One Small Breath For Man

An anonymous reader writes "The New York Times reports on a new technique that may allow Oxygen to be wrung from the soil on the moon. This may pave the way for a moonbase, and allow permanent habitation on Earth's only natural satellite." From the article: "Lunar soil brought back to Earth is in short supply and highly prized, so Nasa researchers have been using matter with the same composition for its tests. The soil contains about 45 per cent oxygen by weight, but it is mostly 'trapped' in the form of silicon dioxide ... At the moment, all oxygen supplies would have to be brought from Earth, which is so expensive and energy-inefficient that it effectively rules out a permanent Moon base. "

Comments

Looky here city girl...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oxygen don't grow on trees.

Re:Looky here city girl...

[Archon-X]

Wait. Parent got modded down?
It's a futurama joke, FTLOG! Mod up so some geek can post the episode # and frame count!

Re:Looky here city girl...

[Anonymous Coward]

Season 1, Episode 2, the series has landed.

I'm not enough of a dork to know any codes or such though.

Re:Looky here city girl...

[iminplaya]

Damn right. It comes out of the ocean. And yeah, I caught the joke, so don't give me any of that "WHOOSH"(sp) crap.

Re:Looky here city girl...

[Anonymous Coward]

episode #1ACV02

Re:Looky here city girl...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, Oxygen DOES grow on trees. Trees take CO2 and produce O2.

Water

[MichaelSmith]

I predict that if hydrogen can be extracted from regolith close to the surface, then a lot of that oxygen will be burnt down to make water. During the apollo missions oxygen had to be carried but more often than not water for cooling was the limiting factor for stays on the surface.

Its nice to see that people are working directly on this, even if it will be at least 15 years before anybody walks on the moon again.

Re:Water

[TheOriginalRevdoc]

On the other hand, they could just breathe it. Human respiration produces H2O as a waste product; it could be condensed in the ventilation system.

Re:Water

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

I predict that if hydrogen can be extracted from regolith close to the surface, then a lot of that oxygen will be burnt down to make water.

I predict that if anything can be extracted from the regolith close to the surface, it will run out so fast that after a few weeks, expensive subsurface mining and/or far flung harvesting will be made necessary, thus defeating the point of the entire excercise.

I don't know about you, but I think ore harvesters on the moon is simply not a feasable option. They cost $1400 a pop after the first!

Re:Water

[Memnos]

No, No, It's on our list, right after we catch Bin Laden

Re:Water

[Cicero382]

"Human respiration produces H2O as a waste product"

No, it doesn't.

Respiration (human or otherwise) produces carbon dioxide. (No, anaerobic bacteria do not "respire" - so there)

The water in our breath is just from evaporation from the lungs, which need to be wet to help the gas exchange.

Re:Water

[pe1rxq]

Emmm, check your facts.....

Look up 'combustion'.
We use produce CO2 by burning hydrocarbons which contain these little atoms we call hydrogen. These don't magicly disappear, they end up in water molecules.
So you still need to send up food, but the water will be produced by breathing....

Food + O2 => CO2 + H2O + heat.

Re:Water

[Cicero382]

(Red face)

Oops! Totally correct.

(Grovels in abject apology).

disclaimer: I hadn't had my first coffee.

Re:Water

[Andrew Kismet]

If I could mod you up for that C&C joke, I would.

Re:Water

[jacksonj04]

But this reaction doesn't occur in the lungs (hopefully), it occurs in cells. So the water would need to be extracted from urine, which I believe is an intended feature of any lunar colony anyway. All water will be recycled as much as possible.

So yes, it does produce water, but not in any significant quantities and it's likely to be trapped in cells anyway.

Re:Water

[aussie_a]

Where does finding the WMDs in Iraq come into it?

Re:Water

[Memnos]

I've contacted the tooth fairy and he's got a team right on it.

Re:Water

[Doctor Faustus]

So you still need to send up food, but the water will be produced by breathing....
The hydrogen still needs to come from somewhere, though. Or were you thinking there'd be enough in the food that's sent up?

Of course, if you *can* get hydrogen somewhere on the moon, you could make water and do greenhouse farming. You could also make your own fuel for return trips.

Re:Water

[Doctor Faustus]

Since you understood it, could you enlighten the rest of us?

Re:Water

[NeoSkandranon]

the OP is referring to the Ore Harvester units purchasable in-game. They were a necessity when all the close deposits of ore were used up, because without a constant "train" of harvesters heading out and coming in, you'd run out of money. You get one free with the ore refinery, and the subsequent ones were fairly expnesive. (Can't remember if $1400 was the cost in Command & Conquer, or the Red Alert sequel)

Re:Water

[Fordiman]

Homan breathing produces CO2. It contains H2O, but it doesn't produce it.

Re:Water

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why you never actually manufactured the harvester itself. In Tiberian Dawn, it was much cheaper to simply build a tiberium refinery and then sell it once the harvester left.

The harvester alone was 1400. Buy a refinery for 2000, sell it for 1000, get a harvester and five infantry for a net 1000.

Re:Water

[It'sYerMam]

While this may get modded redundant, you need to check your facts; check above: Inspired air contains very little H2O, whereas expired air contains much more since what you're respiring (Glucose and fatty acids, for the most part) contain what we in the business know as hydrogen. When you burn a hydrocarbon, such as all foods are, you get CO2 and H2O.

Re:Water

[tehlinux]

We already went to war and Bush already got re-elected, so there is no longer any need to find the WMDs. ;)

Re:Water

[tpjunkie]

First, as already mentioned below, water is an end product of human and all other aerobic respiration.

Second, of course anaerobic bacteria respire, they just by definition do not require oxygen to do so. Glycolysis is by definition anaerobic respiration.

Isn't energy enough?

[Bombula]

I am no chemist, but I thought that with enough energy it is usually possible to break up compounds into their constituent elements. Is energy in short supply on the moon? Seems like solar and possibly nuclear energy from the moon's deuterium should be able to supply lots of energy. Am I completely retarded here? Probably...

Re:Isn't energy enough?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, there's also subspace energy we could use... deuterium? What good is that? None. We're decades away from a practical fusion reactor, and you can't just send any new tech on a space mission. Not to mention in a nuclear reactor the fuel is not where most of the mass is, anyway. It'd be perfectly fine to use a fission reactor and send them fuel every now and then. Solar is of course a much better option, since it's much easier to expand your solar operation than to build more nuclear reactors.

Re:Isn't energy enough?

[Cadallin]

No, you're exactly right. Much of the lunar dust is Si02, the same as sand or glass or quartz.

SiO2 + energy -> Si + O2

Is perfectly valid chemistry. In fact, if you go back to the hard sci-fi of the 50's and 60's this is the kind of shit they predicted we'd be doing RIGHT NOW. Building plants on the moon to convert lunar dust to oxygen (and high quality silicon for chip fabs) for both lunar bases and space stations.

Re:Isn't energy enough?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no fusion reactor that generates more power than it consumes yet on Earth. If it is every built, the first one will be *very* large and expensive, and require a huge neighboring infrstructure to build. Maybe that will exist in hundreds of years on the moon, but it's not a place to plan to start. The critical fuel is also no deuterium, it's tritium (another hydrogen isotop). D-T tokomaks burn the two together. Deuterium is common, tritium is manufactured from lithium by neutron bombardment.

Current nuclear plants are fission based, and require either Uranium-235 or plutonium. They typically run a couple of years on a full fuel load. Still quite heavy, and no one has ever run one in space.

These are all problems with solutions, but right now they are still very big problems on the scales required for a moonbase.

A significant problem facing any thermal nuclear reactor (either of the above) is cooling. Basically all of the power output is in fast neutron, which are captured by a working fluid of some sort, and that heat is used to drive a turbine. The fluid is then cooled and fed back into the reactor heat up, expand again, and push the turbine again.
You need some way to cool the working fluid. Nearly all modern reactors use a supply of water, and either re-release that water into the source (naval reactors), or into the atmosphere (cooling towers). There no water on the moon, and not even any are to try air cooling with.

Basically, a lot of work has to happen to have "limitless" nuclear power on the moon. People will need to breathe while that work is going on. Breaking the SiO2 bonds is enormously energy intensive (rocks do not vaporize and then ionize easily), and then you still have hot stuff that you have to cool.

Re:Isn't energy enough?

[1u3hr]

I am no chemist, but I thought that with enough energy it is usually possible to break up compounds into their constituent elements.

Which is exactly what they propose doing. To do it on an industrial scale; under lunar conditions (vacuum, solar heating) details need to be worked out. The basic chemistry is trivial. Si02 + energy = Si + O2

Re:Isn't energy enough?

[relifram66]

We can't send new tech to the moon? You mean like the first time we went and didn't take any new tech?

Re:Isn't energy enough?

[HeX314]

They typically run a couple of years on a full fuel load. Still quite heavy, and no one has ever run one in space.

I had a physics professor who, when explaining the idea behind a Peltier cold plate, stated that one potential use was for the Voyager missions where a small nuclear reactor was placed at the end of a long tower and in the reactor were the two metallic elements sandwiched together which are used in Peltiers, and that the heat caused current flow and thus powered the spacecraft; hence, fission reactors have been used in space.

Re:Isn't energy enough?

[tm2b]

In fact, if you go back to the hard sci-fi of the 50's and 60's this is the kind of shit they predicted we'd be doing RIGHT NOW.

Sadly, it's actually the kind of shit they predicted that we'd be doing 10-20 years ago.

After all, we first made it to the moon 37 years ago... I don't think anybody dreamed that far ahead that we'd abandon it once we achieved it.

Re:Isn't energy enough?

[Cicero382]

I think this should be modded up.

One of my mentors at school (an amazingly talented man) pointed out to me that with enough energy, there is virtually nothing you can't do if you can can apply the energy the way you want. Efficiency doesn't matter if you have enough.

On the moon, it's a matter of taking the differences in environment (from Earth) and turning them to your advantage. So, for example:

Solar energy: No problem - no atmosphere, no clouds etc.

Nuclear energy: Fission. A lot of the weight of an Earth bound nuclear reactor is shielding and safety equipment which is (quite rightly) mandatory. On the moon? "Oh hell, the reactor's melted down. Good thing we sited it 100Km from the base". BTW. We *have* sent nuclear reactors into space - you don't think Voyager is running on car batteries, do you?

Nuclear Energy: Fusion. A tricky one, but are we "decades" away? Probably not - a lot of effort is going into this one. And, didn't I hear that the moon has significant traces of He3? Or have I been reading too much Ben Bova?

Cooling: No problem. Do you know how *cold* it is in the shadows on the moon?

etc etc.

Re:Isn't energy enough?

[AWeishaupt]

Nuclear fission reactors certainly have been deployed in Space before, as well as the more common and familiar Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators used in interplanetary probes and such. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RORSAT

Re:Isn't energy enough?

[shawb]

Nuclear energy: Fission. A lot of the weight of an Earth bound nuclear reactor is shielding and safety equipment which is (quite rightly) mandatory. On the moon? "Oh hell, the reactor's melted down. Good thing we sited it 100Km from the base". BTW. We *have* sent nuclear reactors into space - you don't think Voyager is running on car batteries, do you?

The Voyager probes are technically nuclear powered, but it is not the same beast as in a chain reaction fusion reactor. The probes use an RTG which converts some of the heat released from natural radioactive decay into electricity. These do not produce electricty on nearly the same scale as a thermal fission reactor. The RTGs in the Voyager probes are generating about 300 Watts. That couldn't even power some gamers' desktop computers, much less a large scale SiO2 -> Si + O2 manufacturing process. Granted, a large number of RTGs could be used, as well as using larger and more efficient RTGs, but it seems likely to me that the amount of PU-238 (as well as some of the more exotic materials needed to drive the process would be cost prohibitive for any useful amount of oxygen.

All that, and RTGs still need a way to get rid of excess heat, as a thermocouple relies on the difference in temperature to produce electricity. The amount of heat that needs to be removed from a voyager level RTG is not that significant and can probably be accomplished through simple radiation, but the amount needed to drive a major industrial process would require some fairly exotic cooling techniques (although on the lunar night a good portion of the waste heat could be reclaimed to heat living quarters, etc.

Re:Isn't energy enough?

[Anonymous Coward]

The two voyagers allready used nuclear bateries.
A relaiable source for years of energy.
Compact in size and weight too

So putting it now in place and slowly collect oxygen for over 15 years.
And then over 15 years get there.

It comes to my mind that in the past people knew how to get things done in space. And somewhere this ancient knowledge has been lost by failures in economics. Only toys are driving on mars where is the real space cowboy ??

Re:Isn't energy enough?

[elrous0]

I don't think anybody dreamed that far ahead that we'd abandon it once we achieved it.

I don't think anybody imagined that the Russians would abandon it, either. And they were the only reason we were doing it in the first place. Despite all the Star Trek-esque talk of exploration and discovery, that was all just so much bunk (as subsequent events have shown).

-Eric

Re:Isn't energy enough?

[Fordiman]

It's kinda like, the human race went to the moon, and said, "Man. This place is DULL."

Re:Isn't energy enough?

[ErikZ]

You need some way to cool the working fluid.

The temperature on the moon reaches -387 Fahrenheit (-233 Celsius) at night.
If we can't figure out how to use that to our advantage, we deserve to be stuck here.

Re:Isn't energy enough?

[myowntrueself]

After all, we first made it to the moon 37 years ago... I don't think anybody dreamed that far ahead that we'd abandon it once we achieved it

Maybe because The Moon is a Harsh Mistress?

*ducks*

Re:Isn't energy enough?

[zeropointburn]

Energy is indeed the only consumed resource besides rock. The process requires temperatures of around 1000C; these temperatures can readily be achieved using reflectors.
More oxygen is produced by the titanium-rich mare soil than by the prolific silica; it's like the difference between regular and premium gasoline. Rates of about 3.3% (by weight) are achieved using ilmenite at around 1000C in hydrogen, and rates of up to 5.5% using iron-rich glass. (Ilmenite, btw, is composed of oxides of iron and titanium, and makes up anywhere from 3% to 10% of lunar material.) In addition, the result is water vapor, iron metal, and titanium oxides. I'll take iron and titanium as building materials over silicon any day.
The question of dust on reflectors seems fairly simple, actually. Assuming one is using polished metal, rather than glass, the dust can be forcibly removed by positively charging the reflectors. Kind of like those ion air purifiers, only in reverse.
Composition maps: http://www.psrd.hawaii.edu/Dec04/LunarCrust.html
Table: http://www.neiu.edu/~jmhemzac/mooncomp.htm
NASA's earlier work on oxygen extraction: http://ares.jsc.nasa.gov/HumanExplore/Exploration/ EXLibrary/DOCS/EIC048.HTML
Artemis project: http://www.asi.org/adb/04/03/10/04/oxygen-extracti on.html
Lunar simulant with composition tables: http://ares.jsc.nasa.gov/HumanExplore/Exploration/ EXLibrary/DOCS/EIC050.HTML

Re:Isn't energy enough?

[Urban Garlic]

> BTW. We *have* sent nuclear reactors into space - you don't think Voyager is running on car batteries, do you?

Good point, bad example. Voyager uses heat from the decay of radioactive material to drive a thermal gradient that generates power from thermocouples -- it's a Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator, or RTG.

For a critical-pile, actively-cooled, fission reactor, you need to go to Soviet (and possibly also American) spy satellites. As for safety, there's even already been a space-based fission reactor accident -- google "Cosmos 954" and learn some interesting space history. (Fun irony: The reactor *was* well shielded, which allowed the fissionable material to reach the ground, instead of dispersing in the high atmosphere...)

Of course, a lunar surface reactor would be much less likely to have the "unscheduled re-entry" problem, but let's remember that, where space technology is concerned, safety is a relative term.

Re:Isn't energy enough?

[khallow]

but the amount needed to drive a major industrial process would require some fairly exotic cooling techniques

Maybe our definitions of exotic differ, but it appears to me that any such process sums up as radiating heat during the Lunar night. You'd need enough surface area of radiator and probably some fluid like oxygen gas to transfer the heat.

Re:Isn't energy enough?

[shawb]

The problem is you would need an extremely large radiator, as there would only be radiative cooling. There would simply be no convective cooling. Similar to how your car would act if you blocked up the grill and turned off the radiator fan.

Re:Isn't energy enough?

[magetoo]

You need some way to cool the working fluid.

The temperature on the moon reaches -387 Fahrenheit (-233 Celsius) at night.
If we can't figure out how to use that to our advantage, we deserve to be stuck here.

But we'd be stuck trying to radiate all the heat away, since there's no cool air or cold water to blow over or pump through whatever we want cooled. And radiating away heat might not turn out to be so easy.

(I didn't find any good link to illustrate it, but I know that it's a serious (but solvable) issue on places such as the ISS. That is, it's something you at least have to take into consideration, it's not an easily fixed non-problem.)

Not to mention that it's significantly hotter during the day. And the day is quite long.

But if you could just move the heat on a big enough scale... (Sundiver, anyone?)

Re:Isn't energy enough?

[khallow]

Or you would need to radiate heat at a higher temperature (since heat radiated out to deep space is proportion to temperature to the fourth power).

Re:Isn't energy enough?

[magetoo]

Solar energy: No problem - no atmosphere, no clouds etc.

Yes problem -- only present during the day. And the night is pretty long. But we still can use it while it's there, of course, and that might still be enough to top up the oxygen supplies.

Cooling: No problem. Do you know how *cold* it is in the shadows on the moon?

Yeah, we can just blow some cold hard vacuum over the heat sink .. oh, wait..

I'm sure it can be solved, but it might not be all that easy.

Nuclear energy: [...] "Oh hell, the reactor's melted down. Good thing we sited it 100Km from the base".

A big advantage here is that the Moon is empty. There aren't any neighbouring towns to take into account. (And no winds to blow radioactive cesium over to Sweden, where it can be detected and reported to the IAEA...)

Up there we have to start from scratch, but on the other hand, we know pretty well in advance what we have to deal with.

Re:Isn't energy enough?

[Recneps]

Heinlein fan eh?

Another addiction

[Anonymous Coward]

Picture it. Fights between "our reserves are finishing soon" versus "it's going to last for long".
Campaigns on the line of "Have children, they'll only take n cubic metres of soil per year".
New religions venerating resurrection via burial: "Oxygen you are and in oxygen you'll become".
Mr President Of The Moon declaring "We as a nation have an addiction to oxygen".

Re:Another addiction

[Anonymous Coward]

Islamic nations happen to land on the highest deposits of oxygen. And then the Americans go in to "liberate" them. And just coincidentally steal their oxygen deposits...

new news or old news?

[dotmax]

At the risk of sounding jaded or complacent, this sounds awfully familiar, decades-old familiar... it sounds like the news isn't so much the process as the plan to send real world hardware up for a test run?

the real challenge to my mind sounds like a)keeping the machinery functioning for more than a few days and b) keeping the furnace's optics from collecting too much dust. I wonder how they plan to address the dust-related issues.

all in all, it sounds way cool. Best of luck to everyone involved.

Re:new news or old news?

[Spy Handler]

Why would it collect dust?? There is no wind on the moon. The lenses won't collect dust unless something or someone throws dust on them.

Re:new news or old news?

[dotmax]

In the low-gravity essentially vacuum environment of the moon, dust kicks up unbelievably easily. Major problem. And, it's abrasive as all hell, too.

Re:new news or old news?

[Spy Handler]

Yeah dust kicks up easily, but once you have the lenses set up, you would make a point of not going around and kicking up dust near it.

Re:new news or old news?

[1u3hr]

dust kicks up unbelievably easily. Major problem.

Being studied; I recall various schemes to deal with it, such as electrostatic fields, or spraying a clumping agent around the base. It'll probably be the major health risk to colonists.

Re:new news or old news?

[shawb]

Metorites and other debris don't care where they kick dust up.

Re:new news or old news?

[Anonymous Coward]

once you have the lenses set up, you would make a point of not going around and kicking up dust near it.

Be sure to tell that to all the micrometeorites and charged particles constantly slamming into the surface and kicking up dust.

Re:new news or old news?

[LouisZepher]

spraying a clumping agent around the base

You mean like water? So my taxes will be paying for astronauts making mud pies on the moon? What other summer-time activities should I be supporting, a Martian Slip-N-Slide?

Re:new news or old news?

[1u3hr]

You mean like water?

I rather doubt spraying water into a vacuum would be effective.

So my taxes will be paying for astronauts making mud pies on the moon? What other summer-time activities should I be supporting, a Martian Slip-N-Slide?

Take it up with your congressman.

Re:new news or old news?

[LouisZepher]

I think humor is lost on you...

Re:new news or old news?

[1u3hr]

I think humor is lost on you...

All I know about you is that you made two stupid statements. Raised eyebrows don't translate into ASCII.

Re:new news or old news?

[LouisZepher]

*Shrugs*
I admit, they were stupid jokes, but the fact that you completely failed to notice that they were still indeed jokes, shows that my previous comment was, in fact, correct.

Re:new news or old news?

[1u3hr]

but the fact that you completely failed to notice that they were still indeed jokes shows that my previous comment was, in fact, correct.

No, just that you can't tell a joke as well as you imagine you can.

Re:new news or old news?

[khallow]

Yeah dust kicks up easily, but once you have the lenses set up, you would make a point of not going around and kicking up dust near it.

Hah. Even ignoring the micrometeorite problem, my bet is that it'd have to be well out of the way to avoid dust from human activity. There's no atmosphere to spread dust around, but the low gravity means that what is present can really be spread around (especially from rocket launches or explosions).

Re:new news or old news?

[LouisZepher]

In times like this, yes. The fact remains that you didn't sense any iota of humor (it was a smart-ass comment to start with) and proceeded to nitpick the "science" of my comment still shows that you simply cannot identify a joke when you see one.

This whole discussion reminds me of a scene from an episode of ST:TNG wherein Data, upon hearing a commonly used axiom felt the need to state: "Igniting a petroleum product after 2300hrs will set off the automatic fire supression system."

As I admitted before, it was a dumb joke. It was meant to be, I was being a smartass, pure and simple. Now, which is worse, making a dumb joke, or being too dumb in the first place to not notice it was a joke? I'm done here, you can go on about nitpicking other dumbass jokes like the one about the black box.

Re:new news or old news?

[1u3hr]

In times like this, yes. The fact remains that you didn't sense any iota of humor (it was a smart-ass comment to start with) and proceeded to nitpick the "science" of my comment still shows that you simply cannot identify a joke when you see one.

You keep stating that I have no sense of humour because I didn't understand that you were pretending to be an idiot. I've spent many evenings at stand-up tryout nights, at revues and comedy festivals; I was weaned on Monty Python and the Goon Show. I appreciate humour; you have just failed to be funny.

forgot to add

[RelliK]

Explain to me how to make oxygen out of it.

Cause the article sure doesn't!

Re:forgot to add

[1u3hr]

Explain to me how to make oxygen out of it. Cause the article sure doesn't!

Try reading it.

Re:Can this article be even more pretentios?

[mattmacf]

Read TFA:

To extract oxygen from lunar soil, scientists used a lens-like structure to focus sunlight on to it, heating it to 2,500C.

In Nasa's latest tests, a 12ft-wide dish was used to concentrate the sun's rays on to 100g of a substance similar to Moon soil. After a few hours, one fifth of the substance had turned into oxygen.

Now tell me, how hard was that?

Dammit!

[Arivia]

The article title made me think /. had finally opened its' much-awaited Corsetry section...

The oxygen already on the moon...

[abigsmurf]

I read somewhere that the moon actually has a 10cm atmosphere made mostly of exhaust from when lunar landers took off. Surely some of this could be converted back into oxygen and continually recycled in a greenhouse (even if they need to GM the plants to use the gas). Everytime someone lands for supplies you've got a bit more gas which can be continually recycled.

Re:The oxygen already on the moon...

[MichaelSmith]

I read somewhere that the moon actually has a 10cm atmosphere made mostly of exhaust from when lunar landers took off.

But this gas is rocket exhaust. The hypergolic fuels used on the apollo LM are highly toxic both before and after being burnt in the engine.

Most of that gas will have gone by now, anyway. Either by escaping into space or freezing out in cold traps.

Re:The oxygen already on the moon...

[l3v1]

Well, maybe if you could train people to breath rocket exhaust gases, then they won't have to care about atmospheric pollution, and also if you can use greenhouse effects to heat the Moon, you'll get a new habitat thriving on rubbish :P :D

Re:The oxygen already on the moon...

[ademaskoo]

Actually the moon's gravity would never be able to hold onto any of the gases. Only the heaviest of noble gases would remain traped in a very thin, almost nonexistant, atmophere.

perhaps this is the wrong solution?

[green1]

while it's true that at the moment oxygen has to come from earth to the moon, the same is true for food. it would seem to me that the only viable solution to getting food and oxygen to a base on the moon, isn't to bring it from earth, nor is it to "mine" it from the moon, but rather to build a self sufficient environment, if you are talking about a permanent base on the moon, wouldn't it be prudent to build a base with it's own small eco-system? the right plants, it would seem, could provide both oxygen and food...

Re:perhaps this is the wrong solution?

[bobscealy]

Where are you getting the carbon dioxide from for the plants? If you are going to be setting up an eco-system there then you are going to have to get oxygen or carbon dioxide from somewhere.

Re:perhaps this is the wrong solution?

[miro f]

don't know if you noticed, but we produce carbon dioxide. I have an experiment for you to try:

breathe out

there you go... carbon dioxide.

Obviously some would have to be brought from Earth. And obviously, some would leak and need to be replaced. A self-sustainable eco-system is likely impossible, but it would reduce the oxygen requirements

Re:perhaps this is the wrong solution?

[bobscealy]

I propose a subtle change to your experiment:
1) Take one human.
2) Place human in oxygen free environment.
3) Wait 10 minutes, and measure rate of carbon dioxide production.
(... 4) Profit? ...)
The OP seemed to be suggesting that merely having plants would solve the problem. Plants generating oxygen and humans in turn generating carbon dioxide is all well and good, but you cant avoid the fact that neither gas just happens to be lying about the place on the moon. To start this nice ecosystem some quantity of either gas must either be transported there or produced there.

Re:perhaps this is the wrong solution?

[mutatedmonkey]

That's where we come in. Breathe oxygen in --> Respiratory cycle ---> CO2 out

Re:perhaps this is the wrong solution?

[DahGhostfacedFiddlah]

It seems to me that if you're transporting all the equipment necessary to start a moon colony, filling it all with the initial air is a drop in the ocean of cost. Once you've filled the structure with air, biological processes can take over to convert oxygen to CO2 and back again.

Re:perhaps this is the wrong solution?

[TheArtfulPianist]

It's also good to note that one moon-day is 28 Earth days. I don't know how well plants can adapt to a 28day cycle, so working purely off of natural sunlight may be difficult.

Re:perhaps this is the wrong solution?

[LouisZepher]

Last I knew, plants in places like Alaska and other near-arctic regions seem to do well with six months of sunlight. On the other hand, using simple LCDs in the dome glass could shut-out light during "night-time". Every twelve or so hours, run a small current through the LCD to darken it like a tinted window.

Re:perhaps this is the wrong solution?

[Firethorn]

Why bother with LCD's. I'd use crops that can take the sunlight. You just have to make sure to keep them supplied with water and CO2. Doubles my efficiency per square foot.

I think that he's more concerned about the 'night' portion. Most plants can't survive a month without sunlight. Many do it annually, by essentially dying off and living off of storage, but it takes time to produce leaves again. So it's too slow for them to just operate in 'night mode', and too fast for them to utilize 'winter' mode.

Still, I'd think that we could find or make crops capable of going throught their complete cycle in the equivalent of 2 months of sunlight(24 hour light).

Worst comes to worst, use your reactor during the night to provide at least minimal light, keeping the plants alive, then have them grow quickly during the day. Or use the light on your seed crop section and natural light for food crops.

Re:perhaps this is the wrong solution?

[khallow]

And obviously, some would leak and need to be replaced.

And as pointed out elsewhere, you'll need more when you expand the base. This is a system that will need to be replenished in oxygen. Your obvious observation that you can recycle carbon and oxygen isn't that helpful. I know of no serious lunar proposal beyond the very start that doesn't involve some sort of plant-based recycling of these crucial elements.

Not so hard to bring from Earth

[techno-vampire]

Oxygen isn't as hard to bring from Earth as you might think. Not only do you have to bring air to breath, you have to bring water, both for drinking and for cooling. Once a base is set up, some of that water can be broken down, releasing oxygen. Not only that, the food you carry there also contains oxygen. Part of the base will be a greenhouse, fertilized by waste products and converting CO2 into O2, plus part of the colonist's food supply. If there's too much organic waste, some of it can be incinerated, leaving (mostly) water and CO2, both of which the greenhouse can use. Yes, if we can't get much oxygen out of the regolith, we'll have to ship it up, but that's a one-time expense, not an ongoing one.

Re:Not so hard to bring from Earth

[Cadallin]

uh yeah, because vacuum seals are 110% effective and never ever leak, and once you establish the base, you'd never want to EXPAND IT. And it not like it would be 100's of times cheaper to ship oxygen generated on the moon to a space station/other orbital facility than the earth, no siree.

Re:Not so hard to bring from Earth

[1u3hr]

Oxygen isn't as hard to bring from Earth as you might think. Not only do you have to bring air to breath, you have to bring water, both for drinking and for cooling

TFA doesn't go into it, but the major use of a lunar oxygen plant would be as fuel, rather than breathing. For return trips to earth, or hopefully to orbit, asteroids, Mars.... Of course, they'd also need hydrogen, but even if that can't be found easily on the Moon, it's a lot lighter than oxygen to haul up.

Re:Not so hard to bring from Earth

[techno-vampire]

Of course there'd be leaks, and of course you'd want to expand. However, once the base was established, most of its needs could be satisfied by recycling.

Re:Not so hard to bring from Earth

[Cadallin]

Yes, but that's not the point. Oxygen would be produced as an industrial by-product from any number of activities on the moon, once you got it all started: Mining, both aluminum and Titanium would be both useful and profitable, as well as trace iron deposits. Silicon would probably be a fairly big deal, as growing absolutely pure silicon crystal wafers would be easier on the moon. And there are significant space industry uses for all that excess oxygen, particularly given that it is much easier to get freight off the moon than it is to get freight off earth (getting freight to earth being relatively simple and cheap by comparison). That oxygen could be used as a component in chemical rocket fuels, or as a reagent in any number of other processes. It wouldn't just be used for breathing.

If you think REALLY big, like using nuclear warheads to move medium sized metallic asteroids into earth orbit to provide construction bases for factories, and space stations uses should become even more clear.

Re:Not so hard to bring from Earth

[teslar]

Once a base is set up, some of that water can be broken down, releasing oxygen.

Oh, absolutely not. That is a very silly idea for two reasons.
One, you will need every droplet of water you can get. Have you learnt nothing from the droughts that even England (of all places!) manages to suffer from?
Two, if you are going to transport a X litres of water up there just to break it down into oxygen, you might as well be efficient and transport X liters of compressed oxygen instead. Why bother with all the hydrogen if you're only interested in the O2?

As for your idea, which is essentially setting up a completely self-contained biosphere within the lunar base so that nothing needs to be imported - it is, of course, extremely sensible.

It also only really addresses the problems of the initial transportation costs if you're a creationist, because then there is prior evidence that such a system can be set up in seven days flat (you might even have time to rest at the end).

If you're not a creationist however, then you have to face the fact that you will have to import a lot of stuff for a long period of time before you are self-contained. And until you and I can book a holiday with Virgin Galactic without having to sell our Firstborn, flying stuff to the moon will be prohibitively expensive, so anything you can do to save some space in your luggage (like mining the local oxygen instead of bringing your own) is a very good idea indeed.

Re:Not so hard to bring from Earth

[DeepStream]

Two, if you are going to transport a X litres of water up there just to break it down into oxygen, you might as well be efficient and transport X liters of compressed oxygen instead. Why bother with all the hydrogen if you're only interested in the O2? Because the hydrogen makes a relatively small contribution to the overall mass (H:0 ratio in water is 1:8 by mass), and it's a LOT easier to carry around liquid or solid water than compressed oxygen. The extra mass of a tank suitable for carrying compressed O2 is much greater than the mass of hydrogen in an equivalent amount of water.

Re:Not so hard to bring from Earth

[techno-vampire]

One, you will need every droplet of water you can get. Have you learnt nothing from the droughts that even England (of all places!) manages to suffer from?

What does England have to do with it? Unlike a Lunar colony, the English climate is an open system; the colony's will be as closed as possible. As far as needing every drop of water you can get, don't you know that one of the byproducts of metabolism is water? Given time, you'll have more than you need. I wasn't thinking about breaking it down right from the start, but only after they'd built up a reserve, as a way to deal with any excess. You're right, however, in pointing out that becoming self-sustaining will take time, and they'll need imports at first, but it's a long-term capital investment, not an operating expense.

Re:Not so hard to bring from Earth

[mdielmann]

It also only really addresses the problems of the initial transportation costs if you're a creationist, because then there is prior evidence that such a system can be set up in seven days flat (you might even have time to rest at the end).

True, with one additional requirement, infinite power (or enough so as to make no practical difference). Of course, with enough power and the ability to control it, anyone can make anything and we can skip little issues of where the stuff has to come from or how we ship it.

Hey, don't look at me. You're the one who started with the sarcastic and irrelevant remarks...

Re:Not so hard to bring from Earth

[knardi]

Because the hydrogen makes a relatively small contribution to the overall mass (H:0 ratio in water is 1:8 by mass), and it's a LOT easier to carry around liquid or solid water than compressed oxygen. The extra mass of a tank suitable for carrying compressed O2 is much greater than the mass of hydrogen in an equivalent amount of water.

Even still, electrolysis of water takes a crap-ton of energy. It's likely that their method of pulling oxygen from the soil will end up being less energy-intensive. Then there are two benefits: 1) Less mass at take-off (which has many benefits), and 2) Faster/cheaper oxygen production once there.

Re:Can this article be even more pretentios?

[jcr]

You don't make oxygen out of it, you extract oxygen from it.

Basically, heat it up enough for the Si02 to dissociate, and separate the gasses centrifugally.

-jcr

Moon Gravity

[runlevel 5]

Too bad the Moon's gravity is a fraction of that of the Earth. It can't hold onto an atomsphere like ours. So, this plan had better account for the needs of a containment structure.

Re:Moon Gravity

[MichaelSmith]

So, this plan had better account for the needs of a containment structure.

Nobody is talking about terraforming the moon, except Stephen Baxter.

Lunar exploration so far has made extensive use of Containment Structures.

NYT?

[Konster]

How do we get NY Times out of a British site?

Re:Please pay attention

[MichaelSmith]

NASA is an acronym not a proper name. All letters in NASA must be upper case

How about laser (Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation)

Silicon Dioxide

[Inda]

Fact: Silicon dioxide is also known as silica.

Fact: Inhaling crystalline silica dust can lead to silicosis or cancer.

I thought they were amusing facts. +1 Important please Mods. :)

Re:Silicon Dioxide

[MarkRose]

Fact: Inhaling crystalline silica dust can lead to silicosis or cancer.

I can think of much more interesting things to inhale than sand, such as, say... asbestos.

Re:Silicon Dioxide

[Anonymous Coward]

or this

Re:Silicon Dioxide

[AfricanImpi]

Or cocaine.

Re:Silicon Dioxide

[hckrdave]

Actually I can think of LOTS(even if illegal) interesting things i would like to inhale, ie Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol

Re:Silicon Dioxide

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Good point -- there could be a real hazard there. Maybe the filters in the air system would have to be HEPA?

There's also been worry about lunar dust getting tracked in to the habitable area on spacesuits. Here on Earth we'd approach problems like that by showering everything with water, but a moon base won't have much spare water.

Re:Silicon Dioxide

[Frightening]

Oh crap. I was getting ready to pack my bags.

Re:Silicon Dioxide

[Jesus_666]

You just use them liquid from the toilets to shower everything before you pass the liquid back into the water recycling system.

What? too smelly? Well, space exploration ain't a holiday, boy, so put a clothespin on your nose and bear it.

Re:Silicon Dioxide

[Joebert]

Man, I finally quit smoking about a month ago, if they send me to the moon & tell me I have to smoke cigerettes to counteract the shit in the air, I'll strangle someone !

Re:Please pay attention

[Enderandrew]

Newspapers like the above are supposed to follow AP Style. Said book lays out different rules for different acronyms. IBM has no periods and is all caps for instance. Others may include lower case letters, or may require periods between the letters.

I hated having to remember AP Style.

uhmm, news...

[l3v1]

...so the news today is that sand contains silica...or that moonsand itself contains it...well, I'd better read the papers this morning.

Re:uhmm, news...

[Anonymous Coward]

so the news today is that sand contains silica...or that moonsand itself contains it

Damn, that's some really bad news. Cheese, full of silica sand, is not edible.

SiO2

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe you should look up the chemical symbols for Silicone dioxide ;-)

you think you own space?

[Anonymous Coward]

well you dont, naysa does.

naysa?

the rocket people? perhaps you've heard of them?

Re:Please pay attention

[IntlHarvester]

The NY Times always spells out pronouncable acronyms as if they were a word, so feel free to take it up with them.

Re:Please pay attention

[1u3hr]

Only the English are inconsistent with their acronyms where they capitalize BBC but not NASA. So much for the cradle of their namesake language.

That modded "informative"? How about "ignorant flamebait"?

The usual UK rule is to preserve caps when you pronounce the letters: (B-B-C) but to use normal case when you pronounce it as syllables. Thus: Nasa, UN, Nato, snafu, UK.

Re:Can this article be even more pretentios?

[ian_mackereth]

One of the prime differences between doing this on Earth and on the Moon is that vacuum is more plentiful on Luna than it is on Terra.

This lowers the temperature required to disassociate the SiO2, making the engineering sufficiently feasible.

Well, that's what _this_ group says to the funding body within NASA, anyway!

Re:Can this article be even more pretentios?

[iron-kurton]

Excuse me, sand contains Silicon Dioxide, or SiO2. Breathable Oxygen is O2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sand

Moon landings are so 70's

[z4pp4]

C'mon. Leave the moon alone. Why do you want to go stay there if there is not a good motivation to do it? There is no signs of life, and no probability of it. You can squeeze oxygen from the sand, but that's about it. This is more a sci-fi wet dream than it is a practical solution.
Rather go to mars. Mars has potential. Which begs the question: Can you sqeeze oxygen from red sand?

Re:Moon landings are so 70's

[AfricanImpi]

For the last time, returning to the moon is not just "a sci-fi wet dream", it is a necessary and useful step on the way to our exploration and colonisation of other planets.

Currently, when building spacecraft, everything has to be constructed either completely or mostly on earth. We thus expend a massive amount of energy to get these things past the earth's gravity and into space. It's a waste of energy and severely limiting.

With a moonbase, we would be able to build spacecraft in an environment with far less gravity, meaning that not only would we have much greater freedom in our designs, but it would be cheaper and would require less energy for launch, which would translate into much more available energy for a trip to Mars and a subsequent orbit and return.

Re:Moon landings are so 70's

[Edmund Blackadder]

so we just have to find, iron, titanium, aluminum, rubber, copper, whatever the hell rocket fuel is made out of, and all the other elements that make up a rocket on the moon. Oh and we have to build all the facilities from mines to forges and factories that would be required to build the ships. And we have to lift the thousands of workers that usually build space ships to the moon. Tbhis is going to be a real money saver.

Here is an idea, lets forget the whole space colonization thing coz it aint happening any time soon. Let us use the space programs for actual science, to actually improve our knowledge so that some time we may actually have the technology we may decide to do space colonization if we wanted to.

Amd right now we can do our science much easier with robots into space which do not require any oxygen, water, or food.

Re:Moon landings are so 70's

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the materials needed are actually on the moon... all the non-organic ones anyway. The composition of the moon is quite similar to that of the earth. And do you really think that humans screw those spaceships together bit by bit? :D We have these new fangled _robot_ dooda's to do that. Once you have the robots up there strutting their stuff things would be relativly simple (as far as getting humans there to do whatever they'll be doing). Plus, I'm sure a few missile racks pointing back down on the earth would also be placed 'for the defence of the nation'. :P

Re:Moon landings are so 70's

[Fire Dragon]

Here is an idea, lets forget the whole space colonization thing coz it aint happening any time soon. Let us use the space programs for actual science, to actually improve our knowledge so that some time we may actually have the technology we may decide to do space colonization if we wanted to.

So you want us to stop studying science required for space colonization and consentrate on science to mayby take us to space some day. Stuff like that doesn't come up randomly, you need to have a plan to know what needs to be studied.

If NASA doesn't have large scale plans to do something big, there is no funding. No funding, no actual science. Private companies can do this space-age small science studies on their own, and they do it all the time.

Re:Moon landings are so 70's

[Zaatxe]

Why do you want to go stay there if there is not a good motivation to do it?

Why do people climb the Everest? There is not even internet up there!

Re:Moon landings are so 70's

[Anonymous Coward]

The main thing that is rocket fuel is made up of is Oxygen. So even if that is the only use they make of the oxygen from the moon, it will still give them huge reductions in the amount of fuel they have to transport from Earth (they'll still need whatever other component they use for the fuel though), which will reduce the weight and save fuel when they launch the rocket from Earth.

Re:Moon landings are so 70's

[magetoo]

Why do you want to go stay there if there is not a good motivation to do it?

I realize you might have been joking, but:
To use it as a stepping stone to where we really want to go.

I believe someone said in the recent space elevator thread that we could actually build an elevator on the Moon today, without any need for exotic carbon nanotube-type materials. And I'm fairly certain there already are plans for making rocket fuel from materials available on the Moon. Much better than having to haul fuel from the Earth.

So once we get there, we're in a much better position to go to Mars (yawn) or somewhere more exiting.

Re:Can this article be even more pretentios?

[this great guy]

Are you shortsighted ? Silicon "fucking sand" dioxide is SiO2. One atom of silicon (Si) and two atoms of oxygen (O2). The scientists' idea is to extract oxygen atoms from SiO2 molecules by heating them up in order to break them up.

Re:Please pay attention

[uvajed_ekil]

Only the English are inconsistent with their acronyms where they capitalize BBC but not NASA. So much for the cradle of their namesake language.

I wasn't aware that the English used here was to be based solely on U.S. rules or else be subject to flaming. I'm American, but I know that the English tend not to use all caps if an acronym is pronounced like any other word, like NASA or NATO. Will you flame them for using "colour" (a mis-spelling!), "lory" (a girl's name?), or "fag" (how dare they be so insensitive and homophobic!) as they often do? Chill, or at least stop thinking you are so clever.

NEWSFLASH: Slashdot attracts a global audience, and people sometimes make grammatical, speling, or syntactical errors. Deal with it.

Also, I'm curious as to how anyone can criticize the English, in general, for not speaking English correctly. I'd find them rather boring if they didn't "talk funny".

Re:Can this article be even more pretentios?

[cruachan]

2 days ago...

Science Ability Down in U.S. High Schools
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/2 7/1639243

How true.

Re:Can this article be even more pretentios?

[Anonymous Coward]

parent may be insightful, but not as the response to grandparent.

that's exatly what he's saying, use heat to turn SiO2 to Si + O2. einsteins/

Still not terribly efficient...

[mattmacf]

I'm no chemist either but I did take a high school chem class a few years ago. I'm far from confident in my calculations, so feel free to correct me if I'm egregiously wrong, but AFAICT the amount of energy needed might be a limiting factor. Now, the article gives us two tidbits of information.

In Nasa's latest tests, a 12ft-wide dish was used to concentrate the sun's rays on to 100g of a substance similar to Moon soil. After a few hours, one fifth of the substance had turned into oxygen.

and

The soil contains about 45 per cent oxygen by weight, but it is mostly 'trapped' in the form of silcon dioxide.

Now assuming that one fifth of the 45% of the oxygen in the soil is 100% oxygen, we yield a total of 9g of pure oxygen. A quick trip to Google tells us that oxygen has a molecular weight of (roughly) 16. Therefore, 9g of oxygen translates to 0.5625 moles of pure oxygen. Another check of Google tells us that the volume of oxygen at STP is 17.36 x 10^-6 cubic meters/mole. We finish our Google-sponsored portion of this post by converting to give us 17.36 mL/mol. Multiplying by our previous result (0.5625*17.36) gives us a whopping 9.765 milliliters of oxygen. So how much exactly is that?

We continue our inquiry at the wonderful world of Wikipedia. We learn that the Earth's atmosphere is only 21% oxygen, so our 9.765 mL of pure oxygen effectively becomes 46.5 mL of normal air. Our final reference tells us that the average human breath exchanges 450-500 mL of air.

Putting this all together, we get a notably unimpressive result. The "few hours" that it takes to bake oxygen out of moon sand creates only enough oxygen to support one-tenth of one ordinary resting breath for one average-sized adult male.

I really hope I'm off by an order of magnitude or four, but unless I'm terribly wrong (entirely possible), this technology has a long way to go. The final line of the article does give hope, however: "Alternative methods to extract oxygen from Moon soil are also under investigation, including melting the rocks into a liquid and freeing oxygen with an electric current." Obviously NASA realizes this plan still needs work. Hopefully

Re:Still not terribly efficient...

[Propaganda13]

Skipping all the conversions.
NASA states an adult requires 840g of oxygen. One dish and a 100g of soil in a few hours got 20g of oxygen. The sunlight was going through atmosphere so I'd think it would be more efficient on the moon, but we'll stick with the 20g. 4.2kg of soil and 42 dishes would supply enough oxygen for one adult in a few hours, Maybe? 4-6 adults a day.
The Biosphere 2 lost oxygen at a rate of .3-.5% a month(can't find it in grams). So could a Biosphere 3 with added oxygen from this process be enough to support a moon base?

Re:Still not terribly efficient...

[jusdisgi]

I think you misinterpreted the quotes you used as the basis for your calculations. The important part of the first quote is After a few hours, one fifth of the substance had turned into oxygen. To me, this says that one fifth of the total mass of the soil ended up as oxygen; you seem to have taken it to mean one fifth of the available oxygen in the substance. The quote says no such thing, and does not reference the 45% number out of the second quote; those two facts (the composition percentage and the yield from NASA's procedure) are not related. So, instead of figuring 9g of oxygen per 100g soil, your figures should start with 20g oxygen per 100g soil. Still not the factor of 4 you were hoping for, but it'll get you more than halfway there.

Re:Still not terribly efficient...

[Suidae]

We learn that the Earth's atmosphere is only 21% oxygen, so our 9.765 mL of pure oxygen effectively becomes 46.5 mL of normal air

The article mentions that they would be breathing 100% oxygen. At STP thats not a good idea, but the pressure can be reduced so that the partial pressure of oxygen is the same as at STP (something like 3psi). This allows one to breath pure oxygen without harm, reduces the structural demands of containing normal atmospheric pressure, and the low pressure does not result in the fire danger that pure oxygen presents at STP.

Ramen is Carcinogenic

[Derosian]

I was looking at a Ramen ingrediants list while reading this, and I found out that the Soup Base has Silicon Dioxide in it... Does this mean Ramen is carcinogenic? And better yet.... Does this mean we can make Oxygen from Ramen if the need arises?

Re:Ramen is Carcinogenic

[bunbuntheminilop]

That sounds kinda dangerous. Would you like to scan the packet for me and post it some where for downloading? It's probably an error, and should be corrected.

Re:Ramen is Carcinogenic

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, silicon dioxide is added to a lot of shit, check out this google search for potato chips.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22silico n+dioxide%22+potato+chips&btnG=Search

Re:Ramen is Carcinogenic

[MachDelta]

Its relatively safe to eat. Just don't breathe the dust.

Re:Ramen is Carcinogenic

[Anonymous Coward]

That all depends on the size of the particles. If all SiO2 were hazardous, you wouldn't be able to go to the beach. And besides, with fine SiO2 particles it isn't cancer that you are worried about, so much as essentially chronic tuberculosis. Although there is probably some slight risk of DNA damage due to free radicals released from SiO2 embedded in lung tissues, it is very minor when compared to the effects from the mechanical damage and immune response.

Re:Ramen is Carcinogenic

[Zaatxe]

... and I found out that the Soup Base has Silicon Dioxide in it... Does this mean Ramen is carcinogenic?

Only if you breath it!

Does this mean we can make Oxygen from Ramen if the need arises?

Sure! But you might get an onion breath...

Re:Ramen is Carcinogenic

[zanderredux]

Wikipedia to the rescue (and I assume that "flow agent" is actually an anticaking agent):

Silica is also used as a food additive, primarily as a flow agent in powdered foods, or to absorb water (see the ingredients list for Burger King). Silica is also naturally present in the cell walls of various plants (including edible ones) to strengthen their structural integrity.

The twist on SiO2 is that is seems to be necessary for the body as a micronutrient of sorts. According to this:

Observations in humans indicated that various conditions such as lung diseases, chronic diseases and especially growth retardation in children were associated with silicon deficiency. Therefore he recommended silicon therapy for conditions characterized by under- developed and/or damaged mesenchymal tissues (Monceaux, 1973).

So, as long as you don't powder your ramen and inhale it, you'll be OK. But if you do inhale it, you'll have other more pressing problems to deal rather than concerning over SiO2....

Re:But it's nioce to know

[business_kid]

It's nice to know that Nasa have discovered new ways to spend the US $billions without researching new weapons :-D.

Please attribute sources correctly

[Anonymous Coward]

Which bird brain decided that an article from the Daily Mail (A UK newspaper) should be linked as an article from NYT?

Please Americans remember you don't own everything in the world.

Re:Please attribute sources correctly

[Politburo]

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."

Re:Please attribute sources correctly

[IDontLinkMondays]

Oh God yes... I've read the Daily Mail... why would we want to take credit for it...

Oh... BTW... what's on the front page of the Daily Mail about the Beckam's today... did they have a new child named "Back seat of the Jag"?

Re:Can this article be even more pretentios?

[Profane MuthaFucka]

If you'd read the classics you would know the answer. Get a sandworm.

Not Quite

[FasterthanaWatch]

The standard molar volume of most any gas is still 22.4 L/mol so 8g of Oxygen would be 5.6L of oxygen. Throwing in a ratio of 25% Oxygen, and we end up with over 20L of air.

Still not sure how you got that other figure, but perhaps it refers to the liquid form.

Re:Not Quite

[mattmacf]

Hmm... like I said, I might be wrong, but I'm not sure it's here. Going to the first Google hit on oxygen volume from my GP post takes us here where molar volume is given as 17.36 x 10-6 m^3/mol.

Interestingly enough, we can also click to get a definition of molar volume. You note that the standard molar volume of "most any gas" is 22.4L/mol. I think you here defined "most any gas" as one that behaves ideally: an ideal gas. From the data I see here, the conlcusion that I would come to is simply that oxygen does not behave ideally (at least under these circumstances). Although like I said, I'm no chemist, so I might just be talking out of my ass without knowing it. Either way, even 20L of oxygen created over a period of "a few hours" is far from enough to breathe.

Re:Not Quite

[kestasjk]

That's the standard volume 1 mol of ideal gas takes up at 0C, 101.3kPa. Ideal meaning gas which isn't attracted to/repelled from itself, and doesn't have any mass. But oxygen's close (enough for our purposes), so your correction is still valid.

Re:Not Quite

[DeepStream]

I am a chemist, and the number you have for the molar volume is quite simply wrong (at least at STP). O2 behaves reasonably close to an ideal gas, and does in fact have a molar volume around 24L at STP.

If you think carefully about the numbers you got:
9g to 9.7 mL gives you a density of ~1 g/mL, which is that of water, not that of any gas at atmospheric T/P.

As a previous poster mentioned, you're much closer to getting 50L of breathable air (at 25% O2). While not a very large amount (1 cubic meter is 1000 L), 100g of rock isn't a whole lot either.

The simple fact is that SiO2 is about 50% oxygen by mass, and you can get a LOT more moon rock than you can either liquid O2 or water.

Re:Not Quite

[Anonymous Coward]

"the volume of oxygen at STP is 17.36 x 10^-6 cubic meters/mole"

What does STP stand for again? Oh right: Standard Temperature and Pressure which is, by definition, 273.15K and 101.3kPa

Re:Not Quite

[Anonymous Coward]

Well actually wouldnt it be necersary to contain the oxygen too due to reduced presure adn gravitaional strength? Maybe it would just float away.lol

Re:Not Quite

[Daniel Dvorkin]

The result you got is just plain wrong; it's 17.36 x 10^-3 m^3/mol, not 10^-6. Thus 1 mol of oxygen at STP ~= 17.36 liters. Now, as for that being enough to breathe, take a look at the specifications for SCUBA gear, and remember that the NASA experiment was done with a very small amount of material. If the process scales up, it would be trivial to generate enough oxygen to support a fair number of people.

Re:Not Quite

[oringo]

Grandparent's calculation also failed to point out that human respiration does not consume 100% of the oxygen in the air. Dry air contains about 20% oxygen, and exhaled (consumed) air contains about 16% oxygen. To make the air breathable again, you only need to replace the 4% consumption. Assuming that you can remove the CO2 in a reasonable speed, the 20L of breathable air (flow) can easily be turned to 100L of breathable air (flow).

Re:Not Quite

[Fordiman]

Wow. Heat the air up to insane temps then cool it down to LOx temps.

Someone thinks they've got heat transfer physics down better than they do: Sure sure, it's eay to concentrate sunlight, but where does one expel the heat to cool the resulting oxygen?

*blinks*

Oh, nevermind. You can use the hot side of the radiator to preheat the feedstock (which would be coming from the now-cooler ring of lens shadow).

Or, the process could be done is cycles based on the lunar day; during the night, the lunar surface is damned cold - more than enough to cool a compressor's radiator. The lens-shadow area would be even colder.

Re:Not Quite

[Fordiman]

Removing the CO2 is relatively easy process. Get a SCUBA diver to tell you about the way oxygen scrubbers work. I think it involves a zeolite (quartz crystal is a zeolite) of one or another composition - which, by the way, can be synthesized out of silicon and hydrocarbons.

Re:Not Quite

[Fordiman]

Almost forgot. If you've gotten farming to work on the moon, you've also got plantlife to help with the CO2 removal process.

Re:Not Quite

[woolio]

Yes, but the conditions on the moon aren't exactly STP, right?

Re:Not Quite

[Firethorn]

That's probably the best way to go about it. Breaking CO2 is much easier than SO2. I'd see the SO2 process as being set up remotely at first, to get you a good supply, then you bring the people, food, water and plants. The people's normal breathing provides the CO2, and they set up farms of one sort or another(hydroponics is only one possibility) to start recycling.

Thus, breaking SO2 would eventually be only for expanding the colony and purifiying silicon for other industrial processes. If they can find a source of carbon up there, it's solve the next big problem.

Of course, you're still going to have to import a lot of food for a while, just to get the needed mass for efficient recycling. Not many plants are 100% edible by humans, we still need suppliments, etc... I wouldn't be suprised if the sustainable amount of biomass to support each human ends up being measured in the tons(O2, H2O, plant mass, food mass, the future equivalent of the compost heap, etc...)

Re:Not Quite

[Firethorn]

Replace SO2 with SiO2. I need to pay more attention...

Re:Not Quite

[Anonymous Coward]

24L? 22.4L?
http://dbhs.wvusd.k12.ca.us/webdocs/GasLaw/MolarVo lume.html

Re:Not Quite

[iminplaya]

Of course, you're still going to have to import a lot of food for a while, just to get the needed mass for efficient recycling.

Why can't the whole process be mechanized? No humans needed until that critical mass is met. Hell, you could start with nano-bots, and let them build the whole thing. It might take a little longer, but it would help to avoid unnecessary risks.

Re:Not Quite

[MacroMegaMan]

Why can't we send up some ASIMO like robots? We already have that technology working, or at least workable...

Re:Not Quite

[khallow]

The conditions under which the human is breathing and in a comfortable temperature range would be pretty close. Plus the calculation was intended to understand how much oxygen a human consumes not to claim that all oxygen used on the Moon would be at STP.

Re:Not Quite

[HolyCrapSCOsux]

They could probably go with an oxgen content equivalent to a mile or so of eartch altitude.

Re:Not Quite

[magetoo]

Why can't the whole process be mechanized?

Because robots and machines don't eat, breathe and .. eh .. defecate. Not yet, anyway.

If we want to use plants to generate oxygen (and food), we need to bring an entire ecosystem. Of course, it shouldn't be impossible to send up worms and insects to make up "the other half" of the system, while we're setting things up.

Or we could go with nanobots, as long as you provide them. :-)

Re:Not Quite

[Firethorn]

You're probably going to need worms and insects anyways for proper balance. If we can find a good sources of carbon and hydrogen most of the remaining required mass is taken care of. It doesn't really matter how expensive it is to make the materials, as long as it's cheaper than importing them.

If you're going to recycle it, it doesn't really matter what form you bring it in. Sure, use automated processes to fill the base with oxygen. Import astronaughts/colonists along with food to set most of the rest of the stuff up.

Re:Not Quite

[petermgreen]

you aren't going to take the partial pressure of oxygen much below that in normal air and still have the human body function correctly. You can of course decrease the pressure and increase the oxygen richness though that brings its own problems (mainly that you can't easilly launch something from earth with a reduced pressure atnosphere inside, appollo got arround this by launching on STP oxygen but STP oxygen is NASTY) and probablly won't effect the bodys oxygen useage much.

pure oxygen

[penguin-collective]

Contrary to what the article says, pure oxygen is toxic to the lungs, at least at standard pressures. It may be possible to reduce pressure, but I think the long-term effects on humans of breathing pure oxygen at a significantly reduced pressure are still unknown; I wouldn't want to subject myself to it.

Re:pure oxygen

[Cicero382]

Very true.

And there's a very nasty fire hazard associated with it, too. Remember Apollo 1?

Re:pure oxygen

[ademaskoo]

Are you sure about this? Pure oxygen is used in hospitals all the time, and don't forget Michael Jackson's oxygen chamber. He's still living, last time I checked.

Re:pure oxygen

[FireFury03]

Are you sure about this? Pure oxygen is used in hospitals all the time, and don't forget Michael Jackson's oxygen chamber. He's still living, last time I checked.

AFAIK oxygen *chambers* run at low pressures, Oxygen *masks* mix the oxygen with air (so you end up with air with more oxygen than normal rather than just pure oxygen).

Re:pure oxygen

[Anonymous Coward]

Contrary to what the article says, pure oxygen is toxic to the lungs, at least at standard pressures. It may be possible to reduce pressure, but I think the long-term effects on humans of breathing pure oxygen at a significantly reduced pressure are still unknown; I wouldn't want to subject myself to it.

You can always mix the oxygen with a gas like nitrogen in order to obtain an air-like mixture. Unlike oxygen, we do not "consume" oxygen with each breath, so providing the nitrogen gas is contained properly, a one-time delivery of nitrogen from Earth is all moon dwellers should need.

Re:Please pay attention

[Memnos]

NASA is so bloated and bureaucratized that it should be in all lower case, at 2-pt. font. I have known numerous engineers and scientists that worked there in some capacity, and in private conversations they are all ashamed at what it has become.

Re:Can this article be even more pretentios?

[ComaVN]

People, people, you got it all wrong.

The reaction is: Earth+Fire=Air.

Don't they teach proper alchemy anymore?

I knew it

[lenart]

Now we can all apply for a job at google's lunar base. This will speed up the building of google's G.C.H.E.E.S.E. Maybe they will make there spring 2007 deadline after all. http://www.google.com/jobs/lunar_job.html

Re:Please pay attention

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"It's NASA . NASA is an acronym not a proper name. All letters in NASA must be upper case."

Stfu.

So when we get to the moon for the first time...

[Somatic]

we can test that.

old tech ?

[goarilla]

this is one of those techs i thoughed they allready had for a few decades ...

Terraforming

[elbenito69]

Does the moon have enough gravity to hold in an atmosphere, or would there have to be some collection apparatus linked to this device in order to be of any use?

Re:Terraforming

[biblesage40]

Yes we will all have to live in Geodesic Domes. While some reactor makes oxygen in a vaccuum outside.

soil?

[SilentGhost]

It's not a soil. It's ground. Calling it soil implies idea that there are some living organisms there. which is incorrect.

Re:soil?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it's called regolith but "soil" does imply that it contains living (or once living) matter.

http://www.moonminer.com/Lunar_regolith.html

Re:soil?

[SilentGhost]

living, not once lived

Stripmining the moon.

[Sqreater]

Fine, let's stripmine the moon for oxygen and small amounts of water using equipment transported from Earth at immense expense just to prove we can place a few gravity-maimed individuals on a Moon base or "colony" there.

The moon is a desert. It it a desert like no desert on the face of the Earth. We know that. Let's not engage in senseless activities just because we can. Let's not rape the public purse to satisfy bored scientists or political ego.

Re:Stripmining the moon.

[ErikZ]

Some of us want to go into space. Stop cock-blocking man.

Re:Please pay attention

[Cicero382]

" I'd find them rather boring if they didn't "talk funny"."

Hmm.. Thank you - I think.

I'm English and I speak with so-called "received pronunciation" - essentially no regional accent. (No, not like the Queen) and this reminds me of a conversation I had with an American friend. It went something like this:

F: "...AND you talk funny"

Me: "Oh, really? What language are we speaking at the moment?"

F: "English!"

Me: "And what nationality am I?"

F: (Seeing the trap) "Err.. English."

Me: "So, who is the one talking funny?"

F: "F*ck off!"

Re:Can this article be even more pretentios?

[ademaskoo]

That's just what we need. With a few sandworms on the moon, we'll have a nice place to send all the terrorists *ahem* Fremen. Maybe OPEC *ahem* CHOAM will move its operations up there too and leave the poor Caladanian people alone. Great idea! Keep up the good work, you serve the Golden Path well!

Re:Can this article be even more pretentios?

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Much easier to start with ice, though, if the deposits are confirmed and are practical to mine.

order of problems

[tinkerton]

I thought the elements that were virtually absent on the moon, while being essential for life, were hydrogen and carbon. That's the hard part. You have to bring it all from earth. The article is about oxygen which is in abundant supply. The oxygen part is interesting for the reason that it's simple enough to provide the first instance of actually mining the moon.

South African first...

[SIInudeity]

This is a dupe. I remember posting a similiar article about a year back, about a scientist in South Africa that figured out how to extract Oxygen from the Silicon Dioxide.

Re:Can this article be even more pretentios?

[badzilla]

So can't we just skip to ...
4. Remove gold from alembic.
5. Profit!

Re:Please pay attention

[OnceWasLurker]

Question is, can the sharks with lasers survive in the low gravity on the moon with oxygen tanks supplied by big mirrors and lenses? Perhaps the sharks could point their lasers at the SiO2 and make their own oxygen? Wow! Think of the possibilities!

anyone else remember Apollo 1?

[schotter]

From TFA: He added: 'You can breathe pure oxygen. There are some trace gases mixed with the oxygen we produced but they're in very small amounts. There is nothing dangerous.'

Doesn't pure oxygen markedly increase combustibility? I'm not a chemist, but I do remember reading that aluminium will burn almost as easily as wood in a pure oxygen environment. Which sounds dangerous enough, so how would a moon base obtain a whole heap of nitrogen to mix with the oxygen? Or since our bodies probably don't absorb that much nitrogen, is it not a huge problem because we'd only have to ship it up once?

Re:anyone else remember Apollo 1?

[abb3w]

Or since our bodies probably don't absorb that much nitrogen, is it not a huge problem because we'd only have to ship it up once?

If you're shipping it up, argon or helium might be preferable short term; they're both lighter per mole than molecular nitrogen. Longer term, you'd want nitrogen for plants to get a working closed ecology.

If the mass changes

[Walter Carver]

If, with our processing, change the mass of the moon (increase it or decrease it), then this may become dangerous for the balance of moon's orbit. We must be very careful.

Inhabiting moon will not be the answer for an over-populated planet. But it is interesting for scientific purposes.

Re:If the mass changes

[Jesus_666]

1. Mine useful stuff on moon and send it off to earth
2. Send toxic waste to moon and store in used-up mines
3. ???
4. Equilibrium!!

Re:If the mass changes

[LouisZepher]

That's why they'll surgically remove any net imbalance between the amount you eat and the amount you excrete during your stay on the Moon. Thus, an old joke amongst the more crude individuals will become a more appropriate statement. Excuse me, guys, I have to go leave a dump..."

Re:If the mass changes

[tpjunkie]

The mass of the earth is 5.97 x 10^24 kg, the mass of the moon is 7.36 x 10 ^22 kg. If a moon base construction involves moving (and I'm being ridiculously, absurdly, beyond-the-capabilities-we-have to-launch liberal here) 20 billion kilos, which is 2 x 10^9, in comparison to the mass of the moon, is still just 1/ 3.5 x 10^13th the total mass, which in words is considerably less than a trillionth the mass of the moon. It probably wouldn't even make a measurable difference in the moons orbit, not to mention the fact that there would probably be some compensatory shift of the earth-moon barycenter, further protecting against much orbital decay

Re:If the mass changes

[Firethorn]

Thanks, but I'd rather pay the money for that pound...

Or just go on a diet while there and loose some weight. Hey, I'm contributing!

Re:If the mass changes

[chawly]

Oh good ! In fact, super ! I was worrying there for a minute.

Re:If the mass changes

[Walter Carver]

If it is going to be one base, then ok. But we already do all those nasty things here on earth and disturb balance. Why this will stop once we head for the moon?

Re:If the mass changes

[tpjunkie]

It still doesn't matter...we could have 1000 bases of that (ridiculously large) size, and it would still be less than a billionth of the moon's total mass. In any case, the logistics behind moving that much mass 250,000 miles from the surface of the earth pretty much preclude that possibility anyway.

Re:So when we get to the moon for the first time..

[hector_uk]

for anyone thinking that this oxygen can just be released and the moon will have an atmosphere think again, most if not all gases have an RMS speed greater than that of the moons escape velocity.

MOD PARENT UP, link to Q&Q radio interview

[srussia]

Quirks & Quarks interview with NASA guy

So nice...

[Jimboscott]

So when all the ressources will be wasted on Earth, some rich people still have a hope to escape to the Moon. We could continue to waste more ressources, without fear :) So nice...

Topical paradise

[MadFarmAnimalz]

Can we please have headlines which actually tell something of the story rather than try to be clever? Some of us use the rss feed.

Re:Topical paradise

[veeoh]

but then we wouldn't have had the pleasure of your company....

NASA learns...

[SlashSquatch]

...to suck the resources out of the moon, much as they've done on the earth.

With thin air to show for it.

Re:Please pay attention

[Memnos]

How about "aspirin", Bayer's trademarked name for acetylsalicylic acid. Trademarks and other names get subsumed by society. Northern Europeans, have you Hoovered your carpets lately?

Re:Can this article be even more pretentios?

[jbourj]

In Nasa's latest tests, a 12ft-wide dish was used to concentrate the sun's rays on to 100g of a substance similar to Moon soil. After a few hours, one fifth of the substance had turned into oxygen.

Humans consume around 0.55 cubic meters of oxygen per day, or about 0.7 kilograms of oxygen per day.

This huge dish (heavy I bet!) is supposed to release 20 grams of oxygen every 'few hours'. So one disc releases around 100-200 grams each day. This means they would need about 3-5 huge, heavy discs per astronaut.

Just an observation.

Maybe later

[Julian Morrison]

...but to begin with, and to establish the base, a large parabolic reflector is a whole lot quicker and less finicky to set up than a hydroponic air-farm.

Re:now that is brilliant

[Julian Morrison]

Mining, interplanetary and asteroid-mining rocket bases, drop-off point for stuff intended for trans-shipment to earth, solar collection for energy, vacuum and low-G manufacturing, comms, dangerous science, nuclear power plants and intensive farming. Those are just off the top of my head.

Re:So when we get to the moon for the first time..

[Anonymous Coward]

So build a dome. Haven't you ever watched any sci-fi? ;)

can anyone do the math?

[Anonymous Coward]

how long would it take for a small team of astronauts to smoke the whole moon?

Lotsa Oxides

[computechnica]

From the samples we brought back forom the Moon there is a lot of Oxygen tied up in various Metal Oxides(SiO2,Al2O3,TiO2,& FeO). More info can be found at

Man, my first and best friend....

[Anonymous Coward]

No Heinlein references yet? Slashdot crowd must be slacking...

Next stop the sun.

[Anonymous Coward]

In other news today, President Bush announced that he intends to put a man on the sun by 2020.
When questioned by reporters about the risk of astronauts being burned alive, he replied
"DUH..that's why we're gonna land them at night"

The Moon, for one...

[justthisdude]

welcomes it's new oxygen-breathing overlords.

To paraphrase Dune

[TheDreadSlashdotterD]

"From Oxygen does all life begin."

What about the nitrogen?

[jmh55]

Air on earth is ~78% nitrogen by volume (and ~75% by mass), whereas moon base air would be 100% oxygen. There seems to be a couple of problems with this:

1.) At 100% atmospheric oxygen, clothing and hair (and lots of other things I'd guess) become highly flammable, even explosive.

2.) People aren't designed to breathe pure oxygen for extended periods. While it's essential for life, it's also rather toxic - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen#Precautions

So, unless there's another element up there to dilute the oxygen down, you'd still need to take all the nitrogen you need with you.

Re:What about the nitrogen?

[R3d M3rcury]

I'm not a chemist, scientist, etc. So I may be wrong here. But I'll give it a shot...

As I understand, there's nothing particularly "life-giving" about nitrogen. It's an inert gas that basically keeps the oxygen from blowing up. If you can get the oxygen, you can mix it with other inert gases besides nitrogen, if nitrogen isn't handy.

For example, I remember reading about scuba divers using a mixture of oxygen and helium to dive deeper and avoid the bends. Of course, it shrinks vocal chords so everyone would sound like Mickey Mouse. But I'm sure they can find some other inert gas up there to use.

Re:What about the nitrogen?

[adamdeprince]

Why not dilute the O2 with nothing -- 100% O2 at 0.28 atmosphere as about the same partial pressure as the O2 I'm breathing right here at sea level ...

Re:What about the nitrogen?

[Anonymous Coward]

It'd be just like living in a (partial) vacuum chamber!

Oxygen we breathe is O2

[Rob the Bold]

A quick trip to Google tells us that oxygen has a molecular weight of (roughly) 16.

That's the average atomic weight of Oxygen. We breathe O2, which has a molecular weight of 32. As another reply mentioned, a mole of any gas at STP is 22.4L. So 9g of oxygen is 9/32 * 22.4 L, or 6.2 L.

20% O2 is nice and breathable, so you could make 5x as much air by using "recyclable" nitrogen as filler. That would be over 30L of air from 9g of oxygen.

Can someone tell me...

[chord.wav]

How is it that we get to go to the moon bradcasted live but I still doesn't have a moon-channel? A solar powered camera transmitting 24x7 from there... I'd pay to have that channel.

Re:Can someone tell me...

[chawly]

And, had I such a channel, I'd sell it to you. In the mean time I can let you have a fairly well-known bridge for a very reasonable price. Let me know, huh

Neither does radiation shielding

[markdowling]

Something else a moon base will need a whole lot of. Or a *very* portable tunnel borer.

Re:Neither does radiation shielding

[zippthorne]

Something like.. This? perhaps?

Pffft! Removing the dust will be easy!

[Anonymous Coward]

You'll have all this oxygen laying around, so just connect
a spray nozzle to the tanks and voila! ;)

Silicon Valley 2

[biblesage40]

What will NASA do with the silicon after it has liberated the oxygen....will they ship it back?
Or will there be a Silicon Valley on the Moon waiting for an Intel mining expedition.

Re:Please pay attention

[redalien]

I'd never even heard of R.P. until I left Brummagem, nor had I seen a Waitrose. Oh those were the days.

Gravity?

[localman]

I figure this oxygen would be stored inside a sealed moonbase. But I'm curious if the moon has enough gravity to hold an atmosphere?

Cheers.

The grammar zealot is here.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oxygen doesn't grow on trees.

Re:The grammar zealot is here.

[kimvette]

Sure, if you want to play semantics and have no sense of humor. No need to get technical - it was a joke, and more importantly, a Futurama reference.

Re:So when we get to the moon for the first time..

[Anonymous Coward]

RMS is that fast? When I saw him he seemed kinda overweight, or rather, on the heavy side of appropriate weight for a hacker.

Hooray!

[Sippan]

Sweet! A new celestial body to ravage!

I hope they start drilling into the moon, and discover it's actually a big egg with a doomsday chicken inside. (I just know that someone has already made a movie based on this... But I haven't seen it.)

Re:now that is brilliant

[Anonymous Coward]

Living on the moon would give us another basket to put humans into. The moon is a good logical first step. Gravity is lower, meaning the moon could be a nice jumping off point for the rest of the solar system.

We either learn how to live on other bodies, or we die.

meaning of efficiency

[Tristfardd]

Technically, you need to generate more oxygen than you are losing. Any moonbase will recycle the air through some system of plants. Once your extraction system generates more oxygen than is lost, you are ahead of the game. You let the system run and as excess builds up you expand the base. Expanding the extraction facilities shortens the time between base expansions.

Mod parent up (Read: I'm flat out wrong)

[mattmacf]

Like I said, I'm no chemist. Obviously, your comment about density clearly shows a glaring flaw in my calculations.

I think the point I should've make clearer is the fact that the energy required to release this (relatively) miniscule amount of oxygen is astronomical (no pun intended). Even assuming that I'm wrong about my interpretation of the article and that a full one fifth of the 100g of the sample becomes oxygen, that we get a total of 20g of O2 or roughly 100L of breatheable air. In order to release this, we need to heat a quantity of 100g of SiO2 to 2500C for several hours. As the article stated, this requires the concentration of sunlight from a 12' wide dish onto a sample of just 100g. I'm not exactly sure how much energy that is (and I'm not about to try and calculate it), but it seems like an awful lot. Hopefully this technique scales incredibly well or the alternate methods of liquifying or electrocuting the sand have more promise. I realize this is fledgling technology were talking about, but it still looks like it has a long way to go.

Re:Mod parent up (Read: I'm flat out wrong)

[ErikZ]

I wish I had mod points for you man.

Re:Mod parent up (Read: I'm flat out wrong)

[Anonymous Coward]

a 12foot wide circular dish
= 3.66 metres wide diameter. = 1.83 metre radius.

Circular dish with radius=1.8, has an area of 10.5 m^2

We're talking about the moon, but assume that equal solar energy hits it as earth. The solar constant for earth is 1.37kW per m^2.

So that dish captures 10.5 * 1.37 = 14.4kW of solar power. (assuming no cloud cover or atmospheric absorption)
Let's say several hours means 5 hours.

So the total power applied to that moon rock was 5 * 14.4 = 71.9kWh (kiloWatt-hours)

Let's just assume that instead of using the sun to heat that rock, we used an electric heater. And let's say somehow we were able to get electricity at earthly prices :-) ...

Here in Ireland, one unit (1 kWh) costs 0.127 euro, which is approx $0.16 USD.
So the cost of heating that rock would be $11.60.

And let's say that we got 50L of air from it, which would give you at most 100 breaths. Apparently the average breath rate is 14 per minute, so that air would last 7 minutes!

Finally, the cost of breathing for an hour can be calculated:
(60mins / 7 mins) * $11.60 = $99
Or if you wanted to breath for a day, that would be $2386, if you please!

Step 3: Profit!!

-vince

Re:Mod parent up (Read: I'm flat out wrong)

[khallow]

Recall two things. First, that this oxygen will be recycled many times. I gather that this is enough oxygen for around say 2-3 minutes of modest activity. If it is recycled ten times before it escapes from the biosphere, then that has increased to 20-30 minutes of human activity. A hundred times would be three to five hours.

So keeping a person alive for a day given factor ten recycling would require processing roughly 5 to 7 kg of lunar soil.

Second, the alternatives aren't great. Either we extract oxygen on the Moon with this sort of technology or we haul it in from somewhere else. It's currently a lot cheaper to extract from the Lunar soil despite the apparent inefficiency.

Not my brother

[Polski Radon]

Just don't let my brother walk on the moon, his feet stink!

Re:cool

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of us want to leave Earth to be rid of morons such as you.

2 week lunar night?

[Anonymous Coward]

Also keep in mind that at most places on the moon, the lunar night is half a month. Most plants might not like that. I guess at the poles you can have more sunlight. You could supply the energy to supply light via a nuclear reactor/stored solar power, but then, why don't you just use that energy to also supply the oxygen from the regolith?

*Really* old news

[erichill]

Using concentrated sunlight to extract oxygen from lunar material is an idea that goes back at least to the 70s.

Re:now that is brilliant

[ErikZ]

Why settle America? What's the point? I'm sure there are some things you can do there that you can't do in Europe, but they aren't *really* important.

Socialists hate it when people want to leave.

Bits & Parts

[JumperCable]

OK. If Oxygen makes up 45% of lunar soil by weight^h^h^h^h^h^hmass, then the silicon in the Si02 makes up 40% of the lunar soil by mass. So what makes up the other 15% of the soil?

If above arguments someone said they can only make a small amount of oxygen here on earth from solar rays with a similar mixuture of Lunar soil and that is not enough. Well something to keep in mind is how much hotter the light side of the moon is 253 Fahrenheit (123 Celsius). Making glass from raw silica requires 2,000 C. It 30 C where I am at now. The suns rays (due to lack of filtering are coming in at about 4 times the Earth Strength) -This last line is the sloppy guess work. So the same set up here on earth should produce 4 times that amount on the moon. Plus you get a funky little by-product called glass which can be made to make lenses.

Re:Bits & Parts

[What me a Coward]

>OK. If Oxygen makes up 45% of lunar soil by weight^h^h^h^h^h^hmass, then the silicon in the Si02 makes up 40% of the lunar soil by mass. So what makes up the other 15% of the soil?

    Methane! It cometh from pigshit! :D

One small step for man.

[SavvyPlayer]

One giant gasp for mankind.

Re:Can this article be even more pretentios?

[slowbad]

Much easier to start with ice, though, if the deposits are confirmed and are practical to mine

'Scientists float plan to blast water to the moon'

--
Project SLAM
www.space.com/businesstechnology/060524_slam_moon. html
Also studies known crater-formation from impacts

Seeing as...

[Dzimas]

~78% of the air we breath is nitrogen by volume, yet everyone seems to be fixated on squeezing oxygen out of rocks on the moon. Is this because nitrogen is easier to store and generate, or are people just overlooking it?

Re:Seeing as...

[stevelinton]

We don't need the nitrogen. Humans are reasonably healthy breathing pure oxygen at 22% of Earth's atmospheric pressure.

Even if you want the nitrogen for some reason, it's not used up, so you just need one batch, which you could ship. I'm pretty sure there is effectively NO accessible nitrogen on the moon.

Re:Seeing as...

[What me a Coward]

Methane cometh from Pig Shit!

  Master/blaster Beyond Thunder dome. :)

Re:The oxygen already on the moon... Bogus Units

[Anonymous Coward]

Your units are all wrong. 10 CM is a distance measurement, not a density or pressure measurement. It would only make sense if you meant that the atmosphere is 10 cm deep. That'd mean that at our atmospheric pressure, there wouldn't be enough on the whole moon to fill a soda bottle. Not very helpful.

Actually, there is a tenuous atmosphere on the moon. Hydrogen from the sun (solar wind)hits the moon, and a pressure wave builds up. It gets stripped away by solar radiation, but is constantly being reformed. The pressure is several trillion times less than our atmosphere, so in practice, it's still a hard vacuum. It might be feasable to collect it, but the amount you'd get would be so small it'd only be of interest for lab work. Over long times it might create collectable amounts in some regolith. That's how the He3 they like to project as a great resource got there. Colelcted from the solar wind over geologic time frames.

Re:So when we get to the moon for the first time..

[gbulmash]

most if not all gases have an RMS speed greater than that of the moons escape velocity

RMS speed? What does Stallman have to do with the speed of gases?
<ducks and runs for cover>

- Greg

Re:now that is brilliant

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a socialist, and I don't approve of this message. So nyah.

  I'm not surpised to see it here, though. Dumbass glibertarians love their 'My Socialist Strawman' they got for Christmas. Asking a real socialist how he'd like to see a future with virtually unlimited natural resources for mankind to use would require actually talking to real human beings, ICK! So let's just assume that socialists are automatically against it, because hey, My Socialist Strawman is automatically against anything that's cool!

Will there be barbed wire on the moon?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yesterday's technology allowed us to terraform the moon into at least Earth's public garbage dump.

Tomorrow's technology will allow us to terraform said garbage dump into a place habitable for rats, F-150's, and dobermans.

+1 for the sanitation commission!
+1 for the Rat King!

Re:So when we get to the moon for the first time..

[iminplaya]

Build a dome!? Haven't you ever seen Goldfinger?

Not a Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I remember the fire. The problem was a high pressure of oxygen. Partial pressure of the gas is what is important. Sea level oxygen pressure is roughly 14/4 PSI. That's about 3 1/2 PSI. The capsule that day had about 15 PSI. that made fire about 3 times more likely.

To breathe, you need around 2 PSI minimum of oxygen. the rest of the air can be inert, like nitrogen, water vapor, or so forth. There is going to be some CO2, but you shouldn't have much, no more than say 1/4 PSI. you will have to have a way to remove that. In Apollo, they used a low cabin pressure with a high concentration of oxygen. The space suttle uses a more earthlike mix at 'normal' pressure. both will work to keep you kickin. For a long term moon base, we'd need to restock oxygen, and maybe other gasses we want to use. If we go the low pressure rout again, we'd only need oxygen, which is available on the moon. If we go the high pressure rout, we'd also need nitrogen, which has not been found on the moon. We'll also need water, which may be there in low amounts (hence the excitement about the poles). It's much cheaper to get it locally than it is to ship it. That's what this is all about.

Sorry for all the English units.

Helium

[Aielman]

Of course we all know that you can't have a self sufficient Moonbase(tm) without mining helium for the coming fusion age. Otherwise your lunar newspapers will go on strike and who will tell the masses about the green moon monkeys?

Re:now that is brilliant

[magetoo]

Basket to put humans into? Jumping off point?

If you are worried about overpopulation, we could just start some more wars. (Because that's the Terran way!)

Movie Idea Re:Another addiction

[skwang]

That sounds like a great movie idea. An imperialistic war-like race who has run out of oxygen goes to conquer a peaceful neighbor who has plenty of oxygen reserves. Throw in a swashbuckling rouge and his trusty sidekick. Add a love-interest who happens to be from the peaceful neighbor. Maybe a robot for a chambermaid.

OOOoooo!!! Make sure you put in some mystisim via an ancient pwerful religion. Something with action-at-a-distance too, that always brings in the audience.

It'll make millions!

Why do the space geeks not get it?

[khoffman]

Americans don't care about the moon. Whether it is a been there, done that attitude or a real understanding that much of what we can gain from the moon is a brief enrichment of a few select already-rich government contractors, I think the public wants manned space missions to Mars. Not sand burning on the moon, not space elevators made out of nano-tubes. I realize that there is a void of political clout in the industry, which make any progress towards Mars impossible but it seems somewhat self-inflicted.

So my question: why don't the industry wonks realize that 'projects' like this don't build support, they erode support?

Re:Why do the space geeks not get it?

[What me a Coward]

I think it's you who doesn't get it.

The public may care about mars and the geeks (or rather nerds) may care about the moon but Business or rather big oil cares about Jupiter!

Why? Because Jupiter is the next big energy source! It's the middle east of 2150 etc... It's the second biggest source of hydrogen in the solar system which from all current views looks to be the new oil of the 21st century and beyond.

So while the moon may have hydrogen it's not in large enough supply to justify going back to the moon let alone on its own justify such high cost exploitation of it. Nor the mars despite its exo biologic possibilities for possibly proving or short term disproving other exo biologic or alien life beyond earth. But what would more that justify further space exploration is not the least of which being mining asteroids for resources but to use Jupiter as an intersolar Middle east or Intersolar Gas station for hydrogen to power post 21st century crafts of whatever make or use.

The moon and mars are mere transitory goals to space but Jupiter as a fuel source is a more long range and long lasting if not perminate goal for space till we come up with other future energy sources that fit our future needs better.

So while you geeks and nerds or the like argue that what we care about is either the moon or mars or other crap pieces of debris in the solar system the real ones who actually matter have already decided that what matters is the big boy Jupiter! All you're other ides or beliefs are just extra fuel to be used to get them to that point they may possibly introduce some other ways or methods of making huge gobs of money in the future so would be allowed to be entertained or believed to be our goal but not allowed to distract totally from the main goal or the real prize, Jupiter the tans-solar gas station/Power plant for mankind.

So my answer to you is they Or big business does realize that project's like this as well as others regarding mars which will be more or less larger distractions than the moon as a future launching off point or fuel transfer station or other like interim point for the hydrogen transfer form Jupiter and earth. However they do realize in the future it will be a means of further pushing us outward further into the solar system towards Jupiter and the like so when it gets to be more obtainable or more in line with their current goals without to much undue risk to getting to their main objective without excessive waste of funds and overall support then industry and big business will support it more, Till then expect no joy whatever you're arguments or other attempts or beliefs maybe as they don't meet with the industries current goals or projected timelines etc.

In other words your whole post and stand on the issue was a complete waste of your time and energy other than as a nice place for me to put this post stating these facts.

Remember Big business and the industry only care about one thing Money or how to make more of it. And so will always act in ways to bring about thoughs ends. In that light first the Moon as a launching off point and later transfer point between the earth and Jupiter is more crucial to the long term goals but mars is more of a interim rest stop or other such point, but also as a way and means of further pushing man outwards to the larger and more important goal of Jupiter. Not to forget IO and Eruopa and other moons of Jupiter which Nasa and others keep bringing up as possible places that life could reside and so as means of further pushing us to the main prize. It's really thinking of ways of not only finding life and habitats outside of earth and beyond mars but also as ways of getting us to help them or make it easy on them to reach the real prize for them which as I said is Jupiter not the moon or mars or any other planet in the solar system.

Thoughs are just ways of gett

Re:Why do the space geeks not get it?

[khoffman]

Interesting post, although admittedly smells a little with all that stinky troll meat in it.

Re:So when we get to the moon for the first time..

[putigger]

Vrms = sqrt(3kT/m). For oxygen, at T=300K, I get less than 700 m/s. according to Google, escape velocity for the moon is about 2400 m/s.

Re:Please pay attention

[vidnet]

The usual UK rule is to preserve caps when you pronounce the letters: (B-B-C) but to use normal case when you pronounce it as syllables. Thus: Nasa, UN, Nato, snafu, UK.

Exactly, abbreviations and acronyms. An abbreviation is a short form for something, while an acronym is an abbreviation that is also a word (the ones pronounced as syllables), and thus written as one.

Monolith

[GWBasic]

What happens when they focus sunlight on the monolith?