Science & Technology
In a piece penned this week in The Conversation, John Grant, a lecturer in soil science at Australia's Southern Cross University explained that the Moon was heavy in minerals that bind tightly with oxygen.
Grant claims that, even if one ignores the oxygen tied up in deep, hard rock, the Moon's regolith - the rocky top layer - which is easily accessible, could hold enough oxygen for eight billion people to live for 100,000 years.
The scientist's calculation is based on the notion that humans need 800g (28oz) of oxygen a day to survive, and the regolith is some 10m (33ft) deep. He states that the Moon's regolith is made up of 45% oxygen, all of which is tightly bound to minerals such as silica, aluminium, and iron and magnesium oxides.
Unfortunately, though rocks are not breathable, the process of extracting the vast quantities of oxygen from them is a straightforward process. "But there is a catch: it's very energy-hungry. To be sustainable, it would need to be supported by solar energy or other energy sources available on the Moon," Grant notes.
Grant's article comes after the Australian Space Agency and NASA signed a deal in October to send a rover to the Moon with the objective of collecting lunar rocks and attempting to extract breathable oxygen from them.
The scientist also noted the development of experimental reactors to improve the process of making oxygen via electrolysis by a Belgian start-up. The new technology could be sent to the Moon by 2025 as part of the European Space Agency's in-situ resource utilisation mission.
Reader Comments
This only goes to demonstrate how these idiots live in cloud cuckoo land and have NO comprehension as to the difficulties involved in setting up a base on the Moon.
They couldn't even convince us with their amateurish attempt of filming a supposed Moon landing.
R.C.Grantās article comes after the Australian Space Agency and NASA signed a deal in October to send a rover to the Moon with the objective of collecting lunar rocks and attempting to extract breathable oxygen from them.The funny part is, if this were true, then in order to maintain the oxygen, we would have to have a lot of plants, which would mean that man would have to make⦠carbon dioxide. Plants canāt live without carbon dioxide.Not one of these filthy faggots talking about global heating is going to explain to you why, if the 3.2% of the earthās atmosphereās carbon dioxide is produced by humans is deadly, we canāt get just increase plant life by 3.2% as a counterbalance.
But thereās a lot of obvious questions they wonāt explain regarding their theory ā such as how, if such a small fraction of greenhouse gases can drastically change the weather, that the weather isnāt shifting radically as a result of the changes in natural carbon in the atmosphere.
The point is: as long as āThe Scienceā is talking about such obviously, blatantly ridiculous and farcical nonsense as global warming and the coronavirus, there is zero chance that it is going to do anything useful, like build a city on the Moon. [Link]
CO2 is easily used as a propaganda tool by today's governments, as they have done an appalling job at educating today's voters and allowing children to leave school having little understanding of the world around them, except being Gay of course.
So distracting them with fanciful talk of living on the moon is a doddle for them.
If CO2 is really such an issue we have a very simple solution - Plant more trees and flora.
Thats not to say we don't need to clean up our act, but lets start with plastics, heavy metals and other toxins.
If you think about it, the planets are the by-products of burning stars, CO2 the by-product of burning planets (kinda) and oxygen is the by-product of flora respiring (burning) CO2.
"Pollution" is a perspective.
RC
Well plastic is a relatively simple polymer. We already are capable of inserting a few biological compounds into the polymer strings to speed up the decomposition process. The more we add the quicker it decomposes. Like so many things it all comes down to profit as this adds expense to the production process.(Also, I don't think it works so well for water bottles)
Im not sure about the practicalities of filtering plastic burning plants, but in theory that sounds great. Of course the main issue is more the retrieval of the plastic waste in the first place.
One technology that I found very exciting was plasma gasification. The idea is that you use a sustained arc of super hot plasma to annihilate any and all waste items you throw at it. This reduces everything to gas, which can then be separated out into its various elements or compounds. A portion of the hydrogen and oxygen would go back into feeding the plasma arc, but the rest can be sold on. As a business model it seems too good to be true as you'd get paid at both ends of the process, but the main factor that hampers its use is the enormous cost of building such a facility. If the mega-rich were serious about cleaning up the planet we'd see more of these popping up everywhere. Not least because it would continue to line their pockets..
Have you ever read Jim Marrs' Alien Agenda? In it he starts with a chapter about the 'first UFO, the moon'. VERY interesting stuff.
RC
As an aside, what are your thoughts on the moon landing? I remember your "celestial connection" through your parents and would love to hear your thoughts.
Its often struck me when I see people arguing about "We definitely went to the moon" vs "The moon landings were faked" that its quite possible both parties are correct. What was the term that was used? "The Astronauts were sworn to secrecy because what they knew was socially and theologically dangerous" (Or something similar to that)
I saw all of the Gemini and Apollo missions and most of the shuttles and etc etc. My mum was the highest ranking lady engineer on the shuttle program at KSC and the first female voice ever heard from the firing room on countdowns. My dad was just another rocket engineer around here, - all of our dads worked at the Cape and most were USAF vets - but he worked on military/USAF/spy satellite type stuff at CCAFS.
There's no doubt that the Apollos launched and were SERIOUSLY impressive, BEYOND even that! - but stuff like Dave McGowan's points in Moondoggie [Link] (check it out! ) sealed the conclusion for me. At this point, the odds that we went to the moon as per the narrative? Less than 5%. Put another way, what Gary McKinnon reported on and almost got life in Gitmo for is far far more likely to be correct than the official Moondoggie lies.
RC
Regolith seems to be quite an amazing substance, capable of providing air, water, construction materials and even rocket fuel. Another strangely coincidental thing about our closest neighbor...