Orbitting farmlands

[CreatedEvolution]

I found a fun number crunch for this idea.

The moon is 14.6 million square miles surface area. Or 406 trillion square feet. If we were to have a craft expand to 10 layers at 20x50 ft we get 10,000 square feet a craft

406 trillion/10000 = 40.6 billion crafts orbitting to equal the surface of the moon

If the craft could expand to 10 layers of 100x100 feet that is 1 million square feet

406 trillion/ 1 million = 406 million orbitting crafts to equal the surface of the moon.

In my drawings of what ifs I have many crafts connecting together to utilize natural rotation as artificial gravity such as 100 crafts could form one OFFA “orbiting farm for all”

 

[COLGeek]

14.6 square miles? Seems off. I think you are missing the million.

 

[CreatedEvolution]

Ty

 

[Greg Ackerson]

Vertical farming, while expensive, would still be much more affordable than orbital agriculture. Look into what Singapore is doing. (talk about not having any space! No pun intended) Vertical farming on an industrial scale could feed trillions of people.

 

[Classical Motion]

Vertical area in the state of Colorado, could house the world's population.

 

[Classical Motion]

I have no idea if that is true now. But I heard it many times in my younger years. And not to mention the limping problem.

 

[COLGeek]

I have no idea if that is true now. But I heard it many times in my younger years. And not to mention the limping problem.

A smaller space than that is needed. Go back to the first page of this thread.

 

[Classical Motion]

Pardon me. The Colorado scenario was 5 acres per household. Thanks for the reminder and update.

 

[CreatedEvolution]

Like I stated earlier I started by theorizing vertical farms but I realized space is limited. In orbit space is potentially a lot more than taking up valuable farmland that could be used for housing.

I never thought it would be a next day or year application. I figured we would explore the method and if we find a cost effective solution. We have a lot more farmable space to feed a 100 billion population if ever needed.

Food resources and land for housing is what I consider all modern wars are fought over. If we have excess for the entire planet perhaps we could maintain peace.

 

[CreatedEvolution]

in my old drawing concept. The crafts form together and they rotate end over end creating artificial gravity

 

[Atlan0001]

Peace is nothing more nor less than interlude between wars!

By far the best of all wars is the one to conquer and open the next frontier and, thus, frontier renaissance civilization.

The worst, most catastrophically disastrous war (most apocalyptic), is the 'Dark Age' one for a more perfectly savage noble Utopia (Orwellian 'Dystopia' / Huxleyan 'Brave New World') in place in the 'nest' or womb-world (in "Home Alone")!

 

[CreatedEvolution]

I truly believe in humanity to become immortal to the point where death is an option for everyone. A place of nurture and love where beings would want to experience human life in its entirety. That is my vision of peace. And I consider it a necessity for other beings to welcome us as safe and intelligent race.

As of now we have a chaos theory and don’t know much. I believe there are watchers like ancient text. Waiting for us to evolve or maybe even fail to give a new species a chance at evolution.

 

[CreatedEvolution]

while I was considering this idea. I know obtaining water from outer space is still not possible to my knowledge... I do know water falls from the sky... "I never want to give up on being masters of nature' I realized these space crafts could land to obtain more water and drop off produce.

what if
a craft expands to a greenhouse to produce two thousand pounds of potatoes
the artificial gravity could be operated like a fair ride. by rotating the craft may have artificial gravity if physics work in space... I'm unsure rotating the craft will provide gravity for the plants
after four months the craft could land for more water and drop off produce.

the reason this is better than vertical farming.
you can only build a building so tall and so wide
it would weigh a lot of resources
rocket fuel is being wasted on war
space crafts could be manufactured like cars and be lightweight and expand to big green houses

lets face it orbit farming can sustain more population than one planet.. there is more space than earth.

 

[Catastrophe]

As with many ideas, they can sound fine - until you start looking at the practicalities.

Cat

 

[CreatedEvolution]

As with many ideas, they can sound fine - until you start looking at the practicalities.

Cat

yes I am sure its way too expensive to generate profit. I just like the amount of space that is there.

I have an additional idea that involves chained hydrogen balloons with shades on them for hot dessert areas. but that is not related to space.

 

[spacedweller]

The population was 2 billion 50 years later it was 4 billion 25 years later it was 6 billion 15 years later it was 8 billion. This is a true crisis.

I believe orbiting farms is the right answer not blood shed over territory.

Orbiting farms are really not a solution because even if affordable this would only make the crisis worse by increasing population further.

Space is so wast it could theoretically host enough farms to make planet way overcrowded.

Also while food issue may be solved, population doesn't depend on food only but also minerals and energy, and earth is already limited with them.

 

[Catastrophe]

Strange how no one ever thinks about simply limiting population growth.
Heavy taxation, for example.

Any other alternative will aid Nature imposing its own limitation.
War, epidemics, starvation or combinations thereof, et cetera.

Cat

 

[CreatedEvolution]

although I am admitting it is unlikely we should not rule it out. how much fuel is wasted in war when we could be obtaining produce?

as for minerals I took chemistry and I'm unsure if I can create them but I know we can obtain them. I believe we should be reaching for the stars because there might be a lot less weight to bear than giant buildings.

the population from eighteen hundred to now is going up two billion in half the amount of time each two billion. The earth could handle a much larger population than ten billion if we had excess resources in theory.

 

[spacedweller]

Strange how no one ever thinks about simply limiting population growth.
Heavy taxation, for example.

Limiting population for sure but not with heavy taxation, high taxes only harm economy.

So far a method of population limit that is proven to be working is China's one child policy - it doesn't harm their economy and also prevents excessive population growth.

as for minerals I took chemistry and I'm unsure if I can create them but I know we can obtain them. I believe we should be reaching for the stars because there might be a lot less weight to bear than giant buildings.

Yeah, space is full of minerals that we can only dream about now.
We don't even know if we'll ever have the capability to reach other stars.

edit:
@CreatedEvolution
I was thinking about your thinking and a question that popped out in my mind is, what's the point of expanding population further?

IMO food issues on planet are not because of lack of food but because of undeveloped global governance.
I hope I don't cross the red line of forum rules about no talk about politics, but I think ideas about global government did not come out of greed but due to necessity to solve long standing problems at global scale such as wars, food issues and lack of resources in general.

 

[Catastrophe]

So far a method of population limit that is proven to be working is China's one child policy - it doesn't harm their economy and also prevents excessive population growth.

Spacedweller, re your post #69, I suggest you update on this question:

Google Search

especially:

In 2015, the Chinese government began to relax the policy, allowing couples to have two children, and later extended it to three.

Cat

 

[AstroverseUnveiled]

Will we ever have orbiting farmlands? I consider the depths of space to be limitless while underground farming would be limited.

I have watched all the videos and so far they do not mass produce crops from what I seen. My theory is there is a population crisis. The population was 2 billion 50 years later it was 4 billion 25 years later it was 6 billion 15 years later it was 8 billion. This is a true crisis.

I believe orbiting farms is the right answer not blood shed over territory.

I think the machines should actually be gear operated or at least be unhackable with no incoming signal. I thing about 10 yards by 60 yards should be launched into orbit and connected with other pieces to form megastructures.

I have theories on farming water from space while in orbit.

Your vision for orbiting farmlands is fascinating! The idea of using space as an agricultural frontier to address population growth and food scarcity is gaining traction. While we don’t yet have large-scale orbital farms, researchers are exploring space agriculture, including greenhouses in orbit to develop resilient crops

 

[spacedweller]

Spacedweller, re your post #69, I suggest you update on this question:

especially:

Cat

They have relaxed it and reintroduced several times already from what I've read in the past depending on how population composition develops and in accordance with statistics.

But that's not the point, the point is that their policy helped to contain population growth to desired levels.

 

[Catastrophe]

They have relaxed it and reintroduced several times already from what I've read in the past depending on how population composition develops and in accordance with statistics.

But that's not the point, the point is that their policy helped to contain population growth to desired levels.

Here is a summary of pros and cons:

Google Search

From which:

Conclusion:
China's one-child policy was a complex and controversial policy with both positive and negative impacts. While it played a role in slowing population growth and potentially boosting economic growth, it also created significant social and economic problems, including a gender imbalance and an aging population. The policy was eventually abandoned in 2016, and China is now facing the consequences of its past population policies, including a declining birth rate and an aging population.

Cat

 

[spacedweller]

Here is a summary of pros and cons

I've read several articles and concluded it all boils down to whether the policy resulted in their population being 400 million less than what it would be without the policy.

This figure of 400 million which was proclaimed by them is obviously disputed because it's an estimation rather than proof.

I see no credible evidence about the figure whether it is proclaimed by them or by those who dispute it.

The overestimate is disputed to be about 45% as per chart below:

Figure - PMC

China’s controversial one-child policy continues to generate controversy and misinformation. This essay challenges several common myths: that Mao Zedong consistently opposed efforts to limit China’s population growth; that as a result China’s ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

So it boils down to whether it prevented 400 million births or 400 * 0.65 = 260 million.
I guess one is free to choose either of the figures depending on whom they want to trust.

In any case I don't doubt in possibility of this or that consequences, the most obvious being 118:100 male population vs female.