SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the I-thought-it-was-all-green-cheese dept.
Space scientists have been intrigued for years with the possibility of finding usable oxygen on the moon — not in the lunar atmosphere, since there essentially is none, but in the rocks. As long ago as 1962 ... [NASA researchers] predicted vast lunar processing plants turning out 4,000 pounds of liquid oxygen per month, both for breathing and as an oxidizer for rocket fuel.... Now the Surveyor 5 spacecraft ... reveals it is standing directly over just the kind of rock that would do the job. — Science News, October 14, 1967
Update
The moon is not yet dotted with lunar oxygen factories, but scientists are still devising ways to pull oxygen from moon rocks. One technique, proposed by NASA scientists in 2010, isolates oxygen by heating lunar rocks to over 1650° Celsius and exposing them to methane. Chemical reactions would produce carbon monoxide and hydrogen, which then react to create water. Passing an electric current through the water would separate oxygen from hydrogen, allowing the desired gas to be captured.
Is this just pie in the sky? Cheese? Or is this a viable concept?
Read on ScienceNews.org
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Monday October 09 2017, @12:38PM (2 children)
Pie in the sky? No, it's more general: it's resources in the sky.
50 years ago. 1960s technology. And today we're still stuck on this rock, when there are thousands of times - millions of times - more resources floating around for the taking. It makes no sense that we aren't racing to get out there.
The first step - building the initial infrastructure - is a big one. Fuel production is the most critical (and why a reactionless drive would be a boon).But once you have an infrastructure outside the Earth's gravity well, actual production will be relatively easy. The resources are there for the taking.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Gaaark on Monday October 09 2017, @03:56PM
Which is one reason i'd like to see a moon base before going all the feck to Mars: set up a base, iron out all the wrinkles. Start mining. Set up a rocket base with which to launch vehicles for mining asteroids.
Use that low gravity base to go to Mars.
Instead, we're sending shit to Mars so people can die because someone went "Shit: didn't even think of that!" that could have been worked out in a moon base (that would have a much higher survival rate due to distance).
I'll go to the moon (i want to live on a moon base so i can 'moon' the earth, lol) and maybe die: i WON'T go to Mars to absolutely die.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Monday October 09 2017, @05:45PM
Where's the money in it? Elon Musk is only able to do as much as he has, because he's figured out that much. No matter what we do, living on Mars, the Moon, any "nearby" place will be infinitely harder than it is on Earth. Many of our "worst case scenarios" may be easier to survive on Earth than it would be to eek out an existence on Mars, the Moon, or some tin-can in space. Space is hard; isn't a meme.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"