Igor,

What is your question?

James,

My question is: did the space programme not initiate the aim of

biomimetics in one form or another? Wasn't our understanding of nature and our creative design used as an integrated and "standard component" of space engineering, in this particular example the space suite umbilicals? Were the guiding principles not as Julian points out - "reduction in use of energy and scarce materials etc."?

Igor,

I think that the notion of biomimetics had far earlier proponents and better earlier examples.

I'm thinking of Leondardo da Vinci (in terms of concepts for human powered flight), and especially (in the 20th century) Buckminster Fuller and his work on tensile minimal structures.

Aerospace engineering, traditionally, borrows little from this field. There is a *faint* difference between the US and Russian/USSR's approach to aerospace engineering: the US had smaller launchers initially and so craft were exquisitely engineered for minimal mass and tended to employ 'dual-use' structures that might be both thermally and structurally significant. The Soviet launchers were more capable and so craft (hello VeGa, Venera) were more 'mass-rich' and could afford (for example) to use pressure vessels to contain electronics, to ensure more effective cooling by fan-driven convection.

James,

I disagree for the simple reason that nowhere else in past has the idea of life-support had such a significance and existential meaning to humans as it has in the anthropocene, in our habitation in space and in our independence.

For life to be able to make a tool capable of supporting life away from the immediate protection of its origin - even when its functions are rudimentary - is the beginning of life’s new abilities to overcome the grandest of challenges.

The biosphere is likely the most complex system of processes currently known to us. The greatest minds will break themselves with this puzzle for the next century, because climate change and our growing sense of insecurity will force us to understand it and control it. We will fail at it but it will teach some of us to succeed in the end.

You guys are missing the point; This is a concept for high altitude launch of reusable space craft inside a tunnel running up a mountain, and has nothing to do with life-support issues. NASA has done an elaborate study on the concept, but everyone is still clinging to the antiquated and horrible dangerous and expensive concept of vertical launches, including SpaceX.

Thore,

I am aware of a variety of unorthodox launch modalities (space fountains, orbital towers, beanstalks, etc.). Your comment is somewhat off-topic: Igor is asking about (I think) the notion of biomimetic art in engineering as a whole, and specifically directed at life-support systems. How one gets to space is utterly immaterial.

Igor:

I see your point now in the wider context. In that sense, the ability of life to craft miniature biospheres is indeed utterly a phenomenon of the industrial mind. The notion of 'air' being exhaustible (phlogiston etc.) is relatively new - and the notion of there being a diminution of air pressure with altitude (Toricelli?) - are utterly key to this next-stage of life's evolution.

I've thought along these lines recently: to whit, 'planets are too big'. Their timescales of response are far longer than our attention spans - and so we fail to see the consequences of our actions. By building smaller habitats (orbital colonies, lunar, etc.) we will be forced to adopt mindsets that address our actions in a far deeper and more profound way. Planets 'spoil' us - spaceships 'hone' us.

Thore,

The idea of a space elevator is so unfeasible. But a company in Japan Obayashi Corporation I believe, has done proposals and as far as I can remember, graphene has a very bad flaw which is that every graphene hexagon is integrated with other 'graphenules' if I may call them that, and would therefore compromise the entire structure in the very likely event that even a small section got damaged. Lets say, a nano-meteorite strike. Hence the entire elevator idea would rip apart. Maybe there are other ways of reaching space that nobody has thought of? Maybe a hyperloop type launch system...?

Has anybody thought of slingshots / tunnel catapults etc. Maybe there are examples in nature? Volcanoes or geysers of some sort? Instead of something pushing down, energy could be channeled to push something up. Maybe a gigantic upside-down water jet could elevate a platform into low orbit from which less expensive propulsion systems could be used to get us into high orbits.

James,

Great to hear we are on the same page. This space construction field is a little out there and one must be careful not to fall into the trap of science fiction or 3d printed moon base visions of architects that unfortunately are just that. Visions.

A test habitat here on the surface of earth is where the money is, I think. They say "innovation follows failure" but how can we fail if we don’t have the right conditions.

It is so very expensive to test things in space it's simply stupefying. Not to mention testing on other planets/moons/asteroids, but fortunately with the use of robots that aren’t that clever.

Back here on earth there aren't many testing facilities and even if there were any, they are still out of my reach since I don't have a PhD yet. Our climate change models could be tested in such closed environments and we could design technologies that are better integrated with us and our biosphere(s) as well as other extreme space environments. Sucking out carbon dioxide or just developing better materials for instance.

I have noticed you have experience in thermodynamics; do you think mitigation of entropy plays a big part in such closed and miniaturized biospheres? This is from the point of view of the many problems associated with harvesting and storing thermal energy. Is decay inevitable or are there ways of optimizing the decay process or the perhaps the cycle in order to have a functioning biosphere that runs entirely on renewable or passive energies?

I understand, This is becoming a question within a question.

Igor,

> Has anybody thought of slingshots / tunnel catapults etc

Yes. And much much more.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-rocket_spacelaunch

Your reference of volcanoes is borrowed by laser launch systems: direct a powerful laser against the underside of a block of plastic. The plastic boils, creating an exhaust.

It's curious that you consider additive construction to be somewhat fanciful. Power on the moon is abundant in the day: raw material likewise. A laser-sintering system may have a mass in the single figures of kg: and when added to a mobile element, such as a rover, there are few obvious obstacles to the creation of large gas-tight structures.

As for 'testing' the climate, that is absolutely best done computationally. There are no short-cuts when it comes to physically simulating such a large and complex system. However, testing smaller elements, such as a carbon sequestration methods, requires little more than a hermetic chamber.

> do you think mitigation of entropy plays a big part in such closed and >miniaturized biospheres?

Not particularly - the far simpler problems of achieving equilibria appear to be the first obstacles. Biosphere II faced many issues, not least of which was in managing to keep viable gas fractions of O2 and CO2.

James,

I use a PLA/ABS dual extruder printer. it sometimes gets jammed and then I need to take it apart and tinker with it for a while before I get it working again.

I have a more practical mindset when it comes to fixing machines in remote locations or trusting primitive robots to construct a shelter for habitation in extreme environments that computer simulations cannot accurately survey and model or predict every variable and then improvise on the spot like an experienced master builder used to do. besides, any system or method would still need to be tested, just like fire safety and structural systems need to pass various tests and achieve various standards or grades of integrity.

It's not that I think of it as fanciful but more impractical. There exist more practical methods then lasers mounted of remote controlled robots or preprogrammed with some algorithms for making decisions on the spot.

You mentioned there being strong sunlight on the moon (unobstructed by clouds); perhaps using a solar concentrator over there would be a better idea than it was here on earth. - The ants would feel relieved. -

The solar beam or concentrated heat could be directed to melt the mix of regolith in predesigned metal formwork. This solar casting procedure could produce construction elements similar to the Vitrumod modular building element where the hollow sections could be filled in with loose regolith or moon mineral wool and employed as insulating material. A top lid could then be cooked up in the same way and then at the very end various elements would be assembled and welded, again by using concentrated suns rays.

The same could be achieved here on earth but it's tricky with irregular sunlight availability and because it takes a pretty big collector to concentrate 1200 deg C of heat to melt for example quartz sand into glass. You would require approx four tennis courts of area and after that there is the question of moving it around and heating up the formwork and raw material to produce the desired elements.

This way all manner of complex buildings wherever the sun shines could be mass produced with clean energy and in the remotest of places. All materials used would be locally sourced, apart from the predesigned formwork which could always be flat-packed and shipped to location. All other building elements like glass and furniture could be created using the Solar Cast method as well.

Getting ahead of myself here but the United Nations could send the formwork and Solar Welder to post conflict zones or to zones affected by natural disasters like earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, typhoons etc. anywhere where buildings and infrastructure is in desperate need. Maybe this method could create buildings that cope better with the extremes. Extremes that recently frequently prove that our traditional construction methods fail.