research put into this. I'm trying to find a source for this, but a few years back the Japanese burned a bunch money on this kind of research and didn't end up with anything substantial. If you do it on a smaller scale, just for the plants, it also creates the issue of extra angular momentum added to your spacecraft. This is manageable, but definitely something to take into account.
But, you're right. If you created gravity on a scale large enough for humans, it would definitely get rid of most of the problems for the plants.
Have you seen any literature on very low gravity rotary setups? Like <0.1g?
In the context of this thread, I'm mostly interested because it seems like a happy middle ground to solve your capillary action issues. However it would also be super interesting to see how a small acceleration like that could help with e.g. retinal problems from microgravity.
In the context of this thread, I'm mostly interested because it seems like a happy middle ground to solve your capillary action issues. However it would also be super interesting to see how a small acceleration like that could help with e.g. retinal problems from microgravity.
Because people are cheap and stupid. Doing artificial gravity like the space station in 2001: A Space Odyssey requires building a really big space station (because of the large diameter needed to get 1g or close to it, and avoid problems with the force felt at your head being noticeably different than at your feet), which is expensive. It would cost tens of billions of dollars at least. We'd rather spend that money on building more nuclear weapons and on tax cuts for and giveaways to incumbent corporations.
I imagine building such a spacecraft is a relatively large undertaking. More centrifugal force means a larger diameter spacecraft and a force that is trying to rip it apart (that's what's generating the gravity after all).
With NASA's current budget, they probably figure it's easier to just deal with microgravity for a spaceflight with a limited duration (like to Mars). Generating gravity only really makes sense for spaceflights of longer/unlimited duration (interstellar travel).
With NASA's current budget, they probably figure it's easier to just deal with microgravity for a spaceflight with a limited duration (like to Mars). Generating gravity only really makes sense for spaceflights of longer/unlimited duration (interstellar travel).
There was a project to install a small rotating ring module on the ISS, but it never came to fruition.
A capsule tethered to a second stage, or a pair of capsules is the low-cost* way to do it. The technique was demonstrated during the Gemini missions (at very low g).
*Compared to rotating space station
As to why... I suspect non-ISS life science research in orbit just has no where to get funding or support.
A capsule tethered to a second stage, or a pair of capsules is the low-cost* way to do it. The technique was demonstrated during the Gemini missions (at very low g).
*Compared to rotating space station
As to why... I suspect non-ISS life science research in orbit just has no where to get funding or support.
(BTW... I recently graduated and am looking for a job. If anyone has any leads for a mech/aero engineer with some programming background, please get in touch via my profile )
Reading through the comments from the main article it seems the commentators are in two camps: 1) "...let's improve our engineering capabilities to solve this intriguing challenge..." [and later enjoy all the other side-benefits that come from being great engineers and problem-solvers]; and 2) why challenge ourselves in the first place [?]. I like to encourage and invest in visionary [and realistic] problem-solvers. Let's connect on that.
Reading through the comments from the main article it seems the commentators are in two camps: 1) "...let's improve our engineering capabilities to solve this intriguing challenge..." [and later enjoy all the other side-benefits that come from being great engineers and problem-solvers]; and 2) why challenge ourselves in the first place [?]. I like to encourage and invest in visionary [and realistic] problem-solvers.
camp 3 (I'm in this one): instead of spending money on humans in space, let's spend that money on robots in space. Once you don't have to deal with all the ugly details of keeping humans alive in space, you have a lot more budget for exploration, discovery, science. You can cover a lot more areas, and the likely payoffs are higher.
Growing crops in space has no real scientific benefits for the nearterm future. It's a "nice to have" not a "visionary" thing.
Growing crops in space has no real scientific benefits for the nearterm future. It's a "nice to have" not a "visionary" thing.
We already have robots in space, such as the Mars rovers. It doesn't work that well: the round-trip communication time is very long, so it takes a long time for mission controllers on the Earth to get data from the robots, make a decision, and send that back. By contrast, a geologist walking around on Mars can make his own decisions on the spot and get a lot more done, much more quickly.
I've heard the same about the moon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Schmitt specifically """While on the Moon's surface, Schmitt — the only geologist in the astronaut corps — collected the rock sample designated Troctolite 76535, which has been called "without doubt the most interesting sample returned from the Moon".[8] Among other distinctions, it is the central piece of evidence suggesting that the Moon once possessed an active magnetic field.[9]""" . It was true at that time only because we didn't have good robots.
The science resulting from our robot exploration is astounding. Nearly all photos of outer space objects beyond the earth and moon are robot driven, and the high quality photos of Jupiter, etc are entirely robot driven. Compare that to a Mars rock.
BTW, we can't send a human to Mars right now. It's technically impossible- well, I mean, we could deliver their dead body to the surface, but that's not super useful.
A single geologist on Mars would constantly have to check back in on their plans.
The science resulting from our robot exploration is astounding. Nearly all photos of outer space objects beyond the earth and moon are robot driven, and the high quality photos of Jupiter, etc are entirely robot driven. Compare that to a Mars rock.
BTW, we can't send a human to Mars right now. It's technically impossible- well, I mean, we could deliver their dead body to the surface, but that's not super useful.
A single geologist on Mars would constantly have to check back in on their plans.
The Moon would be more realistic with modern robotics and remote-control technology, because it's 3 seconds away, for a 6-second round-trip for radio signals. It'd be quite feasible to remote-control a rover there.
Mars is not. It's a minimum of a 1-hour round-trip. So every tiny little rover movement has to be planned in advance, unless you can figure out how to automate it, which only goes so far: you're not going to put an AI with a geologist's education in a rover.
This is not likely to ever change, unless you can 1) figure out how to make FTL communications work (subspace?), or 2) figure out how to make AIs with human-level intelligence (at which point we humans would be completely obsolete and likely slated for extermination). Good luck with either of those. Until then, sending actual humans is the only way to get a lot done in a reasonable amount of time.
The nice photos you talk about from robotic exploration is the result of completely pre-planned missions, with very little possibility of needing to make fast decisions on-site. When you're just flying around the Jupiter system or flying through the Pluto system, that's really not that hard; the planet and moons' locations can be predicted with a very high degree of accuracy, and the data they're gathering is all planned far in advance. It's not like walking around a planet's surface and deciding which rock to investigate, or which rock to ignore, or what a good place to dig would be. You can do all that by remote control, but it's a whole lot slower because you need to have humans verify everything, so what would take you an hour with a human on-site now takes you days.
Mars is not. It's a minimum of a 1-hour round-trip. So every tiny little rover movement has to be planned in advance, unless you can figure out how to automate it, which only goes so far: you're not going to put an AI with a geologist's education in a rover.
This is not likely to ever change, unless you can 1) figure out how to make FTL communications work (subspace?), or 2) figure out how to make AIs with human-level intelligence (at which point we humans would be completely obsolete and likely slated for extermination). Good luck with either of those. Until then, sending actual humans is the only way to get a lot done in a reasonable amount of time.
The nice photos you talk about from robotic exploration is the result of completely pre-planned missions, with very little possibility of needing to make fast decisions on-site. When you're just flying around the Jupiter system or flying through the Pluto system, that's really not that hard; the planet and moons' locations can be predicted with a very high degree of accuracy, and the data they're gathering is all planned far in advance. It's not like walking around a planet's surface and deciding which rock to investigate, or which rock to ignore, or what a good place to dig would be. You can do all that by remote control, but it's a whole lot slower because you need to have humans verify everything, so what would take you an hour with a human on-site now takes you days.
Your comment about pre-planned missions is incorrect. All missions have significant post-launch changes. For example, NASA is currently deciding what to do with Juno, and Voyager, etc, have all had changes to their trajectories.
The beauty of large-scale robotic exploration is that you can use all the analysts on earth to analyze the results. Compared to a single human.
The beauty of large-scale robotic exploration is that you can use all the analysts on earth to analyze the results. Compared to a single human.
Now you're acting like the geologist on Mars doesn't have a radio to talk to all his colleagues back on Earth.
Yes, NASA has made mission changes post-launch, but these are usually simple changes, consisting basically of single orders to redirect the craft along a new trajectory. A human walking around looking at rocks makes those decisions on a second-by-second basis.
Yes, NASA has made mission changes post-launch, but these are usually simple changes, consisting basically of single orders to redirect the craft along a new trajectory. A human walking around looking at rocks makes those decisions on a second-by-second basis.
Do you have a link to your 3D printed growth substrate or an info page?
The blogs of the scientists who lived on fake Mars for a year in Hawaii make it clear how important food is for astronaut's mental health as well as physical nutritional needs: https://walking-on-red-dust.com/2016/06/18/domemade-food/
A couple of years ago I listened to a talk by a plant scientist from Florida. They had some experiments, seedlings growing in the International Space Station. Every day one of the astronauts took photos of the seedlings, to document growth. He said that it was more or less everyone's favorite task in the space station. "Today I get to look at the plants", the astronauts would say.
There is an aerospace engineer (ex NASA or Air Force IIRC) who youtubes the science he does in his backyard: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCd8t8Dq8oZeAjGDx_87azBw
I see more metal than dirt in all of their experiments. No biohazard markers anywhere so probably not using waste.
The best way to farm in space is to convert human waste into manure and compost, and you need to have other organisms to do that. I don't see red worms either.
NASA won't be able to engineer plants in space, it will have to adopt a microbiome that exists on earth already that can be modularized into a spacecraft. Growing lettuce is a joke, you need to figure out how to make pigs and chickens into astronauts.
I'm not joking.
The best way to farm in space is to convert human waste into manure and compost, and you need to have other organisms to do that. I don't see red worms either.
NASA won't be able to engineer plants in space, it will have to adopt a microbiome that exists on earth already that can be modularized into a spacecraft. Growing lettuce is a joke, you need to figure out how to make pigs and chickens into astronauts.
I'm not joking.
Indeed; even if they can make lettuce grow, it's very low in nutritional value so they'd need to sacrifice a lot of space and energy into creating something edible. Potatoes would work better. Space pigs, too, but they'd require a lot of nutrients to keep alive and grow. iirc they need ten times as much food than what their meat is worth in nutritional value.
The future is probably artificially produced food, like the porridge / sludge shown in the Matrix. Something out of a chemical process instead of a biological one.
The future is probably artificially produced food, like the porridge / sludge shown in the Matrix. Something out of a chemical process instead of a biological one.
Potatoes are an interesting case, but they require rooting around through soil to harvest. (Having grown potatoes in my garden last year, it was a much messier endeavor than my greens.)
I'm not sure we're ready for all that soil to be floating around in the ISS, literally mucking things up. Not saying it isn't possible, but why not use lettuces to solve all the 'simple' problems about growing things in space first.
Also, don't discount the quality of life improvement of eating some fresh lettuce.
I'm not sure we're ready for all that soil to be floating around in the ISS, literally mucking things up. Not saying it isn't possible, but why not use lettuces to solve all the 'simple' problems about growing things in space first.
Also, don't discount the quality of life improvement of eating some fresh lettuce.
Aeroponics or hydroponics would help eliminate the mess issue.
Algae and fungi have been popular in some recent "near-future" sci-fi.
This makes much more sense, then you can make soylent with it.
I agree. Artificial food can be 3-D printed for various textures and flavours can be added to make it seem familiar for those need the nostalgia.
>The future is probably artificially produced food, like the porridge / sludge shown in the Matrix. Something out of a chemical process instead of a biological one.
I imagine we can synthesize relatively simple molecules such as glucose to supplement calories when needed by astronauts.
I imagine we can synthesize relatively simple molecules such as glucose to supplement calories when needed by astronauts.
Well, there is the recent innovation in vat-grown meat that supposedly has the same texture as 'real' meat.
Keep in mind that floating soil is problematic. There may be soil in the pouches there.
Step one, discover whether pouches can support plant life in space, with ideal conditions set up beforehand on earth.
Step two, discover whether you can manufacture said conditions in space using in situ materials.
Lettuce is a great way to explore step one. Consider that we're not confident that root systems will behave correctly when water doesn't flow through the strata like it normally does with gravity. There are still fundamental research elements to be done.
Step one, discover whether pouches can support plant life in space, with ideal conditions set up beforehand on earth.
Step two, discover whether you can manufacture said conditions in space using in situ materials.
Lettuce is a great way to explore step one. Consider that we're not confident that root systems will behave correctly when water doesn't flow through the strata like it normally does with gravity. There are still fundamental research elements to be done.
I don't understand why we have to try and grow earth food plants in space? I don't even get it. We can't even grow food crops of tropical climes in America. Also Lettuce is not really a 'food' calories or nutrient wise. I don't get it.
[deleted]
Why do they even need soil? Aeroponics is way more efficient.
Interesting quote: "In microgravity, your taste sensation is dulled." I haven't heard that before: anyone know why that is?
It has to do with the mucus in the nasal cavity not draining properly do to the lack of gravity. Most of your sense of taste is actually due to smell which is reduced when you have a stuffy nose. There are probably other contributing factors, but this is one I remember hearing.
These are some very EXPENSIVE organic veggies.
Wait, why do we send people to space in the first place?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27721383
Good question! The answer is that we know so little about surviving there for any appreciable length of time (compared to a human lifespan), that most don't understand the challenges. Meanwhile they're relative experts with the problems faced by a terrestrial existence.
TL;DR The hydrogen is always redder in the other man's H-Alpha band.
Good question! The answer is that we know so little about surviving there for any appreciable length of time (compared to a human lifespan), that most don't understand the challenges. Meanwhile they're relative experts with the problems faced by a terrestrial existence.
TL;DR The hydrogen is always redder in the other man's H-Alpha band.
The paper you cited explained why we shouldn't send people to space, not why we should.
[deleted]
The classic answer would be http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/08/why-explore-space.html
I'm fine with exploring space. My question is (given the context of how expensive it was to produce lettuce in space), why send humans?
A less of a classic but a really good discussion http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/08/how-and-why-spacex-will-coloni... (the whole Musk series is worth the read too).
If your goal is to address the existential dilemma posed by an unkind universe, by spreading to humanity to the stars, you'll need to divert the entire economic output of the world to the problem for at least 100 years to produce off-earth self-sustaining infrastructure.
That's a big difference from sending a box of lettuce up into space so that astronauts don't have to eat paste.
That's a big difference from sending a box of lettuce up into space so that astronauts don't have to eat paste.
Particulates, like soil, are actually considered a hazardous material in space because it can float into and clog up the ventilation.
Capillary action is a dominant force in microgravity and water will coat everything.
Roots are respiratory and will absorb the oxygen in the water around them, but the bubbles of CO2 they create won't naturally rise to the surface. This can cause the roots to suffocate.
Hydroponics are the logical route because regular soil will deplete its nutrient supply, but you still need a root growth substrate. The current "Veggie" system uses vermiculite clay chips contained in a pouch. They had to use the right gauge of particle diameter though: too small and it will saturate with water and suffocate the roots, too big and there won't be enough pressure gradient from the capillary action and the roots will dry out. Also, if you don't have your hydroponic nutrient solution just right, salts will build up in your substrate, so the pouches are typically single use.
Our team developed a method for 3D printing a growth substrate. This eliminates the problem with particulates and it also allows you control the gauge of the holes in the material to get the right air/water ratio. You can even vary the hole sizes so the water is pulled by the capillary action more at the dry end and fills the medium more evenly with water. It's not a perfect solution. The hydrophilic nylon filament we used liked to warp when it was printed. It also doesn't work for root vegetables like potatoes and stuff. However, it is reusable, cleanable, recyclable, scalable, largely passive, and safe. Plus, everyone loves 3D printers.
TL;DR Microgravity creates a lot of problems for growing plants in space, many of which aren't immediately obvious. 3D printed growth mediums might be a solution.