Also keep in mind pure O2 is a fire hazard regardless of pressure. So you need to cut it with some inert gas. Helium and Neon are both available on the moon so they could be used.

That's why one would use regular He or Ne.

Helium and Neon are available in the lunar regolith. So substituting them for Nitrogen is a practical solution if necessary.

Nitrogen can be replaced with other inert gases. For example helium and neon which are both in lunar regolith.

And spacecraft, and possibly a colony, could operate at a lower pressure. Still need to mix the O2 with something due to fire hazard.

True but the circling of a human crew is a bit more exciting than the occasional camera of the last 50 years. Its progress. :-)

Without a vehicle to get people to the moon, we don't need to extract O2. I guess you could argue we need to do the electrolysis anyway to extract metals for robotic manufacturing.

I think the nuclear battery is to provide current for electrolysis.

Works anywhere on the moon regardless of sunlight, maintenance free, lasts a century. The kind of "keep it simple" and "keep it local" sort of thing you want for something critical like breathable air.

That should undermine the credibility of the people attacking, those supporting the old position found to be incorrect.

In other words, attacks should not be trusted with data to back them up.

Well in a functioning democracy the executive branch would be verified by the legislative branch. The leadership of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees should have been advised and seen the evidence. Not a perfect solution, some trust is still involved, but at least there are two groups. Maybe three depending on how you look at it. The military made a claim, the president had to be convinced, House/Senate oversight had to be convinced.

If its not verifiable then the claim is not to be trusted.

Think about the appeal to authority fallacy. It's based on a "trust me". A true authority does not wave credentials and say "trust me." A true authority can show and explain the data in a way the masses can understand, so that the masses can see for themselves the validity of a claim. The same applies to corporates spokespeople. Its a fallacy to believe them merely on their job title.

As I said, "imperfect knowledge" is one of the factors. But the result is the same, one needs to verify the evidence. Perhaps we should repurpose your "level" clarification. How much work you put into evaluating the evidence depends on the "level". A friend says a movie is good, fine, trust and go see it.

Which would be less of an issue if more people have a more scientific approach. Also, such accusations are useful. They help spot those that are the liars or the naively trusting. A hazard of all, the left, right, or center.

And much of that functionality is unnecessary. We can already have all those conversations with our cell phones.

The only meaningful behavior of the robot is what a dog would do. Provide subtle "follow me" physical feedback for real time navigation of immediate obstacles and hazards. Yes, wrt hazards, sometimes the dog's feedback is not so subtle. The one and only question is how a robot and a dog compare with respect to such real-time navigation.

AR Goggles? These people are blind. Their cell phone and ear buds would accomplish what you describe.

AR Goggles are an example of over engineering too. :-)

Its not just cost, its also demand:
- Higher RAM costs.
- Higher HDD demand by data centers, retail buyers pushed towards SSD as a result.
- Higher SSD demand by data centers, whose order get fulfilled before retail channels.

Almost no one can be trusted. Nearly everyone has imperfect knowledge, bias, an agenda, etc. And the more "well meaning" they believe their agenda the more open they are to inserting an agenda. Accurate or not, its a the ends justifying the means. A "white lie" that leads to a better outcome, or so they believe. This is normal human behavior, left, right, or center.

The solution is simple. Verify what is said, regardless of whether you like or dislike what was said, regardless of whether the person is friend or "foe", "ally" or not, etc. That's the only way to find the truth. Look at the evidence behind the claim or opinion.

Otherwise, you are setting yourself up for manipulation. Rewarding the liars on your team, and every team has liars, who rely on people trusting their team's leadership, statements aligned with their team's expectations, ideals, etc.

Sorry, but knowing what is really happening takes work on your part. Verifying a claim based on evidence is not something only to be practiced in science.

Given the nature of the tool, it doesn't need a hip modern web page. :-)

The important distinctions were that the issues were handled with (1) greater class and intelligence and (2) audiences reacted more positively. "Good intentions" does not outweigh bad writing.