Feasibility of photosynthesis in mammals/(trans/post/humans)

Post your reality fanfiction here.

Moderators: gmalivuk, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
AvatarIII
Posts: 2098
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 12:28 pm UTC
Location: W.Sussex, UK

Feasibility of photosynthesis in mammals/(trans/post/humans)

Postby AvatarIII » Mon May 02, 2011 2:54 pm UTC

basically i was thinking about how possible it would be to supplement energy intake in humans by putting chloroplasts in mammalian cells, either all the cells of the body, or just the skin cells, whichever would make more sense. the idea has been used in several SF books i've read, but none of them really went into detail about the science of it.
i had a look in a few other places, but other than just conjecture about chloroplasts being too big for mammalian cells, the surface area of animals being to low to have any noticable increase in energy intake, and the fact that cellular physiology might be wrong to sustain chloroplasts (which for the sake of a SF story, could be handwaved through genetic engineering) I was wondering about the actual science, not just conjecture.

Soralin
Posts: 1347
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:06 am UTC

Re: Feasability of photosynthesis in mammals/(trans/post/hum

Postby Soralin » Mon May 02, 2011 5:14 pm UTC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elysia_chlorotica

It's not a mammal, but it's an animal that can photosynthesize. :) It's a sea slug, and it eats algae, and strips out their chloroplasts and incorporates them into it's own cells.

Elysia chlorotica feeds on the intertidal algae Vaucheria litorea by puncturing the algal cell wall with its radula. The slug then holds the algal strand firmly in its mouth and, as though it were a straw, sucks out the contents.[3] Instead of digesting the entire cell contents, or passing the contents through its gut unscathed, it retains only the algal chloroplasts, by storing them within its own cells throughout its extensive digestive system. The acquisition of chloroplasts begins immediately following metamorphosis from the veliger stage when the juvenile sea slugs begin to feed on the Vaucheria litorea cells.[4] Juvenile slugs are brown with red pigment spots until they feed upon the algae, at which point they become green. This is caused by the distribution of the chloroplasts throughout the extensively branched gut.[3] Initially, the slug needs to continually feed upon algae to retain the chloroplasts, but over time the chloroplasts become more stably incorporated into the cells of the gut enabling the slug to remain green without further feeding.

The incorporation of chloroplasts within the cells of Elysia chlorotica allow the slug to capture energy directly from light, as most plants do, through the process known as photosynthesis. This is significantly beneficial for Elysia chlorotica because during time periods where algae is not readily available as a food supply, the Elysia chlorotica can survive for months on the sugars produced through photosynthesis performed by their own chloroplasts. Kept within the slug's own cells, it has been found that the chloroplasts can survive and function for up to nine or even 10 months.[5] In one study Elysia chlorotica were deprived of alga ingestion for a period of eight months. After the eight month period, despite the fact that the Elysia chlorotica were less green and more yellowish in colour, the majority of the chloroplasts within the slugs appeared to have remained intact while also maintaining their fine structure.[4] Although Elysia chlorotica are unable to synthesize their own chloroplasts, the ability to maintain the chloroplasts acquired from Vaucheria litorea in a functional state indicates that Elysia chlorotica must possess photosynthesis-supporting genes within its own nuclear genome; most likely acquired through horizontal gene transfer.[5] Since chloroplast DNA alone encodes for just 10% of the proteins required for proper photosynthesis, scientists investigated the Elysia chlorotica genome for potential genes that could support chloroplast survival and photosynthesis. The researchers found a vital algal gene, psbO (a nuclear gene encoding for a manganese-stabilizing protein within the photosystem II complex[5]) in the sea slug's DNA, identical to the algal version. They concluded that the gene was likely to have been acquired through horizontal gene transfer, as it was already present in the eggs and sex cells of Elysia chlorotica.

User avatar
idobox
Posts: 1591
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 8:54 pm UTC
Location: Marseille, France

Re: Feasability of photosynthesis in mammals/(trans/post/hum

Postby idobox » Mon May 02, 2011 10:32 pm UTC

The main issue here would be power density. Humans are endotherm animals that consume a lot of power, even at rest. Photosynthesis could be useful in times of food shortage, but I doubt it could sustain a human alone.
If there is no answer, there is no question. If there is no solution, there is no problem.

Waffles to space = 100% pure WIN.

User avatar
Meteorswarm
Posts: 979
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2009 12:28 am UTC
Location: Ithaca, NY

Re: Feasability of photosynthesis in mammals/(trans/post/hum

Postby Meteorswarm » Tue May 03, 2011 5:06 am UTC

It would also be interesting to transfer plants' UV-resistance to humans.
The same as the old Meteorswarm, now with fewer posts!

User avatar
AvatarIII
Posts: 2098
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 12:28 pm UTC
Location: W.Sussex, UK

Re: Feasability of photosynthesis in mammals/(trans/post/hum

Postby AvatarIII » Tue May 03, 2011 9:31 am UTC

idobox wrote:The main issue here would be power density. Humans are endotherm animals that consume a lot of power, even at rest. Photosynthesis could be useful in times of food shortage, but I doubt it could sustain a human alone.


yeah, i figured that, part of the reason why i said suppliment energy intake, i know there is no way something like a mammal could exist on photosynthesis alone.

Soralin wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elysia_chlorotica

It's not a mammal, but it's an animal that can photosynthesize. :) It's a sea slug, and it eats algae, and strips out their chloroplasts and incorporates them into it's own cells.

Elysia chlorotica feeds on the intertidal algae Vaucheria litorea by puncturing the algal cell wall with its radula. The slug then holds the algal strand firmly in its mouth and, as though it were a straw, sucks out the contents.[3] Instead of digesting the entire cell contents, or passing the contents through its gut unscathed, it retains only the algal chloroplasts, by storing them within its own cells throughout its extensive digestive system. The acquisition of chloroplasts begins immediately following metamorphosis from the veliger stage when the juvenile sea slugs begin to feed on the Vaucheria litorea cells.[4] Juvenile slugs are brown with red pigment spots until they feed upon the algae, at which point they become green. This is caused by the distribution of the chloroplasts throughout the extensively branched gut.[3] Initially, the slug needs to continually feed upon algae to retain the chloroplasts, but over time the chloroplasts become more stably incorporated into the cells of the gut enabling the slug to remain green without further feeding.

The incorporation of chloroplasts within the cells of Elysia chlorotica allow the slug to capture energy directly from light, as most plants do, through the process known as photosynthesis. This is significantly beneficial for Elysia chlorotica because during time periods where algae is not readily available as a food supply, the Elysia chlorotica can survive for months on the sugars produced through photosynthesis performed by their own chloroplasts. Kept within the slug's own cells, it has been found that the chloroplasts can survive and function for up to nine or even 10 months.[5] In one study Elysia chlorotica were deprived of alga ingestion for a period of eight months. After the eight month period, despite the fact that the Elysia chlorotica were less green and more yellowish in colour, the majority of the chloroplasts within the slugs appeared to have remained intact while also maintaining their fine structure.[4] Although Elysia chlorotica are unable to synthesize their own chloroplasts, the ability to maintain the chloroplasts acquired from Vaucheria litorea in a functional state indicates that Elysia chlorotica must possess photosynthesis-supporting genes within its own nuclear genome; most likely acquired through horizontal gene transfer.[5] Since chloroplast DNA alone encodes for just 10% of the proteins required for proper photosynthesis, scientists investigated the Elysia chlorotica genome for potential genes that could support chloroplast survival and photosynthesis. The researchers found a vital algal gene, psbO (a nuclear gene encoding for a manganese-stabilizing protein within the photosystem II complex[5]) in the sea slug's DNA, identical to the algal version. They concluded that the gene was likely to have been acquired through horizontal gene transfer, as it was already present in the eggs and sex cells of Elysia chlorotica.


hmm interesting. i'm sure any important genes for being able to support chloroplasts could be aquired from them little things. mentioned towards the end of the quote.

User avatar
grythyttan
Posts: 466
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2007 1:46 pm UTC
Location: Hncwhxagykozzqlif azefkbtvw. Kjkd sb, ypwyw eg tdpm.
Contact:

Re: Feasability of photosynthesis in mammals/(trans/post/hum

Postby grythyttan » Tue May 03, 2011 10:28 am UTC

The average Body Surface Area for an adult is 1.73 m2. At a sunny day you can get 1 kW/m2 (I think, correct me if I'm horribly off my mark here). However, that is only at a 100% conversion rate. A Sugar cane used for biofuel has a 7-8% conversion rate at peak efficiency.

Let's cover a human in whatever makes a sugar cane so damn efficient. 1.73*0.08=0.1384.

0.1384 kWh isn't so little considering that a human uses something like 2kWh each day.

Now, obviously all of a humans body wouldn't be usable at the same time, and clouds and nighttime and clothes get in the way. But still, lying naked in the sun for an hour would probably be the equivalent of a light snack.

(unless, of course, I have miscalculated everything. Always a possibility.)
Last edited by grythyttan on Tue May 03, 2011 3:53 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Joy of Cooking was far less of an achievement than Thyme Cube discovery, for I have Cubed the Spice, with 4 simultaneous flavor types in 1 plant of Earth.
Spoiler:
Image

User avatar
AvatarIII
Posts: 2098
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 12:28 pm UTC
Location: W.Sussex, UK

Re: Feasability of photosynthesis in mammals/(trans/post/hum

Postby AvatarIII » Tue May 03, 2011 2:37 pm UTC

thaks for the calculation, that's pretty interesting, although you should have probably halved the body surface area right?
unless everything is mirrored, you can't have sunlight falling on 100% of your body. although i suppose reflected sunlight would photosynthesise too.

bring in the possibility of a culture change to allow for minimal clothing, and/or clothing that lets through as much UV as possible. with your calculation, i could see people in high sunlight areas shaving of a good few hundred calories of required intake per day.

User avatar
Thirty-one
Posts: 342
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 1:13 pm UTC

Re: Feasability of photosynthesis in mammals/(trans/post/hum

Postby Thirty-one » Tue May 03, 2011 3:06 pm UTC

grythyttan wrote:The average Body Surface Area for an adult is 1.73 m2. At a sunny day you can get 1 kWh/m2 (I think, correct me if I'm horribly off my mark here). However, that is only at a 100% conversion rate. A Sugar cane used for biofuel has a 7-8% conversion rate at peak efficiency.


It's stupid of me to argue when I don't for sure recall the correct number myself, but I believe you're only half right on the energy density. As I recall it is 1 kW/m2 on a sunny day.
Agreed with the rest of your post though, it'd still likely end up as a negligible amount of energy anyway.
Annoyed, getting worked up or bored by the post above? Help is here.

User avatar
Cobramaster
Posts: 201
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2009 2:31 pm UTC
Location: Georgia Southern University Department of Chemistry, and Department of Biology.

Re: Feasability of photosynthesis in mammals/(trans/post/hum

Postby Cobramaster » Wed May 04, 2011 4:13 am UTC

Here is a link to an article on related science.
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/editors/25139/
SlyReaper wrote:Did you never notice the etymological link between "tyrannosaur" and "tyrant"? 1% of the dinosaurs had 99% of the prey. Occupy Pangaea.

User avatar
idobox
Posts: 1591
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 8:54 pm UTC
Location: Marseille, France

Re: Feasibility of photosynthesis in mammals/(trans/post/hum

Postby idobox » Wed May 04, 2011 8:42 am UTC

The kW/m2 figure is about right.
Of course, you have to add a cos(alpha) term to account for position of the sun, and you have to use the area of the projection of the human body, which should be a bit less than half the skin surface.

So 1kW/m2, 0.8m2 and 8% efficiency give us 64W.
I think the basal human metabolism is about 100W, but I got the figure from a poster's signature, not the most reliable source.

It would be much more useful for a cold blooded animal.
If there is no answer, there is no question. If there is no solution, there is no problem.

Waffles to space = 100% pure WIN.

User avatar
AvatarIII
Posts: 2098
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 12:28 pm UTC
Location: W.Sussex, UK

Re: Feasability of photosynthesis in mammals/(trans/post/hum

Postby AvatarIII » Wed May 04, 2011 8:51 am UTC

Cobramaster wrote:Here is a link to an article on related science.
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/editors/25139/


hmm interesting stuff,

User avatar
Thirty-one
Posts: 342
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 1:13 pm UTC

Re: Feasibility of photosynthesis in mammals/(trans/post/hum

Postby Thirty-one » Wed May 04, 2011 8:56 am UTC

idobox wrote:..but I got the figure from a poster's signature, not the most reliable source.


Argh! I'll have to completely rewrite my bachelor thesis now. :oops: :x
Annoyed, getting worked up or bored by the post above? Help is here.

Soralin
Posts: 1347
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 12:06 am UTC

Re: Feasibility of photosynthesis in mammals/(trans/post/hum

Postby Soralin » Wed May 04, 2011 11:25 am UTC

Specifically: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_constant

The solar constant, a measure of flux density, is the amount of incoming solar electromagnetic radiation per unit area that would be incident on a plane perpendicular to the rays, at a distance of one astronomical unit (AU) (roughly the mean distance from the Sun to the Earth).

The solar constant includes all types of solar radiation, not just the visible light. It is measured by satellite to be roughly 1.366 kilowatts per square meter (kW/m²).[1][3][4] The actual direct solar irradiance at the top of the atmosphere fluctuates by about 6.9% during a year (from 1.412 kW/m² in early January to 1.321 kW/m² in early July) due to the Earth's varying distance from the Sun, and typically by much less than one part per thousand from day to day. Thus, for the whole Earth (which has a cross section of 127,400,000 km²), the power is 1.740×1017 W, plus or minus 3.5%. The solar constant does not remain constant over long periods of time (see Solar variation), but over a year varies much less than the variation of direct solar irradiance at the top of the atmosphere arising from the ellipticity of the Earth's orbit.

Not all of that is in wavelengths that are commonly used for photosynthesis though, and some of it doesn't reach the ground, and if your location happens to be anywhere the sun is not directly overhead (or at least where whatever is absorbing is not perpendicular to the sunlight), what you can actually get will be less than that.

AvatarIII wrote:bring in the possibility of a culture change to allow for minimal clothing, and/or clothing that lets through as much UV as possible. with your calculation, i could see people in high sunlight areas shaving of a good few hundred calories of required intake per day.

Chlorophyll has peaks in absorption in blue and red light, so letting through UV wouldn't do much, it would have to let through visible light, at least in the blue and red parts of the spectrum.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26818
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Feasibility of photosynthesis in mammals/(trans/post/hum

Postby gmalivuk » Wed May 04, 2011 3:53 pm UTC

idobox wrote:I think the basal human metabolism is about 100W, but I got the figure from a poster's signature, not the most reliable source.
Yeah, but it's not as if the math is even a little bit difficult. Hell, Google will do it for you directly
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
idobox
Posts: 1591
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 8:54 pm UTC
Location: Marseille, France

Re: Feasibility of photosynthesis in mammals/(trans/post/hum

Postby idobox » Wed May 04, 2011 9:05 pm UTC

I admit I was too lazy to look for a reliable source of what the basal metabolism is, and then how much a kcal is in a "real" unit.
If there is no answer, there is no question. If there is no solution, there is no problem.

Waffles to space = 100% pure WIN.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Feasibility of photosynthesis in mammals/(trans/post/hum

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed May 04, 2011 11:30 pm UTC

Oh this again.

Why not add chloroplasts to your skin, and then give yourself a low level GI tract yeast infection. Viola! Alcohol from the sun!
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Meteorswarm
Posts: 979
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2009 12:28 am UTC
Location: Ithaca, NY

Re: Feasibility of photosynthesis in mammals/(trans/post/hum

Postby Meteorswarm » Thu May 05, 2011 3:14 am UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:Oh this again.

Why not add chloroplasts to your skin, and then give yourself a low level GI tract yeast infection. Viola! Alcohol from the sun!


You don't need the chloroplasts, we have plenty of blood sugar derived from food.

The problem would be fermenting without dying from anaerobic bacterial infection.
The same as the old Meteorswarm, now with fewer posts!

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Feasibility of photosynthesis in mammals/(trans/post/hum

Postby Izawwlgood » Thu May 05, 2011 3:46 am UTC

The point isn't to get drunk from a pasta platter, but from sugar derived from the sun. And people are fine with these infections, they just can't eat carbs.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
AvatarIII
Posts: 2098
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 12:28 pm UTC
Location: W.Sussex, UK

Re: Feasibility of photosynthesis in mammals/(trans/post/hum

Postby AvatarIII » Thu May 05, 2011 9:47 am UTC

Meteorswarm wrote:
Izawwlgood wrote:Oh this again.

Why not add chloroplasts to your skin, and then give yourself a low level GI tract yeast infection. Viola! Alcohol from the sun!


You don't need the chloroplasts, we have plenty of blood sugar derived from food.

The problem would be fermenting without dying from anaerobic bacterial infection.


maybe, the human immune system?

although this is exactly why i asked, what hurdles would be in the way of photosythesis in humans?

User avatar
idobox
Posts: 1591
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 8:54 pm UTC
Location: Marseille, France

Re: Feasibility of photosynthesis in mammals/(trans/post/hum

Postby idobox » Thu May 05, 2011 11:48 am UTC

AvatarIII wrote:what hurdles would be in the way of photosythesis in humans?

Human cells are unable to support chloroplasts as is. One species of sea slug is able to do that, although it cannot transmit them to its progeny.
You would need to alter the biochemistery of skin cells to make them suitable for chloroplasts. I don't think current understanding is enough to modify humans that way, but in a sci-fi seting, even in the near future, it seems plausible.
If there is no answer, there is no question. If there is no solution, there is no problem.

Waffles to space = 100% pure WIN.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Feasibility of photosynthesis in mammals/(trans/post/hum

Postby Izawwlgood » Thu May 05, 2011 3:36 pm UTC

idobox wrote:maybe, the human immune system?

Maybe the color purple!
Be specific; what do you mean the human immune system prevents anything we've discussed?
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Meteorswarm
Posts: 979
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2009 12:28 am UTC
Location: Ithaca, NY

Re: Feasibility of photosynthesis in mammals/(trans/post/hum

Postby Meteorswarm » Thu May 05, 2011 10:09 pm UTC

idobox wrote:Human cells are unable to support chloroplasts as is. One species of sea slug is able to do that, although it cannot transmit them to its progeny.
You would need to alter the biochemistery of skin cells to make them suitable for chloroplasts. I don't think current understanding is enough to modify humans that way, but in a sci-fi seting, even in the near future, it seems plausible.


If I understand things correctly, the main problem with supporting chloroplasts is that, in plants, a fair amount of chloroplast genes have migrated to the nucleus, so in order to successfully host chloroplasts, you need to have and express those genes, which is a bit tricky.

However, it's probably entirely doable with today's technology. Who wants to experiment on naked mice?
The same as the old Meteorswarm, now with fewer posts!

User avatar
grythyttan
Posts: 466
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2007 1:46 pm UTC
Location: Hncwhxagykozzqlif azefkbtvw. Kjkd sb, ypwyw eg tdpm.
Contact:

Re: Feasibility of photosynthesis in mammals/(trans/post/hum

Postby grythyttan » Thu May 05, 2011 10:29 pm UTC

How about using something like tattoos or skin grafts instead? Something that isn't integrated in your genes. Then it just has to avoid being rejected by the body.
Joy of Cooking was far less of an achievement than Thyme Cube discovery, for I have Cubed the Spice, with 4 simultaneous flavor types in 1 plant of Earth.
Spoiler:
Image

User avatar
Meteorswarm
Posts: 979
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2009 12:28 am UTC
Location: Ithaca, NY

Re: Feasibility of photosynthesis in mammals/(trans/post/hum

Postby Meteorswarm » Fri May 06, 2011 5:08 am UTC

grythyttan wrote:How about using something like tattoos or skin grafts instead? Something that isn't integrated in your genes. Then it just has to avoid being rejected by the body.


Chloroplasts need nuclear support to keep functioning. Unless you go all the way to injecting algal cells (which might work; there are cases of secondary endosymbiosis in some algae) into you, the chloroplasts would at best be useless, and at worst, just die.
The same as the old Meteorswarm, now with fewer posts!

User avatar
AvatarIII
Posts: 2098
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 12:28 pm UTC
Location: W.Sussex, UK

Re: Feasibility of photosynthesis in mammals/(trans/post/hum

Postby AvatarIII » Fri May 06, 2011 8:31 am UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
idobox wrote:maybe, the human immune system?

Maybe the color purple!
Be specific; what do you mean the human immune system prevents anything we've discussed?



sorry, i meant the human immune system would prevent bacterial infections,

User avatar
idobox
Posts: 1591
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 8:54 pm UTC
Location: Marseille, France

Re: Feasibility of photosynthesis in mammals/(trans/post/hum

Postby idobox » Fri May 06, 2011 3:19 pm UTC

grythyttan wrote:How about using something like tattoos or skin grafts instead? Something that isn't integrated in your genes. Then it just has to avoid being rejected by the body.

Yeah! let's grow transgenic moss on our skin :D
If there is no answer, there is no question. If there is no solution, there is no problem.

Waffles to space = 100% pure WIN.

User avatar
darthchazza
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon May 19, 2008 8:18 am UTC
Location: Ararat, Victoria, Australia

Re: Feasibility of photosynthesis in mammals/(trans/post/hum

Postby darthchazza » Thu May 19, 2011 5:51 pm UTC

Could it also be used to augment breathing? (converting some of the carbon dioxide we would breathe out into oxygen)
Flo3:16 wrote:You sir are a Winner. Just because you have the testicular fortitude to dress up as freakin Zoidberg. :mrgreen:

User avatar
Mokele
Posts: 775
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 8:18 pm UTC
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Feasibility of photosynthesis in mammals/(trans/post/hum

Postby Mokele » Thu May 19, 2011 7:38 pm UTC

darthchazza wrote:Could it also be used to augment breathing? (converting some of the carbon dioxide we would breathe out into oxygen)


Not substantially - the human metabolic demand for oxygen is just way too high. It's the same reason you can't have a mammal with gills - even if countercurrent exchangers could prevent heat loss at the gills, there simply isn't enough oxygen in water to supply the needs of a fully endothermic animal with a 37C body temperature.
"With malleus aforethought, mammals got an earful of their ancestor's jaw" - J. Burns, Biograffiti

User avatar
MHD
Posts: 630
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 8:21 pm UTC
Location: Denmark

Re: Feasibility of photosynthesis in mammals/(trans/post/hum

Postby MHD » Wed Sep 21, 2011 1:27 pm UTC

If your gene-tech muscles are this big, you could just add a set of retractable, winglike surface enhancers.

1. Lie down on a sunny day.
2. Unfold sunwings.
3. ???
4. Profit.
EvanED wrote:be aware that when most people say "regular expression" they really mean "something that is almost, but not quite, entirely unlike a regular expression"


Return to “Fictional Science”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests