Main Page | Report this Page
 
   
Science Forum Index  »  Space Forum  »  food from space
Page 5 of 5    Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Author Message
BradGuth
Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 8:32 am
Guest
On May 1, 6:20 am, Williamknowsbest <William.M...@gmail.com> wrote:
Quote:
Some have worried about the level of radiation in Medium Earth Orbit -
flying a synchrounous polar orbital track.

Here are the dosage levels for deep space

http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/SpaceSettlement/spaceres/imag...

here's the dosage due to solar flares

http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/SpaceSettlement/spaceres/imag...

One of the reasons I have elected to use this in my design is because
it is near the Earth, beneath the van Allen radiation belt. This
combined with the mass of the stations themselves reduce radiation to
Earth normal levels.

Here is the NASA Ames study on human babitation in space.

http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/SpaceSettlement/spaceres/II-1...

It shows that 5 REM per year is acceptable. That is the limit for
radiation workers. The study also shows that in deep space 280 grams
per square cm of habitat surface is needed for sheilding in deep space
to keep radiation levels down to 5 REM per year.

Most crops are grown in 100 days or less. Most animals grow to
maturity and slaughter in less than 3 years. Some less than 1 year.
Reproduction and gestation of these animals can occur in sheltered
environments - storm cellars - that mainain genetic vitality of the
reproductive members while the non-reproductive members fatten in 5
REM per year climates. .

This is deep space.

Near Earth space is far less energetic. Especially under the van
Allen radiation sheild. That's why I know I can cut total habitat
mass considerably by choosing the right orbit.
.

Whatever you do, don't go anywhere near the expanding an deepening
SAA, because it's a real killer.

BTW, Raytheron TRW Space Data report has the GSO environment at a warm
and fuzzy 2e3 SV/year (that's only 200,000 rad/yr), and thank God or
your lucky stars, that's while fully shielded by merely 5/16"
aluminum, and at that only having to survive one halo CME.

Got rad-hard DNA ?
.. - Brad Guth
BradGuth
Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 8:39 am
Guest
On May 1, 11:32 am, BradGuth <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote:
Quote:
On May 1, 6:20 am, Williamknowsbest <William.M...@gmail.com> wrote:



Some have worried about the level of radiation in Medium Earth Orbit -
flying a synchrounous polar orbital track.

Here are the dosage levels for deep space

http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/SpaceSettlement/spaceres/imag...

here's the dosage due to solar flares

http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/SpaceSettlement/spaceres/imag...

One of the reasons I have elected to use this in my design is because
it is near the Earth, beneath the van Allen radiation belt. This
combined with the mass of the stations themselves reduce radiation to
Earth normal levels.

You've got yourself 10+ tonnes/m2 planned into those LEO greenhouse
environments? (I'm impressed)

Quote:

Here is the NASA Ames study on human babitation in space.

http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/SpaceSettlement/spaceres/II-1...

It shows that 5 REM per year is acceptable. That is the limit for
radiation workers. The study also shows that in deep space 280 grams
per square cm of habitat surface is needed for sheilding in deep space
to keep radiation levels down to 5 REM per year.

Most crops are grown in 100 days or less. Most animals grow to
maturity and slaughter in less than 3 years. Some less than 1 year.
Reproduction and gestation of these animals can occur in sheltered
environments - storm cellars - that mainain genetic vitality of the
reproductive members while the non-reproductive members fatten in 5
REM per year climates. .

This is deep space.

Near Earth space is far less energetic. Especially under the van
Allen radiation sheild. That's why I know I can cut total habitat
mass considerably by choosing the right orbit.
.

Whatever you do, don't go anywhere near the expanding an deepening
SAA, because it's a real killer.

BTW, Raytheron TRW Space Data report has the GSO environment at a warm
and fuzzy 2e3 SV/year (that's only 200,000 rad/yr), and thank God or
your lucky stars, that's while fully shielded by merely 5/16"
aluminum, and at that only having to survive one halo CME.

Mook got rad-hard DNA ?

.. - Brad Guth
Williamknowsbest
Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 6:42 pm
Guest
Some have quoted extraordinarily high levels of radiation that are
sometimes seen in single events at specific regions of high intensity
and mis represented them as a typical environment my systems will be
flying in.

They have also quoted extraordinarly high masses for sheilding
implying they'd be needed routinely. Figures that are higher than the
masses of materials that sheild the Earth! lol. Merely because they
appear in a chart.

The true situation is more complex, and less threatening than this
rather naive and foolish interpretation would have us believe.

Here are two good sources for valid information

http://www.eas.asu.edu/~holbert/eee460/spacerad.html
http://radhome.gsfc.nasa.gov/radhome/environ.htm

A low altitude sun synchronous polar orbit, is not to be confused with
a geo-synchronous orbit - which is quite different despite both having
the word 'synchronous' in their names. One synchronizes with the
sun's motion through space. The other synchronises with the Earth's
motion. One keeps the same relationship to the sun always, while
overflying the entire Earth twice a day, while the other keeps the
same relationship to the Earth always, while the Sun buzzes around the
sky the satellite sees.

Precise radiation data for the polar orbital environment is known due
to the great work of National Oceanographic Atmospheric Administration

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/NOAA/noaa_poes.html

I stand by my figures - of 53,000 tons per sq km of growing area and
Earth normal radiation levels within.
Williamknowsbest
Posted: Thu May 01, 2008 6:50 pm
Guest
Some have continued to assert wrongly that the presence of low cost
land in one part of the world adversely affects the value of high cost
land in another part of the world. To anyone who maintains such
foolish beliefs I would urge them to go to Manhattan, get an interview
with a major land owner there, and lean forward and put forth a formal
offer for an acre of land along Park Avenue, for $100 - with the $100
bill paper clipped to the offer explaining that since you can buy an
acre of land just 300 miles North in Canada for $1 - have an appendix
detailing that assertion - this $100 is a reasonable and in fact
lucrative offer. Then see what happens!

I would say he'd keep the $100 for his troubles, and kick your ass out
of the office!

Land's created on orbit only need sell for more than it costs to make
them. Even if that price is higher than some other land prices.

Land's used on orbit only need create more value for a given
investment than other investments to attract investment. Even if you
can invest less elsewhere somewhere else.

For example, if it costs $50,000 per acre to build a space farm, and
it sells for $200,000 per acre, then space farms will be built.

For example, if an acre in space is 40x more productive than farmland
in Southern California, and land in Southern California sells for
$30,000 per acre, then $200,000 per acre in space is a bargain since
its equal to 40 x $30,000 or $600,000 per acre.

The presence of land in Idaho for $3,600 per acre doesn't change this
analysis - or the ability for this business model to attract
investors.
 
Page 5 of 5    Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5   All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Jul 06, 2008 2:00 am