COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00004 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	eco[f81,jmc]		notes on "Space ecosynthesis
C00006 00003	Guiding the development of a controlled ecological life support system
C00011 00004	NASA N70-17551
C00013 ENDMK
C⊗;
eco[f81,jmc]		notes on "Space ecosynthesis

1. Space Ecosynthesis: An approach to the Design of Closed Ecoystems
for Use in Space

by R.D. Macelroy and M.M. Averner, Ames Research Center,
NASA Technical Memorandum 78491

2. emphasizes imortance of enormous buffering capacity of oceans
and atomosphere.  In small systems there will have to be some
buffering capacity, and servoing will have to be used to adjust
some rates.

3. Assumes wheat, soybeans and corn and requirements of 120 g protein,
50 g. fat and 400 g. carbohydrate for 70 kg person/day.  Assumes
3 crops/year and gets 820 m**2 area requirement per person.

4. "This concept of a space station with a synthetic ecosystem then
envisions a total volume of 8000 m**3, a crop area of 6400 m**, a human
living and working area of 1200 m**3, and a support system are of
500 m**2.  The structure is conceived as supportingup to seven people,
and consisting of many shuttle package, assembled and linked in two
locations, both rotating around a common center to allow a force of
.5 g.  It is further assumed that the light energy necessary to sustain
crops is provided by electricity which is generate separately by a
large assemblage of solar panels.  Throughout it is assumed that
power requirements will not be limiting for any portion of the operation
of the system".

Well, this seems too rich for the Shackleton Project.

5. Analysis involves mass flows of C H O N S and P.

This report is basically a pitch for support for research in mathematically
modelling closed ecological systems.  It reports no experiments.
There are some possibly useful references.  The attitude is extremely
long term and gold-plated.  Except for the pitch for considering
requirements for buffering, it isn't very informative.

We can accept their conclusion that closed biological systems will
require physical and chemical support in order to make
up for the lack of buffering.  Exactly what will be required, they
don't say.

One reference is a Russian paper:
Technical Translation NASA TT F-16993, June 1976
of
Gitel'son, I.I., B.G. Korov, G.M. Lisovskiy, etc.
1975, Problemy kosmicheskoy Biologii, Tom 28. Experimental ecobiological
systems including man.

	The fact that this study contains no arguments agains proponents
of a more austere approach suggests that such approaches are not current
within NASA.


Guiding the development of a controlled ecological life support system

Report on NASA Ames workshop, Jan. 8-12, 1979

edited by Robert M. Mason, Metrics, Inc. and John L. Garden, Georgia Tech.

leading people listed are Jack Spurlock, Marc Karel, John Phillips,
Mike Modell, Sidney Draggan.  Phil Quattrone "initiated the workshop
effort"

NASA contract to Georgia tech with METRICS, inc. as subcontractor

CELSS Controlled ecological life support system

GBMD = ground based manned demonstration

GBCD = ground based CELSS demonstration

contents summary

1. intro

2. evaluation of ground based manned demonstration as a milestone
in CELSS development

3. development requirements for a successful ground based CELSS demo

4. research recommendations

groups: nutrition and food processing, food production, waste processing,
system engineering/modelling, ecology, workshop overview.

	The main recommendation of the study was that there be
a ground based experiment.

from p. 21

	"The food production group assumed that a space-deployed CELSS
is at least 15-25 years away.  During that time frame, two develpments
might affect space-deployed CELSS: a) heavy-lift vehicle (HLV) transport
systems might reduce lift costs by an order of magnitude; and b) extra-
terrestrial sources of bulk life support system elements (C, N, H) from
carbonaceous chondritic asteroids may be available.  The group believed
thatthe development of the GBCD should not be constrained by space
tranport considerations."

The last sentence makes this study of limited interest to us.

The study identifies many problems.  It is quite clear that previous
exploration did not involve an understanding of nutritional problems
equivalent to that desired by this study.  As a result, expeditions
suffered from scurvy and other deficiencies.  It isn't now clear
what problems must be understood for bare survival and what can
be left ununderstood at some risk and unpleasantness.  It would seem
that we will need our own ground based experiment if we want to use food
recycling.

The very large list of questions to be answered mentioned in this study
can be useful, but we must decide which of them really need to be
answered in advance.  It is important to discover whether any of the
further studies proposed have been undertaken.

The list of names and addresses of participants in the study should
be printed out. Some of them may be worth talking to.

Stanford name: Olle Bjorkman, Carnegie Institution, Dept. of Plant Biology,
290 Panama, Stanford, CA 94305, tel. 325-1521
still in Stanford book

NASA N70-17551
Lunar logistics vehicle

	This is the report of a NASA sponsored faculty summer study
dated Sept. 1969. edited by  F. Davidson and S. Dickerson, University
of Houston.

Participants were mainly from less well-known colleges and universities, e.g.
no Stanford, M.I.T. or Caltech.

From abstract: uses Titan III-D Centaur and lands a payload of 2500 pounds
on the moon out of 12000 lbs in translunar trajectory.  Cost of eight
mission program estimated (1969) at $400 million not counting cost
of payloads.  Uses monomethyl hydrazine rocket for touchdown.
Any selected site on moon.  Post landing hop of 1 km.  Can land on
35 degree slope and among one foot diameter boulders.

Centaur was considered for retro engine.

Presumably this is a good conservative study.

Weight summary (lbs)

lander structure 	  650
thrust structure	  250
propulsion system	  933
propellant		 6378
guidance and navigation	  225
power			  357
communications		  111
instrumentation		   67
environmental control	  196
payload			 2500

total launch weight	11400