2 ms·
You would likely use this “food” to feed more traditional agriculture for human consumption. A better way of positioning it is processing the content of abiotic
by adastra22 2y ago
You would likely use this “food” to feed more traditional agriculture for human consumption. A better way of positioning it is processing the content of abiotic asteroids into a biological system capable of providing nourishment to astronauts and space colonists.
- roughly 2y agoThe article says the cost of feeding one astronaut for one year is around 5,000-160,000 tons of ore per year. My understanding is the rule of thumb is about an order of magnitude nutritional drop off each step - that is, to produce 100cal of meat requires 1000cal of plant food. Bumping those yield estimates, especially the pessimistic end, up by another factor of 10 is just a phenomenal amount of material to process for one person for one year.
- Teever 2y agoThat's just the mass you need to extract the resources that make up the food that one person consumes in a year. Assuming you don't just space the human waste and instead reuse it you'll be accumulating material that can make up the biomass that will comprise a large and intricate food web that will eventually make up the biomes of large O'Neill cylinder stations.
- pavel_lishin 2y agoI didn't read the paper in depth, just skimmed it, but it seems like their assumption is that the astronauts will be eating some sort of microbe slurry; so I think that the cost includes only that, not using microbes to feed higher-order life or growing plants.
- roughly 2y agoAgree, but the post I was responding to was suggesting it be used as an agricultural feedstock to feed things the astronauts eat - that’s where my order-of-magnitude calculation came from.
- adastra22 2y agoBiomass is recycled. You would only need the replacement rate for losses, which would be nonzero not negligible, but much smaller.