Future moon settlers might benefit from oxygen extraction from lunar regolith as it can be used to create breathable air as well as a source for fuel. In addition, the newly found extraction method might also be useful for Mars colonization.
Regolith covers the Moon and Mars (and presumably many other potentially habitable rocky bodies).
Of course, the composition of regolith on the Moon differs from that of Mars.
But if the new method can extract sufficient quantities of both oxygen and hydrogen, there should be ample amounts for both human usage and rocket fuel.
(Yawn.) “Dry” science? Sure. But think of the (fictional) possibilities!
Youtubersmallstarshas proposed a concept that he calls theGravity Link Starship(GLS), a variation of SpaceX’sStarshipthat will be able to provide its own artificial gravity.
Hm, I guess we’re at the point where YouTubers have better ideas than NASA…
But who pays for this? is the several billion dollar question. Not just the construction of the “hub and truss” system, but the expense of getting it into space in the first place.
Seems like science fiction at this point. But still worth a read/look:
“What is the evidence against the possibility of life on Mars?” Levin wrote. “The astonishing fact is that there is none.”
Uh, no, sorry. That’s an illogical fallacy called “begging the question.”
Often phrased like this: “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
Or, as a friend once joked, “Just because you haven’t found any aliens doesn’t mean there aren’t any!”
Well, yeah, but that doesn’t prove anything except that we just don’t know.
See, science doesn’t work like that. It demands skepticism, careful theorizing based on positive evidence.
And replication.
If findings can’t be independently confirmed and reproduced by an outside observer, then the evidence isn’t strong enough.
Sorry. No smoking gun. Yet.
(Believe me, if scientists knew that Mars had life, we’d hear about it ad infinitum. Carl Sagan put it best: Scientists are terrible at keeping secrets.)
I wrote about this a couple of days ago (based on an article from two weeks prior), but it’s interesting to see random websites suddenly jumping on the “we’ll all get rich!” asteroid mining band wagon. Hey, everybody, let’s copy-paste stuff and not use our brains!
A new article by rt.com even includes two click-bait links to “how gold was formed” that have nothing whatsoever to do with NASA’s probe to (16) Psyche. Of course, we shouldn’t expect any less from an obvious Russian “news” distributor. But in the interests of calling out the bad reporting in this and similar “news” articles spread online recently, let’s give this a hearty smack-down.
“It is time to venture beyond the known planets, on toward the stars.”
Yes, I agree, but I don’t see how any of the ideas in this article will help us achieve that goal. I think the problem is the reliance on conventional means of propulsion. Clearly some sort of bending of space/time is needed to leave the solar system faster than, say, a decade, let alone reach other star systems.
Dawn already used an ion engine (way too slow). The solar gravitational lens is neat but it won’t take us there physically. The “space-based laser” idea is funky but impractical.
Getting off Earth should help (Moon Base, Mars, somewhere else like Triton). Escaping our own planet’s gravity well takes way too much effort. But after that, it’s time to forget about rockets and start thinking of truly “wacked out” ideas.
For starters, Discover, how about dumping your absolutely awful page design? Yeesh, this page is hard to read.
