Practical for a civilian to build a space suit?

[CCWilson]

Hard to pin down. One guy - a physics professor with an interest in astrophysics - said he thought it would be cool down quickly and he could calculate it but declined to do so. Another man said he thought it would be a slow process. So I'm still collecting data as best I can.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Yes, but I was thinking they'd need some time to develop the technology needed to launch with the VERY limited resources they'd now have, if they could ever do so. The space program we have now depends on having a large economy with free resources, no?

Why are the resources very limited? They have a whole planet still. Again thinking of scale: we're proposing a society that has the capability to build, in short order, entire underground cities for millions of people that are technologically advanced enough to build and maintain closed ecosystems. Their industrial capacity will be huge, far greater than today.

So we've got a civilisation of millions with huge industrial capacity and a lot of experience and tools for digging. Doesn't sound like it would be too hard to mine the resources under the surface and build thousands of rockets.

 

[sshai45]

Why are the resources very limited? They have a whole planet still. Again thinking of scale: we're proposing a society that has the capability to build, in short order, entire underground cities for millions of people that are technologically advanced enough to build and maintain closed ecosystems. Their industrial capacity will be huge, far greater than today.

So we've got a civilisation of millions with huge industrial capacity and a lot of experience and tools for digging. Doesn't sound like it would be too hard to mine the resources under the surface and build thousands of rockets.

Yes, they would have the whole planet, but it'd be much more difficult to access than it is now. And didn't this guy mention in one of these threads that this was NOT supposed to be human civilization hundreds of years from now, but close to *today*? Or has he changed his mind on that?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Yes, they would have the whole planet, but it'd be much more difficult to access than it is now. And didn't this guy mention in one of these threads that this was NOT supposed to be human civilization hundreds of years from now, but close to *today*? Or has he changed his mind on that?

He wants it to be near but if you look back through the thread you'll see some of the things that we've pointed out that this near future society is going to need: the technology to build and maintain sustainable closed ecosystems and industries to support a well organised society of millions. On top of that it all has to be built underground in a matter of years. Whatever this society looks like it's not going to be lacking in industrial power or technology (even if it is utilitarian with the only non-personal aesthetic artefacts/activities being what sociologists and psychologists think is necessary).

 

[CCWilson]

Out of curiosity have you worked out if it is possible/likely for the Earth just to wander off into interstellar space? I have a suspicion that an event of that much energy would devastate Earth even more. It seems more likely that Earth's orbit would become quite eccentric before leaving. I'm not sure of that though. The escape velocity for the solar system from Earth orbit is something like 40kmps, whatever it is that disturbs Earth's orbit has to impart that in the right direction (and it's still going to take many years to get anywhere).

I mentioned earlier in thread a short story that might help but I got the name wrong. It's called Minla's Flowers by Alastair Reynolds (though it's only available in anthologies).

One of the best tools for visualizing what a passing black hole would do was provided by DrStupid on another section of our PhysicsForum. It's initially set to show an object of one stellar mass throwing the Earth out of its orbit. If you click on "Stop simulation", you can change parameters to see what an object of different mass and different speed and position would do. I have no idea how accurate it is but it was greatly illuminating for me.

Thanks for that suggestion. I did find Minla's Flowers in a science fiction anthology and ordered it from Amazon. Should be here in a few days.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Thanks for that suggestion. I did find Minla's Flowers in a science fiction anthology and ordered it from Amazon. Should be here in a few days.

No worries was the anthology Zima Blue?

 

[CCWilson]

No, the book is called "The New Space Opera". There were several that included that short story.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

No, the book is called "The New Space Opera". There were several that included that short story.

Cool, I've not got it so I might have to make an amazon purchase at some point too lol.

 

[sshai45]

He wants it to be near but if you look back through the thread you'll see some of the things that we've pointed out that this near future society is going to need: the technology to build and maintain sustainable closed ecosystems and industries to support a well organised society of millions. On top of that it all has to be built underground in a matter of years. Whatever this society looks like it's not going to be lacking in industrial power or technology (even if it is utilitarian with the only non-personal aesthetic artefacts/activities being what sociologists and psychologists think is necessary).

So he wants it to be near today, yet then how can it simultaneously have an industrial capacity "far" greater than today? That suggests a time centuries from now.

But I'd be curious about this: can one expect that with the population cut to maybe a thousandth of its original size, to still retain industrial capacity comparable to the entire U.S. of today, or whatever would be required for a big space program way bigger than the one of now?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

So he wants it to be near today, yet then how can it simultaneously have an industrial capacity "far" greater than today? That suggests a time centuries from now.

Exactly, this is why I've pointed out that the time frame is not workable. These cities are going to need three major things:

1) A sustainable closed ecosystem. Easier said than done as ecosystems are incredibly complex and we don't have much of a clue how to design one. We could try with artificial but that would require us knowing enough about ecosystems (and our place in them) to not only identify what is needed but somehow replicate it.

2) A model of social organisation that takes into account the optimum number and characteristics of skilled and skilled workers (see the other thread in this subforum about minimum populations) and puts them to work efficiently as well as taking care of social needs. The latter is as important as the former; societal failure modes are a whole lot more serious when everything is so enclosed and so fragile.

3) A technology and industrial base to support all this. Essentially these cities need to have a factory for everything plus redundancy. Think of the distributed industries on Earth now (take any modern technology near you and think of the huge distances and logistical chains that led to it being yours: from mining to refining to manufacture all via global transport and communication) and realize that they all have to be redesigned to fit "under one roof".

Lastly the reason it has to be so high tech is that pulling off an industrial feat of that size will require it on top of the technological know how it's going to need to keep the biosphere and extended phenotype going.

But I'd be curious about this: can one expect that with the population cut to maybe a thousandth of its original size, to still retain industrial capacity comparable to the entire U.S. of today, or whatever would be required for a big space program way bigger than the one of now?

A thousand doesn't seem to likely. Remember that the US is not self sufficient (that doesn't mean it couldn't be bar mining outposts but it would take a heck of a redesign and wouldn't be as efficient). If the US was 1000 times smaller in population what would give it about 300,000 people which IIRC is 100,000 less than NASA employed during the Apollo program.

 

[CCWilson]

sshai45, I never said that the industrial or technological capabilities would be greater than they are today. In fact, they would certainly be less, because of the shortage of materials locally and no outside suppliers of intermediate parts. On the other hand, they wouldn't go back to the stone age, either. They would try to maintain as much technology as possible. They would store raw materials and components. Each city would have a section for scientific and engineering research and a manufacturing complex and they would do what they could. In the long run they might be able to develop the ability to roam the surface and harvest raw materials and other supplies and make scientific advances, but in the beginning they would be in survival mode, with the production of sufficient food for everyone the principal concern.

 

[sshai45]

Exactly, this is why I've pointed out that the time frame is not workable. These cities are going to need three major things:

1) A sustainable closed ecosystem. Easier said than done as ecosystems are incredibly complex and we don't have much of a clue how to design one. We could try with artificial but that would require us knowing enough about ecosystems (and our place in them) to not only identify what is needed but somehow replicate it.

2) A model of social organisation that takes into account the optimum number and characteristics of skilled and skilled workers (see the other thread in this subforum about minimum populations) and puts them to work efficiently as well as taking care of social needs. The latter is as important as the former; societal failure modes are a whole lot more serious when everything is so enclosed and so fragile.

3) A technology and industrial base to support all this. Essentially these cities need to have a factory for everything plus redundancy. Think of the distributed industries on Earth now (take any modern technology near you and think of the huge distances and logistical chains that led to it being yours: from mining to refining to manufacture all via global transport and communication) and realize that they all have to be redesigned to fit "under one roof".

Lastly the reason it has to be so high tech is that pulling off an industrial feat of that size will require it on top of the technological know how it's going to need to keep the biosphere and extended phenotype going.

Thanks. But one doesn't want it too advanced, either, lest there be the possibility of interstellar flight. Yet an industrial capacity "far" larger than ours suggests a civilization "far" more advanced.

A thousand doesn't seem to likely. Remember that the US is not self sufficient (that doesn't mean it couldn't be bar mining outposts but it would take a heck of a redesign and wouldn't be as efficient). If the US was 1000 times smaller in population what would give it about 300,000 people which IIRC is 100,000 less than NASA employed during the Apollo program.

Hmm. However, I still wonder about this. The thing is, in these cities, just about everyone is going to be needed just to keep things going, for survival. Which doesn't leave many for doing something like a huge space program way, way bigger than the Apollo program.

 

[sshai45]

sshai45, I never said that the industrial or technological capabilities would be greater than they are today. In fact, they would certainly be less, because of the shortage of materials locally and no outside suppliers of intermediate parts. On the other hand, they wouldn't go back to the stone age, either. They would try to maintain as much technology as possible. They would store raw materials and components. Each city would have a section for scientific and engineering research and a manufacturing complex and they would do what they could. In the long run they might be able to develop the ability to roam the surface and harvest raw materials and other supplies and make scientific advances, but in the beginning they would be in survival mode, with the production of sufficient food for everyone the principal concern.

Yes, however ryan_m_b suggested they'd *need* industrial capacity way greater than today's.

 

[CCWilson]

By the way, here's DrStupid's gravity simulator. Fun to play with. http://www.drstupid.de/Newton.html?...o-Mars;2e30,-2e12,1.8e11,0,60000,0,0,o-Object

 

[Ryan_m_b]

sshai45, I never said that the industrial or technological capabilities would be greater than they are today. In fact, they would certainly be less, because of the shortage of materials locally and no outside suppliers of intermediate parts. On the other hand, they wouldn't go back to the stone age, either. They would try to maintain as much technology as possible. They would store raw materials and components. Each city would have a section for scientific and engineering research and a manufacturing complex and they would do what they could. In the long run they might be able to develop the ability to roam the surface and harvest raw materials and other supplies and make scientific advances, but in the beginning they would be in survival mode, with the production of sufficient food for everyone the principal concern.

It's not just a question of keeping as much technology as possible, they will need more advanced technology than we have! You are proposing that they construct things that we cannot construct today in an unbelievably short time span. It's going to require a lot of breakthroughs to get that done.

Also I have a problem with this idea that they will be in "survival mode". If you're building a self contained ecology for millions of people it's either going to work or it's not, there is no middle ground. That's not to say it isn't possible to have shortfalls but they have to maintain a biosphere. It has to be there with a carrying capacity equal or greater than their population number or they're dead.

The primary concern IMO isn't technological once the cities are built but psychological and social. How many people are going to have severe psychological trauma from loosing loved ones, their homes and the Earth in general? The medical authorities will constantly have to battle a population with widespread psychological needs which will be difficult as pretty much all of them will be suffering as well.

Thanks. But one doesn't want it too advanced, either, lest there be the possibility of interstellar flight. Yet an industrial capacity "far" larger than ours suggests a civilization "far" more advanced.

Not exactly. They will have technology more advanced than us but the main boon is from:

1) Having constructed concentrated industrial infrastructure capable of producing nearly anything en mass (this is to replace the globally distributed industries we have today)

2) The socioeconomic models that allowed these cities to be constructed in the first place. Think of the systems that would have to be invented and put into place to figure out what resources need to go where from across the world to invent and build these cities. With that experience under their belt this society will have far more efficient systems for megaprojects.

These cities are going to be huge. They're going to hold millions of people who are constantly organised into the most efficient arrangements to fulfil policy. They're going to have vast factories that can be put towards mass producing almost anything (they'll need that to build and maintain the cities). They're going to be very green, every available space will be covered with plants, animals, fungi, vats of microorganisms etc. They are going to be very monitored, every square metre is going to have to be monitored for air pressure/quality/temperature, all the organisms are going to have to be monitored for population levels and health with every interaction noted to model the health of the biosphere in general (with automatic and manual adjustments as required to keep it stable/human carrying). Essentially the economy of these cities will match a modern day developed nation. The production of rockets, solar panels, masers etc isn't too much of a drain compared to this.

However as I don't want to seem like all I bring is negative feedback I can envision that some of these cities might have to work flat out (i.e. nearly all their economy) to maintain their city. It could seem like they are constantly fighting a loosing battle. Though I still find this a little unbelievable (given the scenario it really does seem either make or break) this whole scenario is relying on hefty amounts of suspension of disbelief.

 

[CCWilson]

Ah - so you're saying, Ryan, that if we were tossed out of orbit five years from now, there would be difficulties? People would be upset? There would be technological difficulties to overcome?

Gee. I never thought of that.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Ah - so you're saying, Ryan, that if we were tossed out of orbit five years from now, there would be difficulties? People would be upset? There would be technological difficulties to overcome?

Gee. I never thought of that.

That's a rather rude tone to use when I've tried to help you, especially when I've gone into quite a lot of detail and made a lot of suggestions rather than just point out "there will be problems". Why are you suddenly upset?

 

[CCWilson]

Sorry, but you seem to be missing the point that if we learned tomorrow that we would lose the sun in five years, we would have to do the best we could to keep humankind alive. It would be easier if we had fifty years to prepare, but that's not the situation I'm putting forward.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Sorry, but you seem to be missing the point that if we learned tomorrow that we would lose the sun in five years, we would have to do the best we could to keep humankind alive.

The best we can do is not enough. Honestly if we find out the sun will be gone in five years then we're all dead. If you want to go with soft science fiction then sure you can handwave all the issues away but then you're left with the problem of a possibly plot breaking handwave.

 

[CCWilson]

The best we can do is not enough. Honestly if we find out the sun will be gone in five years then we're all dead. If you want to go with soft science fiction then sure you can handwave all the issues away but then you're left with the problem of a possibly plot breaking handwave.

I'm afraid that you are grossly overestimating the hopelessness of the scenario. I have no doubt that with a sufficient supply of energy from geothermal (or other) power, humans could survive for a good long time. The major difficulty I see is producing sufficient food long term; I'm confident that the other problems - and maybe the food issue - would be solvable by the large numbers of smart people brought on board.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I'm afraid that you are grossly overestimating the hopelessness of the scenario. I have no doubt that with a sufficient supply of energy from geothermal (or other) power, humans could survive for a good long time. The major difficulty I see is producing sufficient food long term; I'm confident that the other problems - and maybe the food issue - would be solvable by the large numbers of smart people brought on board.

So you're skipping over the problems of closed ecosystems, optimum population numbers, societal/economic organisation and concentrated industry? As well as the politics, R&D and construction?

It's your story so feel free but skipping over so much won't give you hard science fiction. That's fine if you want to go for softer SF to tell a specific story you have in mind but watch out for plot breaking handwaves e.g. if it's so easy for an amateur to survive for a short time why were so few people saved in total.

 

[CCWilson]

It's a good thing our hunter-gatherer ancestors didn't know about optimal population numbers and societal/economic organization and concentrated industry or we wouldn't be here. As for closed ecosystems - that has not been a scientific priority driven by impending doom, as it would be in this story. Our brightest scientists and engineers - who had been working on more practical problems up to now - would have five years to work out the kinks. A selected population would move into one or more shelters a year or two before Armageddon, and adjustments and improvements could be made. You are certain that our best minds worldwide wouldn't be able to devise a practical ecosystem? I guess I have more faith in the capacity of our scientists to do remarkable things under desperate conditions than you do. You could be right, of course, but I doubt it.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

It's a good thing our hunter-gatherer ancestors didn't know about optimal population numbers and societal/economic organization and concentrated industry or we wouldn't be here.

Huh? Do you not see why that doesn't apply? Our ancestors lived technologically simple lives in a pre-existing ecosystem. The situation is entirely different.

As for closed ecosystems - that has not been a scientific priority driven by impending doom, as it would be in this story. Our brightest scientists and engineers - who had been working on more practical problems up to now - would have five years to work out the kinks. A selected population would move into one or more shelters a year or two before Armageddon, and adjustments and improvements could be made. You are certain that our best minds worldwide wouldn't be able to devise a practical ecosystem? I guess I have more faith in the capacity of our scientists to do remarkable things under desperate conditions than you do. You could be right, of course, but I doubt it.

Yes I am pretty much certain. Are you aware of how long scientific research takes? It's one thing to crash course a relatively simple engineering problem, it's another entirely to invent an entire field and then build the technology. Do you mind me asking if you're a scientist or a student at all? Because given the time that some experiments take to do (especially when dealing with ecological research which takes observation/experimentation over generations of the organisms in question) I can't believe the proposal that all the ones you need will be reinvented in a short amount of time to work in time. You can't forever shrink complicated processes by throwing more money at them.

It's not a question of faith, it's one of practicality. In terms of budget you run smack bang into the law of diminishing returns. Ten machines might be ten times faster than one but one hundred might be no faster than ten if the limiting step in the process becomes significant at ten machines.

Why exactly do you have your heart set on five years? I'd understand more if you were writing a screenplay where the standards are lower and it's more difficult to show a narrative across longer time periods but in literature it's very common.

 

[CCWilson]

The Manhattan Project took fewer than five years.

Let's get away from you're wrong, no, you're wrong, and be specific. What problem in biospheric science do you see as unsolvable?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

The Manhattan Project took fewer than five years.

Let's get away from you're wrong, no, you're wrong, and be specific. What problem in biospheric science do you see as unsolvable?

The Manhattan project is not analogous, this is where you are going wrong to be honest. comparing this effort to things in the past when it is qualitatively different. The Manhattan project did not invent nuclear science, it took already established principles and turned them into a working product. Also in the multiple threads you've had on this topic I have explained my reasons in various places. Frankly I'm offended by your trivialisation of my conduct as simply "you're wrong".

As for specific problems the biggest is that we've got no idea how to make one. The efforts tried in the past have failed. Given the complexity of ecosystems and the huge requirements of the need (it's not just food but also the human microbiome that has to be worked through and on the subject of food we'd have to find a way to synthesise nutrients which AFAIK we cannot do today. Not to mention trying to transplant an interconnected web into an enclosed area and have it be sustainable with few critical failure modes) I'm not convinced it can be done in a short time.

If we propose a very well funded closed ecosystem project today it's going to have to start by looking at a range of ecosystems now, developing better tools for monitoring trophic flow and looking at the data over long periods of time (possible with engineered events to monitor the outcome) to construct viable models of how human carrying ecosystems work, what the failure modes are and how to avoid them. This is also going to involve reviewing all current ecological studies and trying to model how they would be affected by being in enclosed areas. Once this is done we could try to build a range of closed ecosystems all trying something different and over long periods of time study how they develop. A key test will be if we can keep primates alive for multiple generations with no health complications.

 

[CCWilson]

Biosphere 2 was occupied for two years. The principal reason it failed was falling oxygen levels. That shouldn't be a major issue in our underground cities. Biosphere 2 didn't have an outside power source except for the sun. I suspect that producing additional oxygen would be fairly trivial, given a supply of water and a sufficient power source. Remember, these cities would not be totally closed ecosystems. There should be more than enough electrical power from the geothermal plant nearby, a pipeline to access water from a lake bed would be possible for a while, and forays to the surface could bring back ice, if necessary, and other materials. A system for monitoring air quality and pressure shouldn't be difficult to devise.

Regarding nutrients, as long as sufficient food is produced (which would be difficult, I freely admit), no supplements would be needed.

I'm not trying to be difficult, but you're going to have to be specific if you want to convince me that these cities would be impossible to sustain. So far your argument seems to be that it hasn't been done yet, so it can't be. I'm sure you know that the resources brought to bear on closed ecosystem development have been pretty minimal to this point, simply because it is scientifically interesting but hardly a necessity.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Biosphere 2 was occupied for two years. The principal reason it failed was falling oxygen levels.

Actually Biosphere 2 had a huge range of issues including bad experimental set up with some participants leaving and bringing things back in. IIRC there was also a series of arguments amongst the participants which became detrimental to the project (you can't neglect the social side of things here.

Regarding nutrients, as long as sufficient food is produced (which would be difficult, I freely admit), no supplements would be needed.

To produce food you need a whole supply chain of other organisms. Even hydroponics rely on getting their nutrient feeds from other plants.

I'm not trying to be difficult, but you're going to have to be specific if you want to convince me that these cities would be impossible to sustain. So far your argument seems to be that it hasn't been done yet, so it can't be. I'm sure you know that the resources brought to bear on closed ecosystem development have been pretty minimal to this point, simply because it is scientifically interesting but hardly a necessity.

Where did I say it couldn't be done? I said 5 years is an unreasonable time and explained why given diminishing returns, critical steps, how long these experiments would take, what we don't know etc etc.. Frankly this is seeming to be a one way conversation. You're not really responding to any of the points I'm making, just asserting that if we threw more resources at the problem it could be solved in a very very short time. Perhaps it's just me but if I read that in a book it would seriously put me off. It just seems lazy as a plot device.

 

[CCWilson]

Actually I have tried to respond to each of your points. I'm not saying that everything would be peachy in those cities, but that it wouldn't be quite as doom and gloom as you believe. Pestilence, contagious disease, food shortage, earthquakes, widespread depression, power plant breakdowns, failing technologies are all possible, and perhaps some cities would become ghost towns. But you can't convince me that the problems related to an almost closed ecosystem are necessarily insurmountable, even in five years. I'd put my money on the survival of the human species for a few generations at minimum, and possibly much longer, if anyone was taking those bets.

I'd be interested in the opinions of others on this question.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I'm not saying that everything would be peachy in those cities, but that it wouldn't be quite as doom and gloom as you believe.

Quite the contrary, I haven't said it would be doom and gloom in the cities at all. I've said that they will take a lot of work, a lot of breakthroughs in a myriad of fields and that it is unlikely that they could be invented and built in 5 years given the social, political, economical, industrial and technological hurdles.

But you can't convince me that the problems related to an almost closed ecosystem are necessarily insurmountable, even in five years

Have you not read what I've said I've not said it isn't possible but if you look back to post 95 I've outlined how such a project would go and why it's likely to take more than five years.

Good luck with the story.

 

[sshai45]

What about a 50-year time frame instead of 5? Or even 100? With huge expenditure on the project over that time to develop the tech. required? Then one could even split the novel into 2 parts: one about the build-up to the calamity, and the other about the calamity itself. And getting them to start that big expenditure could be difficult in itself -- note, e.g. how many people deny that Global Warming -- a relatively mild problem by comparison -- is real and man-caused. More to think about for the novel.

 

[sshai45]

Actually I have tried to respond to each of your points. I'm not saying that everything would be peachy in those cities, but that it wouldn't be quite as doom and gloom as you believe. Pestilence, contagious disease, food shortage, earthquakes, widespread depression, power plant breakdowns, failing technologies are all possible, and perhaps some cities would become ghost towns. But you can't convince me that the problems related to an almost closed ecosystem are necessarily insurmountable, even in five years. I'd put my money on the survival of the human species for a few generations at minimum, and possibly much longer, if anyone was taking those bets.

I'd be interested in the opinions of others on this question.

Nobody's saying the problems are insurmountable, just not so _in 5 years_. I suspect that people want to see your novel and they want to see it *good*, and making it good also means making it reasonably plausible (or at least not so implausible as to defy all suspension of disbelief). I really like the idea; it sounds very cool. 5 years just isn't very plausible. As was mentioned, with the Manhattan project analogy: it was just applying an already-existent field of science. In this case, you are talking about bringing fields up to maturity, from infancy. Infancy is the state in which our artificial-ecosystem knowledge is at. A TON of research is required. A better comparison would not be to the Manhattan project proper, but all the previous developments in nuclear science and in physics. While our scientific developments over the last century have been amazing, fields still take decades to develop. Even with massive expenditure, I'd still imagine it'd take decades. Thus, why I suggested 50 years instead of 5.

Remember that: *nobody is saying it's impossible, just that it can't be done in 5 years*.

 

[CCWilson]

I'm also curious and can't wait for the book. I'll bet they pull it off!

That black hole will be here in five years. Do we all just lie down and accept our fate? I think not. The US government, so ineffectual up until now, grows a collective pair and gathers the best minds together to work out a design. Some of the scientists say we aren't 100% certain that we'll be able to figure out all the details in time; others are fairly confident that they can.

Remember, people did live safely in Biosphere 2 for a couple of years - probably could have gone on considerably longer - and their mild physical problems were mostly related to falling oxygen levels and a low calorie diet. I don't think it would be that difficult to monitor and maintain good air quality, temperature, and pressure in the cities. And that complex was primitive compared to what the best scientific minds could accomplish in five years of feverish work. I suspect that we are overstating the challenges.

I will continue my research, though.

 

[onomatomanic]

I'd be interested in the opinions of others on this question.

I certainly agree with Ryan on one thing: If anyone thing goes seriously wrong in a closed ecosystem, once the outside world has become uninhabitable, the results won't be like those of the man-made or natural disaster we are used to. The result will quite simply be that everybody dies.

Thus, building a flawed ecosystem isn't much of an improvement over not doing anything at all.

As a suggestion, if the reason for your insistence on the five-year time limit is that you don't want the setting to become too futuristic, you could instead set this in an alternate timeline in which the Black Hole was detected in 1970 and will arrive in 2020. That gives you the development timeframe which others consider more reasonable, and technology in areas not directly related to preparing for the catastrophe would still be more or less where it is today in this timeline. Probably less, in some case, because resources have been diverted.