Practical for a civilian to build a space suit?

[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.