Talk:Biosphere 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

CO2 and a section on the reasons for failure?[edit]

I read this and my best guess is that the "scientists" did not know that land vegetation consumes more oxygen when it decays than it ever gave off during life. The reason we have a surplus of oxygen in our atmosphere is the plankton in the water mostly gets covered up and decays anaerobically without consuming oxygen so the oxygen it produced is not used up through decay. This seldom happens with land vegetation. They should have concentrated more on a bigger ocean that was truly alive and functioning in a way that when the plankton died it was removed/covered up it might have worked.

But, ... their ocean seems way to small. weedmic 17:02, Dec 7, 2011 (UTC)


In reply to the above, this website [1] suggests that the CO2 levels rose significantly due to too much soil in the tropical rainforest section, and I remember reading an article that said the O2 levels also went down because freshly-laid concrete has a tendency to absorb air for up to ten years after it has set, and this threw out the balance (the link above aludes to this but doesn't go into detail). Should there be a section of the article dedicated to the reasons behind the problems and issues that arose in the Bioshpere 2 project? Ziggurat 23:04, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

I have added an external link to a site which seems to cover this in some detail--Kram 23:28, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The concrete absorption idea puzzles me. On a tour in May 2007 we were told that the entire concrete foundation was lined with sheets of stainless steel, at considerable expense, to isolate the environment from the concrete. - Paul de Anguera, 5/22/07
Could have done that a lot cheaper and faster by spraying polyurethane truck bed liner over all the concrete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.232.94.33 (talk) 10:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The real reason for this issue was because of the complete lack of phytoplankton in the water, which produce 80% of the worlds oxygen through photosynthesis. From my viewpoint, that the 'scientists' at the bioshpphere did not know this, and simply relied on trees and other vegetation to do all the photosynthesis, shows a real lack of scientific knowledge. every 'scientist' should know this. (Estoniankaiju (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

The phytoplankton produces half of the oxygen generated by plants, which make "only" 1/3 and not 80% as you said. I just wanted you to know. Troooc (talk] 19:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.214.97.111 (talk) [reply]
Bacteria in normal soil have already consumed most of the nutrients available, and the oxygen that is required to process it. Bacteria had a feeding frenzy on the fresh raw soil. It is sad to see that this got so little coverage. Citations are available, though.Anarchangel (talk) 21:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More images[edit]

22 photos of the interior of Biosphere 2 in its current state. http://www.odditycentral.com/pics/true-horse-power-vehicle.html Amazingly, some of the plants are still alive, mostly the desert types that can exist with little water. The potential for good science experiments still exists there, if the place could be completely cleaned of all living things, sealed even better then restocked very carefully so unwanted pests like roaches don't get put in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.232.94.33 (talk) 10:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested to see those images. Please provide a link that actually leads to them. --El Ingles (talk) 16:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not like it's unmaintained... The University of Arizona is actively running it and some of the original staff running the place are still here so it's not at all remarkable. Also, Biosphere 2 likely depends heavily on the tourism to fund itself so the complete sealing of it is unpractical but there are other places where there are better seals such as the agricultural domes which are being converted to a new experiment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.56.191.137 (talk) 22:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Min-a-Max[edit]

Would someone add some notes on the Min-A-Max system used to build the structure? There's a very informative article here: http://radio-weblogs.com/0119080/stories/2003/02/04/galleryMinamaxAndOtherSpac.html

It gives some flesh to Peter Pierce's system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LionKimbro (talk • contribs) 01:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

reliable source with important missing info[edit]

see [2] and [3] --Espoo (talk) 09:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

obviously written by one of the John P. Allen cultists[edit]

I can't believe this author is being allowed to perpetuate so many long-debunked mistruths and to avoid all the very real criticism of this joke of an endeavor. Please read Marc Coopers's 1991 Village Voice article "Take This Terrarium and Shove It" then scrap this entire Wikipedia entry, plus the equally bogus entries for John P. Allen and Ed Bass. I'm aware that more legitimate scientists are now in charge, but that doesn't mean we can accept lies about how it began. 173.228.14.148 (talk) 04:35, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Relevance of location[edit]

The section

...an art gallery and café in London.[39] The Institute is indeed housed to this day in a multi-leveled old Londonian building which includes a prestigious Art Gallery for contemporary non-Western art on the first floor. John Allen and Roy...

barely seem relevant and almost like a dialogue (i.e., "the location suggests it was not legitimate", "actually, yes, it is located in such a location and its really quite great"). I propose removing these parts. 23.91.141.9 (talk) 23:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed it (also, even the sourced part had a less than usable citation). Rather than irrelevant details about geographical proximity of institutes to galleries, this should cite an assessment of these degrees by reliable sources. Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other problems[edit]

This article avoids mentioning some of the other problems in the second (failed) experiment. (It also claims the expt. was 'incomplete' rather than failed. It was, of course, both.) The most egregious problem was that it was NOT closed. Personnel were allowed to enter and leave regularly. And various materials were added over time.71.29.173.173 (talk) 20:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Biosphere 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:21, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Biosphere 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Add a link to a new NASA mission?[edit]

In 2024 NASA announced a new simulation of life on Mars, see https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/martians-wanted-nasa-opens-call-for-simulated-yearlong-mars-mission/ No Wikipedia page on the subject yet, it seems. But this likely should be linked here. 37.69.55.188 (talk) 17:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Biosphere_2&oldid=1210031285"