Hattivat

Sure, your models look great regardless of that, carry on the good work. I was just surprised that no one seemed to have noticed the inconsistency between what your inspiration picture depicts and what your actual models are. On a side note, inflatable greenhouses are not silly at all, in fact they are the standard approach in serious studies about human habitation in space, e.g.:

You are probably going to hate me for pointing this out, but... you do realize that these modules in the picture you are using as inspiration are inflatable, not rigid?

Mostly I just measure them with my fingers close to the screen, based on the dimensions I do know (e.g. orange fuel tank has a diameter of 2.5 m, so if something is twice as wide, then it has a diameter of 5 meters). Then it's mostly a matter of https://www.google.com/search?q=cylinder+volume&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=fflb , subtracting some of the result to account for the thickness of the walls. It's obviously just an approximation of what the actual number would be, but I find it sufficient to satisfy my urges for increased realism. After all, even if I overestimate, and my kerbals get 70 m3 per person instead of 80, I think that's no biggie, given that kerbals in most other people's space programs are forced to sit in cramped cockpits for years, without space to even stretch their legs.

If you want to make it harder/more realistic, try achieving an ISS-like amount of pressurized space (160 cubic meters per astronaut, so about 80 cubic meters per kerbonaut). I'm currently trying to launch a mothership that does that for a crew of five, and so far haven't succeeded in launching it in one piece with FAR enabled, but I shall persevere.

^Sounds reasonable. As far as conversion efficiency is concerned, that depends first and foremost on the efficiency of your bioreactor (waste treatment), which I guess we assume is integrated into the greenhouse, much more than on the greenhouse itself. Basically the more toxic/resistant waste your bacteria/fungi/algae/whatever can decompose, the less "leakage" your system has. Right now it is assumed that part of the human feces and all the things like used clothes and food packaging are non-recyclable in space, so they are assumed to be either stored indefinitely or airlocked, hence the mass conversion losses. If you could achieve 100% recycle-bility (probably by developing some heavily genetically modified organisms and having all of your kerbals use biodegradable materials whenever possible (toothpaste, clothes, etc.)), then efficiency of close to 100% for the whole system is not that difficult to imagine. If you are concerned about power consumption, you should definitely consider the spirulina option, ArcFurnace's calulations suggest it would be much more energy-efficient. If on the other hand you wanted some sort of a luxury option, one of the papers I linked (the Chinese one) discusses raising silkworms for food in space, and it seems reasonably efficient. (I know eating worms doesn't exactly sound too well either, but after a year of eating nothing but green goo and veggies it may sound like salvation to your astronauts )

Excellent as always, I'd give you tons of rep, but forum says I can't :< It does indeed sound like a superior engineering solution, and a brilliantly simple one too. It never occurred to me that one could make a "flat" bioreactor. Not trying to argue here, just a personal perspective: This is probably the ultimate solution for long-term bases, but for my use (large spaceships) it kind of defeats the whole purpose. I mean, if what the system outputs is "green slime" then it is barely any better than pre-packaged food, and the question of whether or not it makes sense to equip your craft with it depends purely on weight efficiency (which for most missions will be a negative). Whereas actual greenhouses have a psychological value very much like a centrifuge - it might be heavier than the simplest possible solution, but it lets you feel good about providing that little bit of extra comfort to your crew. Anyway, I'm starting to see a potential for tech tree extension here, something like: .....hydroponics .....| .................\ .....v ................. v biorecycling aeroponics .....| ........................ | .....v ........................ v advanced bior. volumetric efficiency ......\.......................... / ......v....................... v advanced algaculture (biorecycling would let you turn waste into hydroponics-grade nutrients (previously you'd need to transport them to orbit); advanced biorecycling does the same to aeroponics; probably not the best names for these techs, I hope ArcFurnace can propose better ones) Is there something else we could add at the end of the tree? Perhaps liberal application of genetic engineering resulting in some sort of explosively growing fungus-chicken-spinach hybrid straight out of luddite propaganda? EDIT: Actually now that I think about it, you could provide players with a selection of options with varying levels of palatability to mix and match to individual preferences. That way one could decide what level of "food comfort" he can afford to provide for his kerbonauts. For example: 1. algaculture cultivating spiruline - most effective but least palatable 2. aeroponics bay cultivating veggies - moderately effective, moderately tasty 3. centrifuge for raising plants that would not grow in zero-g conditions, or maybe raising some sort of animals (larvae? insects? chickens?) / aquaculture to cultivate crustaceans or fish - least effective but adds variety to meals I've found tons of resources. Turns out the codephrase for good google results is "bioregenerative life support". Watch this, they show a prototype inflatable greenhouse and a brilliant idea of using fiberoptics to transfer concentrated solar light into the greenhouse chamber: It's designed for static use on the moon, so it is obviously not exactly how a greenhouse for a spacecraft would look like (especially one intended for use beyond Mars orbit, as it makes little sense to have any sort of structure transparency there), but would be a good inspiration for a game model. In the research paper (from 2012) they claim to achieve an almost 50% reduction in weight (145 tonnes compared to 275) over the previous NASA reference design, and that is while still using a hydroponic system and providing crew access. Spoilers below contain links to tonnes of relevant research papers I've found, which is either a good or a bad thing, depending on how you feel about reading such things. In any case, you have been warned. http://www.marshome.org/files2/Hublitz2.pdf The rest of their documents look promising too: http://www.marshome.org/documents.phpthe results from that lunar greenhouse prototype: https://www.academia.edu/2194711/Bio-Regenerative_Life_Support_System_Development_for_Lunar_Mars_Habitats (you need an account to download) http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20050182966.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_systems_on_space_exploration_missions#Acceptabilityhttp://humanresearchroadmap.nasa.gov/Evidence/reports/Food.pdf http://www.lss-lab.bme.buaa.edu.cn/download/SCI/SCI/12%E8%83%A1%E6%81%A9%E6%9F%B1-Conceptual%20design%20of%20a%20bioregenerative%20life%20support%20system%20containing%20crops%20and%20silkworms_.pdfhttp://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33699.0 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7342241_Microbial_ecology_of_the_closed_artificial_ecosystem_MELiSSA_%28Micro-Ecological_Life_Support_System_Alternative%29_reinventing_and_compartmentalizing_the_Earth%27s_food_and_oxygen_regeneration_system_for_long-haul_space_exploration_missions (you need an account to access) http://spacearchitect.org/pubs/AIAA-2013-3517.pdf http://nia-cms.nianet.org/RASCAL/images/University-of-Colorado,-Boulder-Final-Paper-2013.aspxhttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/225024211_Advanced_Greenhouse_Modules_for_use_within_Planetary_Habitats http://globalecotechnics.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Handbook-Envt-Engineering-Closed-system-chapter.pdf http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/60/5/820S.full.pdfhttp://www.ncspacegrant.org/bls/files/Crop%20Roadmap%20Document%20for%20NASA%20B_JC%20Edit.pdf http://www.transorbital.net/Library/D101_S01.html http://moonmars.com/sites/moonmars.com/files/items/documents/CEBLSS.pdf http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/biomed/marsdome/ also of interest: http://www.leonarddavid.com/spin-control-greenhouses-headed-for-orbit/ this is hardly a research paper, but may be useful since unlike most other sources it discusses the downsides of aeroponics: http://www.gardenandgreenhouse.net/index.php/past-issues-mainmenu-18/37-2009-gg/march-2009/498-hydroponics-101 (probably of interest, but I can't get access:) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16439102 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117707007065 http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2010-6202

Certainly possible, but very heavy, as water is the heaviest part of any space agriculture system. An aeroponic lettuce only needs to have its roots sprinkled with nutrient-containing mist once every 20 minutes or so, whereas algae have to be constantly surrounded by it.

And to avoid being rude: Cerebrate, from the calculations done so far, it seems that the setup you have in that example pic (that's four greenhouse units, right?) should, assuming full automation (which your model's looks would suggest), realistically provide enough food to adequately support two kerbals if it employs hydroponics, and three to four kerbals if an aeroponic system is used. You can of course tweak these numbers up if you don't care about realism as much as I do.

Thank you for a well-thought-out reply. Here is an already made solution, assuming that Porkjet would be interested in cooperating on this or kind enough to let someone else use his model: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/64442-0-23-5-Habitat-Pack-v0-4 I've already suggested doing something like that further in that thread. I wouldn't know, as I'm no biologist, and plant-related limitations is the part that I don't really understand, all I can say is what sources claim. What I do understand is that from an engineering perspective the existing greenhouses for KSP (from Biomass and other mods) make no sense for a Jool mission (way too heavy, unnecessary windows, too much empty space inside them), which is what I want to use a greenhouse for. Aeroponics is supposed to make plants grow faster, yes, but the grow time figures quoted in that NASA document are already good results compared to the numbers I've seen elsewhere, so I'm not sure if a 2x improvement could be achieved. What I think could be very plausibly achieved is packing at least slightly more plants into the same amount of space (sources say that since there is no soil or water between the roots, plants do not compete with each other for nutrients). If I understand it correctly one significant limitation of aeroponics is that the nutrient solution needs to be of very high quality, which would probably mean that recycling kerbal waste directly into it would be extremely hard (if not outright impossible) to achieve. Personally I'm willing to roll with it and assume that kerbals achieved some breakthrough in waste treatment technology (my kerbals already have fusion reactors, duh), that's far preferable to assuming that my kerbonauts are willing to eat nothing but potatoes for two years (given their limited volume, the Biomass mod greenhouses can't really be assumed to provide much more than that) and that my kerbal engineers consider it a good idea to incorporate heavy windows into the design of greenhouses intended for use on Jool's orbit. I'm using it too so power consumption numbers look fine to me. Furthermore, I think that what we are trying to achieve here actually SHOULD be impossible to achieve with stock parts, they represent mostly 1970s technology after all. There is however a solution if someone is unwilling to use nuclear power - Near Future Propulsion pack includes enormous blanket solar arrays, using a few of them should be enough to run the greenhouse at least in Kerbin orbit. The bigger problem would be packing enough batteries to power the thing during the "night" period of the orbit. Of course tweaking the power consumption down remains a possibility, although I would probably tweak it back up for my personal use. Personally, I'd be willing to use it mostly to role-play providing a little extra comfort to my kerbals to improve morale (my spaceship designs include at least double the required crew space, including a centrifuge, for the same reason), after all it's more pleasant to eat fresh veggies than food concentrates, and with the late-stage KSPI technology I can easily afford that. Furthermore, my spaceship designs are already single-stage-from-LKO-to-eeloo-orbit-and-back, so I guess they could be considered an indefinite-duration mission, as they are not intended to ever return to Kerbin surface (excepting the unplanned lithobraking scenario).

I'd like to refer anyone interested in the topic to an excellent post by ArcFurnace: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/79603-0-2-35-CELSS-Greenhouse-%28TAC-Life-Support-Add-On-Version-0-1-beta%29?p=1151541&viewfull=1#post1151541 His data is far superior to what I previously used. For (relatively) adequate and varied nutrition he estimates 54 cubic meters per kerbal for a manually harvested greenhouse, and a theoretical minimum of 9 cubic meters per kerbal for a highly space-efficient, fully-automated one. Both estimates include all of the necessary equipment and lighting. Since almost half of that 54 m^3 figure is wasted on space for crew to move about harvesting the plants (18 m^3 between plant rows, and from that NASA document it seems a further several cubic meters is reserved for space to move hands within the growth area), with full automation it should be about 30 m^3 per kerbal. With some improvements in space-efficiency (a realistic assumption since space-efficiency of such systems is improving and the NASA document he uses is 10 years old) that should be at least somewhat reduceable. To be safe let's assume only limited improvements (far less than his proposed maximum) and say it would be 25 m^3 per kerbal. Since this estimate already includes the equipment, we can "move" the bioreactor to one of the spherical ends of the PA550 module. That leaves us with the entirety of the cylindrical part to play with. It has about 78 cubic meters of volume, so assuming 3 cubic meters for walls, we are left with 75 cubic meters for the greenhouse proper, in other words enough for three kerbals. So the updated estimate is: PA550 is sufficient to adequately and almost indefinitely support THREE kerbals, not four. But this is now a scientifically plausible estimate backed by NASA data, not just a "let's try to make realistic assumptions" one as previously. He also provided a weight estimate: 4.5 tonnes per kerbal, and a power consumption estimate: 90 EC/s/kerbal, both apparently regardless of volume used. So I would say a PA550-based greenhouse should weigh about 18 tonnes (assuming 4 tonnes for a bioreactor* and 0.5 tonnes for a small reserve) and require about 300 EC/s (assuming 30 EC for automated planting and harvesting). *This bioreactor is the only make-believe part of the whole system, as to my (admittedly limited) knowledge no existing bioreactor is capable of recovering nutrients to the degree required to make the whole system closed-loop. However, on Earth a 1 cubic meter, 1-tonne bioreactor could be enough to treat wastewater output of an entire house, whereas in order to make the whole thing more plausible I propose a 4-cubic meter, 4-tonne one for the life support system, assuming that if such an advanced system was ever created, it would have to be more complex and therefore bulkier.

Awesome post, thanks a bunch, I've been investigating this topic for the last two days, but the results of my amateurish searches pale in comparison to the amount of data you've provided in this post. The mass estimates are particularly invaluable, as I couldn't find them anywhere. Two questions: If I understand it correctly that NASA document assumes a hydroponic system is used (unless they consider aeroponics a subset of hydroponics and use the latter term for simplicity). From what I managed to get out of their website and other sources, it seemed that an aeroponic system would be preferable as it is more weight-efficient. Is there any particular reason why they chose hydroponics? And another, wouldn't it make sense to make the whole structure inflatable? That should make the whole thing much less bulky on launch. NASA already did some research on this: http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ipp/centers/kennedy/success_stories/Inflatable_Aeroponic_System_BBlinds.html

^Thanks. Cetrifuge could certainly be applied to the same purpose, although it's much less space-efficient. From what I've seen the topic of how different plants react to zero-g environment is not too well-researched, but the results of these studies that were done so far were varied (some plants grew less well, while some actually grew faster without gravity), so it might very well be that some plants would require it for healthy growth To clarify my previous words: I'm not saying that the greenhouses from Biomass and other mods are impossible or unrealistic. They are perfectly possible, and probably realistic as far as biology is concerned. The problem is that due to high mass and low efficiency they are an inferior solution from an engineering perspective, and therefore unlikely to be put into orbit by a realistic space agency. They are basically the equivalent of using a chemical rocket engine to travel to Jupiter - it does work but it's hardly optimal for the job.

An idea: I've researched how realistic food production in space would look like, and it turns out that PA550's model would be almost ideal for the job, without any changes to its external appearance. It would be significantly more plausible than the greenhouses that other mods currently provide and should yield enough food to provide a varied and nutritionally adequate (ie. not just bare survival-level) diet to four kerbals. If that interests you, bear with me, it will be a rather lengthy explanation, as I spent a large part of the past two days researching the topic. If Porkjet is interested, he can feel free to use the results of my investigation into the topic to create a new part for his mod. Basically every single greenhouse model other mods have looks more or less like this: While actual propositions for food production in space look more like this: Source: http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ipp/centers/kennedy/success_stories/Inflatable_Aeroponic_System_BBlinds.html or this: Source: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/news/background/facts/advasc.html The first one (more likely to be plausible on a large scale) is an aeroponic system, ie. plants grow with their roots suspended in thin air and periodically sprinkled with mist of nutrient-containing water. It requires no soil and little water (very weight-efficient) and results in plants growing much faster than they normally do, additionally letting the grower fit more plants into the same space (since there is no soil, plants do not compete with each other for nutrients). In result this method achieves yields/sq m/year that are about 10 times that of a regular greenhouse and 60 times that of conventional agriculture. Obviously it has its drawbacks, which inhibit its application on Earth, namely the installation cost, relatively large energy consumption, the need for an almost sterile environment, and its dependence on technology for plant survival (they are basically on constant life support and die in case of equipment failure). Luckily, these are mostly irrelevant in space: cost and energy consumption are large relative to that of traditional agriculture but are still miniscule in comparison to the price tag and energy needs of a spacecraft, while dependence on technology for survival and near-sterile environment are already the default situation for any spacecraft. The system above is obviously just a small-scale prototype. On a large scale the interior would look more like this: Except in space it would probably be even more crowded, given how priceless every inch of ventilated space is out there. Let's compare: Typical KSP greenhouse: - glass windows + shutters - rigid construction - one layer of vegetation - traditional greenhouse or at most a hydroponic (no soil but uses plenty of water) system Actually plausible space greenhouse: - no windows (they result in more additional weight than it is worth) - inflatable - multiple layers of vegetation - aeroponic system (more lightweight, uses much less resources, faster plant growth) Obviously Porkjet's models are much closer to what a plausible space greenhouse would look like than the greenhouses that other mods provide. Now it's time for the PA550 - specific calculations: When fully inflated, the inflatable part of the PA550 model is a cylinder about 4 meters high and 5 meters wide, with a spherical cap, about 0.5m high, at each end. Assuming that one of the spherical caps houses the necessary equipment (pumps, control computers, etc.) and the other is filled with a reserve of required resources, we are left with a cylinder 4x5 cylinder of usable space. The height of 4 m is sufficient to consider it a 2-story structure, giving us usable floor space of 2*(Pi*2.5^2), that is around 38.4 sq meters. Let's assume that 0.4 sq meters of space is lost due to the thickness of the walls. From what I've read it seems that the most efficient setup would be an extremely strong light source (probably LED) at the center, surrounded by shelves of plants, slowly rotated to simulate some minimal gravity. We can assume that about 4 sq meters will be needed for the light source and to leave some space around it. Plants can't grow directly on animal waste, it has to be first decomposed into nutrients by bacteria. In nature that's what the soil is for - it's the home for bacteria. In our scenario however, the food production bay would need to contain an integrated bioreactor (basically a small scale biological waste treatment plant) to do the same. Such systems are relatively heavy but compact, so 4 sq meters should be more than enough, assuming continuous operation. That leaves us with about 30 sq meters of effective floor space for actually growing plants. But how much space would be needed to provide minimal nutrition to a Kerbal? Sources are somewhat conflicting on this question, as the answer depends on an innumerable amount of assumptions, but it seems that 4 sq meters is a minimum to provide year-round subsistence to a human. That's assuming a high-efficiency aeroponics system cultivating a single plant variety, selected for its effectiveness (most likely a genetically engineered sweet potato), resulting in an extremely monotonous diet composed almost exclusively of carbohydrates (but adequate calorie-wise). Given that kerbals are significantly smaller than humans, we can assume that they would require half as much, resulting in a minimum of two sq meters per kerbal. Let's make it 2.5 sq meters per kerbal to have some safety margin. So for a 4-kerbal crew, the minimum would be 10 sq meters of aeroponic greenhouse. Proteins and fats are much more costly to produce, but given that 10 sq meters already cover the carbohydrates, I think we can safely assume that the remaining 20 sq meters of space inside PA550 would be more than enough to provide an adequate supply of proteins, fats and vitamins to our kerbals. The result: Perfectly adequate and varied diet for four kerbals, year-round, independent of the amount of sunlight received, with a side effect of recycling all of the waste, waste water and carbon dioxide produced by the crew. Should be much lighter than a "typical KSP greenhouse" of comparable production capacity. The only drawback: high and continuous energy consumption (the equivalent of at least one large solar array's power production, imho). If you've arrived this far, thank you for taking your time to read all this. PS the adequate name for such a part would be "aeroponics bay".

Toolbar Active Texture Management ASET ALCOR B9 Aerospace (only a few parts) Baha EPL Beastly Science Biomass+ Science (only some of the parts) Chaterrer Cool Rockets Crew Manifest Deadly Reentry Distant Object Enhancer Kerbal Engineer Redux Environmental Visual Enhancements Extraplanetary Launchpads Ferram Aerospace Research Firespitter (plugin only) FloorIt Fusebox FusTek station parts (old ones) Safe Chute Porkworks Habitat Pack Raster Prop Monitor Kerbal Attachment System Procedural Fairings Kethane KipEng Low Profile Hubs Klockheed Martian Kommit Nucleonics Renaissance Compilation KW Rocketry (without the fairing parts) Lack Luster Labs (full + extra) Magic Smoke Industries - Infernal Robotics Mechjeb2 Hot Rockets MPSS Nautilus NavBall Texture Export NavyFish's Docking Port Alignment Near Future (just the solar panels and batteries) Nothke DROMOMAN Nova Punch 2 (only some of the parts) Open Resource System Precise Node Procedural Dynamics Real Chute Real Solar System (only the part that the Renaissance compilation requires) ScanSAT SmokeScreen Soundtrack Editor Stretchy Tanks Texture Replacer Thunder Aerospace Life Support Tree Loader Kerbal Alarm Clock Modular Kolonization System Vessel View Kerbal Interstellar Module Manager ResearchThemAll And yeah, that's stable... mostly.

I do, could you please provide some guidance on how to do it?

Lmao, with that kind of attitude installing NovaPunch (5m tanks, 10k thrust engines) would let you launch entire resort complexes

Ah, the one from LLL. I also have it installed, but haven't tried to orbit it yet, must be a pain with FAR installed. Also, IIRC the one from LLL spins non-stop, even in the VAB, right? The one from the habitat pack is cool in that you can start and stop the rotation on demand, LLL should really think about something like that.

The vessel I've posted above was launched in one piece* atop a KW rocketry/NovaPunch rocket, and given its shape and weight, it's obviously not meant to ever return to Kerbin surface. *excluding a small Dres lander currently attached to the side of it. Nah, that's the one from the Habitat Pack (http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/64442-0-23-5-Habitat-Pack-v0-4), it works like a charm, better than any other KSP centrifuge I'm aware of. The only drawback is that since it is inflatable, you can't attach anything to its sides.

KSN Spirit of Kerbin, the pride of the Kerbal space navy, leaving Kerbin for Dres. >50k delta-v, <3 the interstellar mod.

First of all, thank you for this mod, I'm really looking forward to trying it in practice. Just one question though: I'm planning to kolonize Laythe, and if I calculate it correctly, given that there is an unlimited supply of water and oxygen on Laythe, the one resource that my colony would need to start producing a food surplus (my ultimate goal for this colony) is... carbon dioxide. However absurd that might sound, it seems that my colony is going to have a carbon dioxide deficit. Would you be willing to provide us with some way to either extract carbon dioxide from atmosphere or produce it locally (by burning coal I'd assume, perhaps a conventional power plant/heating center)?

Just wanted to say thanks to proot and all the other people involved in the creation of the mods that this pack uses, the results are simply glorious.

Howdy folks, I've been playing KSP for about a month now and quickly became a junkie for mods (especially the well-balanced ones; currently using about 50 different mods), so I decided it was time to join the forum to say hello and provide some praise/commentary/input for the ones I've grown particularly fond of. I'm currently doing reconnaissance of Laythe in preparation for a colonization effort with the help of the Modular Kolonization System. See you in some other topic, Hattivat