Comment Re:Well... (Score 0) 74
that yummy koolaid
that yummy koolaid
so will Mila Mozilla.
What about the Strait of Hormoooz?
What, you give male aliens a mulligan?
"Sorry, but we don't have an insurance code to cover 'sub-atomic vaporization chain-reaction'."
Eric
if there was ever a moment for a robot to flip out and kill people, this was the one
It's a Fonzi Scheme: Ayyy Aiiii!
If the objective is to increase Internet security without any concern for what might otherwise stop working, wouldn't it make more sense to ban Microsoft Windows?
It has been responsible for more Internet disruption than any brand of router.
I hate all of this sales pressure BS - that the instant anyone hears your name you have to try to "convert" them to sales - and I literally run a webstore.
It's all so deeply anti-consumer, and I want no part in it.
Firstly, I see you have this notion that martian rocks must all be igneous.
You're not talking about rock, you're talking about regolith.
Depending on where the regolith is sourced
Regolith is not "sourced", it's blown across the whole planet. It's not simply "whatever the underlying strata is made out of".
But, since we are playing 'name the ignorance' in this exchange, your attestation stat perchlorate is 0.5% liberatable oxygen says 'Say i'm ignorant of basic chemistry without saying i'm ignorant of basic chemistry, and am bad at reading too.' The 0.5% statistic comes from the publication at bottom, and is the proportion of the regolith that is perchlorates.
I am the one who mentioned that regolith is 0.5% perchlorates, not that "perchlorates are 0.5% oxygen". *facepalm*
"Saying we'll get oxygen from the 0,5-1% of a poison in martian regolith, rather than bulk ice or CO2, is..."
For God's sake, learn to fucking read.
Washing the regolith to remove the perchlorate is a requirement for *any* other use of that regolith
Which is why you shouldn't be celebrating its existence. It is a problematic contaminant, not a resource.
As you have rightly pointed out, the water ice on mars is more 'frozen mud'. Cleaning the melt is going to be a necessary first step to using it *regardless*. That means either vacuum distillation, thermal distillation, or reverse osmosis filtration. Again, NOT OPTIONAL. This is necessary equipment that you need to bring, regardless.
And this just to get water, the most basic of offworld resources. And all of that equipment (especially the mining hardware itself) requires maintenance and spare parts, which impose more dependencies. And the TRL for use on Mars is low regardless.
You've gone from talking up the ease of operating on Mars to talking it down, yet your self-righteousness hasn't shifted at all in the process.
RO filtration is the least energy intensive of these.
Except, it isn't. 0,5-1% perchlorates. RO typically removes 90-95% of perchlorates. So you're down to ~500ppm. Human safety levels** are in the low parts per billion. You're five orders of magnitude off. Yes, you can purify water that far - and the more perchlorates, the easier - but you're talking an over millionfold reduction. It is not at all trivial. You're talking first RO to get it down to levels where it won't hinder bacterial growth, then bioreactor bacterial remediation, then filtration, then RO, then ion exchange. This is not some little, simple system.
** Plants can tolerate much more perchlorates than humans, but they also bioaccumulate perchlorates of exposed to them, so you have to reduce the water to low ppb levels.
The end products are clean water and perchlorate contaminated mud, and clean mud, with contaminated water.
Viola! *eyeroll*
And your "plan" for dealing with waste perchlorate doesn't just magically produce pure O2 and NaCl in the real world. First off, molten sodium perchlorate, which is what it becomes before it decomposes, is an extremely corrosive oxidizer. Exactly what are you planning to make the furnace out of, platinum? Secondly, you never get perfect decomposition. Apart from residual perchlorates, you have residual sodium chlorate, which is also corrosive, and is a literal herbicide. And your gas stream will contain contaminant chloride and chlorine dioxide, which, news flash, you don't want to breathe.
There is no way on Earth anyone would ever prefer this to just conducting electrolysis on the water that you've already purified.
Why would a breathalyzer need to access anything outside of the unit itself.
Blow, analyze the sample, enable ignition switch or not.
The result is a simple binary choice and the analysis has to be done locally by its very nature.
Such meteorites tend to be sterilized via thousands of years drifting in space and re-entry heat. We don't know really know if such is comparable to a direct surface sample.
I don't miss a signal typo.
...they better test their safety in a space station rather than Earth. There's a slim but non-zero chance they have microbes we have no immunity for.
Different all twisty a of in maze are you, passages little.