How is it called for? It was a perfectly reasonable review of the actual technical issues raised and the solutions.

Also, why did you respond to only that part of the comment? The onus is on you at this point to explain what challenges remain for dealing with the lunar dust (in the context of the habitat interior, since dealing with it outside the habitat is another discussion) that I have not covered. Do you actually disagree with each item about the toxicity, the eletrostatic charge, etc.? If so, why? If not, then what other issues do you see with the dust that makes it somehow more challenging to deal with than other similar dust on Earth?

Just insulting people isn't an argument. This is meant to be a nerd site, we should be able to do better than that.

I think that iggymanz was referring to how easy charged dust is to attract out of a stream of air. Of course, the reality is that, other than the magnetic stuff, the electrostatic charges will disappear inside. Although, I did suggest that you could use lasers, microaves, etc. to charge them inside a confined area in the vents so that you could then attract them. So that might still be workable. Regarding ULPA 17 filters, those might be nice, but workers on Earth who deal with that kind of dust usually only get HEPA filters or worse.

Charges that will go away very quickly in a pressurized airlock and almost instantly in soapy water. There isn't anything really special about this dust. It's "fresh" in the sense that it's unweathered, but plenty of processes on Earth produce unweathered dust of similar kinds. Anything that involves cutting, drilling, cracking rock, for example. It still gets managed. The other thing is the electrostatic charge from exposure to solar wind and high energy rays as well as some radiation of cosmic origin. That has the result of producing some dangerous radical chemicals as well as electrostatic charges. The chemicals aren't called radicals for no reason though. They are super unstable and will react with almost anything, or just spontaneously decay. The charges aren't any different than electrostatic charges on Earth. It is just like building up static by rubbing your feet on the carpet, which you may have noticed works better on dry days than humid ones. It will discharge in air, and the smaller the object, the faster it will discharge. If humid air makes it discharge faster, what do you think inundation in water does? You can certainly wash it off.

Who said it needed to be a simple filter? Depending on whether you mean filtering from the air or water, there are methods for filtering like centrifugal filtering, filtering through water when it isn't already in water, (where you can let the particles flocculate and settle, or use chemical methods to make them precipitate out, or possibly float and skim them, etc.). You can use lasers or microwaves to remove them from the air and possibly water, or, charge them up and then attract them to something charged. Remember how a laser printer works? Attract charged particles to electrostatically charged paper, then heat it to fuse them to the paper. There's all sorts of methods that will work. Also, this is just off the top of my head. Since plenty of working environments have dust basically just like this (or at least like this dust will be very shortly after exposure to an atmosphere), the solutions used in those jobs should work just fine.

Regarding "No. That is amateur-level thinking. It will not work for the Moon.": this reminds me a bit of the whole dot.com boom and all of the "... on the Internet" patents when they started allowing what were basically business method patents. Here, it's "... in space." Every known thing is different because "... in space." People discussing something ignore all the real challenges for relatively mundane things that we more or less know how to deal with because "... in space". On Earth, 1G is standard and all plain old civil engineers understand how to work with it. For some reason, every discussion on spinning habitats has some one calling everyone else nutters because they just don't realize the "incredible forces" (i.e. 1G) that the engineers have to contend with. There are real engineering problems in making a spinning habitat, but the forces involved are actually the mundane thing that we already know how to work with but because, "... in space" it's somehow such a huge unknown challenge. You even regularly get people interjecting "how do you even know they have the same elements there. You're just making assumptions" because, you know "... in space". Then you have to go on and on about astrophysics, the periodic table, what elements are, protons, neutrons, electrons, valence electrons, electron shells, s,p,d,f configurations, lanthanides and actiniedes, strong, weak, electromagnetic and gravitational forces, astrophysics, nuclear physics, mass spectrometry, red shift, baryonic matter, non-baryonic matter, etc. You also have to wonder why, since they seem to have skipped high school science, they are acting so smug about their stunning revelations.

So, basically, this is dust on the moon. It's "... in space",but it's really just specialty dust. It's just like Earth dust found after certain minerals are crushed, just preserved in a vacuum and directly exposed to the sun. That last part is the "... in space" part. I have explained though, how the poisonous substances (just the "... in space" ones, since obviously regular old crushed rock dust on Earth contains toxins too) fade quickly and can be removed anyway, how the elecrostatic stickiness fades quickly and doesn't hold up to air or water. So, you can dispute those items if you want but, beyond that, what else is there about this "... in space" dust that can't be handled pretty much the way it is on Earth.

Sure, the Apollo astronauts complained about the gunpowder small of the rocks and the irritation it caused. I've smelled that from broken rocks and gotten irritation from rock dust. I know what they are talking about. However, the Apollo astronauts didn't have airlocks in their landers. They just depressurized the whole thing, went outside, went back in, repressurized, then took of their suits. Most of the missions, they didn't even take off the suits, they just kept them on in there and took of helmets and gloves. That meant that they were in there with all the dust from the suit that they could not remove before coming in. It was a primitive, space restricted setup. We're talking about a situation where the suit is an outer covering to which exposure is minimized. With some systems for getting out of the suit (where the back of the suit fits to an airlock and you climb out of the back) the astronaut doesn't even need to be exposed to the outside of the suit at all. Even without that extreme, plenty of jobs with protective gear have robing/disrobing processes that minimize the wearer's exposure to contaminants on the exterior. It's not particularly special because "... in space" but let me know if you do think of any more.

Work has been done on using electron beams to do it. That may be a solution for outside. The context was that the dust would slowing kill the astronauts though, so this means inside, where soap and water will work. Water dissipates electrostatic charges. Even air does, over time, but water speeds it up. Most people have probably noticed that static buildup tends to be much worse in dry air than humid air.

Unnecessarily rude. Also, maybe a little humility might be in order when you are coming up with nonsense obstacles that don't hold up to the slightest scrutiny. Also, what's with the "figures"? How does it figure? Is that a direct personal attack on me? Or otherwise, what is it in regards to other than the material details of my post?

With soap and water? Of course you can. What physical properties do you think this dust has that prevents washing most of it off with soap and water? If we're talking moon dust, the particularly chemically toxic part is generally hydroxyl radicals which are effectively water soluble (not exactly in the traditional sense, but they will definitely come away in water), highly reactive to most kinds of soap, and have very short chemical half lives (meaning that just the time spent for showering it off would destroy most of it even without the showering part). As for it being fine and weathered, any freshly cut stone will produce plenty of dust like that, but equipment and clothing in mines and quarries, etc. is somehow not unmanageable and can be washed off. If you're worried about the electrostatic charges, those would naturally dissipate in an atmosphere anyway through corona discharge. Consider balloons, or styrofoam peanuts. You charge them up and stick them to something and they definitely stick, but go away for a while and come back and they're on the floor. Same applies to the dust, except of course that, the smaller the object is, the faster it is going to lose charge to the environment. The dust should lose charge in the airlock very fast in fact, even without the water and surfactant, but that should accelerate it even more.

That leaves particles that have worked their way into surfaces, etc. Those certainly may not wash off because they are stuck there. Of course, if they are, that also means they won't easily become airborne, which is the whole problem in the first place as far as the health of the astronauts go since your stated concern is that it will "slowly kill people". So, if the whole process is:
Enter outer airlock door. Close outer airlock door. Pressurize. Shower off. Blow dry. Open inner airlock door. Pass through door (and possibly a dust curtain), entering suit storage room. Remove suit (a process in itself, one that can be optimized to avoid any leftover dust getting on the astronaut). Hang up suit in a cubby (potentially sealed and with additional cleaning/air filtering). Leave suit room (which potentially has its own isolated atmosphere that it runs through filtration to remove any dust that does get into the air). At that point, potentially take off inner suit and put that in sealed laundry hamper to be washed. At that point, the amount of dust on the astronaut or in the air should be miniscule, and that air is constantly being filtered and recirculated also. At that point, you have no problem whatsoever with dust slowing killing people or at least the potential risk is lower than to the majority of tradespeople who deal with toxic dust all the time.

It doesn't solve the other problem of the moon dust of course, which is wear on the equipment. But that just means maintenance is required, which is true of any survival critical gear. That means, inspections, protective coatings which are repeatedly re-applied, replaced seals and other parts, and possibly making as much of the exterior of the suit out of something less permeable than fabric. Also, probably, a shorter lifetime for the equipment, or at least parts of it. This isn't even rocket science. Plenty of work done in challenging environments on Earth requires similar solutions.

I am curious why you think that washing the dust off with soap and water before you come inside is such a stupid idea. What challenges are you seeing to that working?

Costs went down, yes, but they're still three orders of magnitude higher than Musk claimed they would be. That's one of the reasons people think of Musk as a snake oil salesman.

While I don't have any confidence in Musk at this point to think it would be considered, it's not really that hard to do. You either wash it off before you come inside from the airlock, or you don't bring the suit inside and leave the dust on it. Washing it off can be a simple matter of showering off with soapy water in the airlock once it is pressurized (the shower system and tank, etc. can be self contained inside he airlock). The water gets sucked up from under the grate at the bottom, the dust is filtered, the perchlorates, etc. are removed, and the water goes back into the tank for re-use. The trap for the particulates, etc. could be emptied out every time someone leaves through the airlock.

Nice selective editing and ignoring of what I was saying.

Nice selective editing and ignoring of what I was saying. Oh and, in addition, accusing me of what you are doing.

You do realize how utterly ridiculous and deranged people look when they make up a fake mental conditions to ascribe to those they are in a disagreement with, right?

Ugh. Is it poor memory, or issues with reading your own previous posts? I hate having to do this but I will do your remembering for you. You wrote:

So I have been asking you how the availability of a car could possibly make travel unavailable to anyone? Consider basic set theory Set Y is the set of all travel opportunities that are available to people without available cars. Set X is the set of all travel opportunities that are available to people with cars. Why is set X not a subset of set Y? This is what I keep asking you to clarify and you won't. In theory, it should have been simple to respond, but instead you

Maybe you meant something other than my interpretation, but you didn't answer my direct question asking or clarification. With you it's all made up mental conditions, claims that the other person is incapable of independent thought, etc., etc. You refuse to have a reasonable discussion about this.

I have read it, and I've quoted it. If there is some difference in our understanding of what you wrote, why perpetuate this silly back and forth instead of just clarifying?

I think I am done pretending that you aren't intentionally misrepresenting what people say. You know full well that I was talking about the ward in the borough you're in "on the zone2/3 border" where the " local council took action" of some unspecified kind so that "more and more people are doing the school run on a bike.". I am guessing maybe Hackney? With just about the lowest levels of car ownership in the entire country? So, yeah, that''s why I am saying that you live in what is effectively a small community. One where things are different from most other places.

It's a pretty straightforward concept. Here's an example. Let's say we define an area as "walkable" when you can walk across it in 15 minutes. You have a bunch of cells for which each is "walkable" in approximately ten minutes (at a standard walking pace), with none going over 12 or under 7. Those cells are arranged into a greater area that is 10 cells across. So, to cross that area, you have to cross 10 cells with an average walk time of 100 minutes with a minimum of 70 minutes, and a maximum of 120 minutes. That means that the property of "walkable" does not transfer to the larger area from the smaller ones making it up. Pretty simple, right? Also, don't try to claim that I am saying this is a model of London or that the definition given for "walkable" given is an official one. It is a generic model, intended to illustrate the concept. The concept does apply to London, however. It can contain many walkable cells, but not itself be walkable.

Sorry, was that a parody of some crazy gym bro?

Seriously, you have no idea of how old the poster you replied to was, or what health conditions they have, or even what kind of terrain that 5 km might be. My sister was talking about that last night. She a strong cyclist. She is also, of course, a woman and middle aged. So, she was riding and they were pretty far in the ride and the guy in front tells her smugly that it's her turn to pull, "it's only fair". It's not about fairness of course, it's about rubbing his superiority in her face. Of course this guy is twenty to thirty years younger, about 50% bigger and has the extra muscle advantage of being male. In terms of Wattage produced by unit weight, she would crush him, even with the age gap, but he clearly buys into all that "fatigue is your mind lying to you" crap. Are you that guy?

Got it, I disagree with you (although, you can't explain how, because you have not once restated my actual position instead of your own strawman version of my position), therefore I must be mentally deranged.

You don't clarify what "that" which is expected since you don't seem to understand my position or what I disagree with. I have explained myself over and over and I think I have demonstrated that I have a pretty good handle on your position (and where I need clarification, I have asked for it, but you don't seem to take such requests well for the most part), but you don't have a good handle on mine. Perhaps you should try my approach, which is to ask a series of clarifying questions of the other person to try to get a concrete idea of everyone's position.

I am talking about the paragraph I replied to, which echoes a sentiment found elsewhere in the thread.

I didn't say you said it. I said, satirically, that I thought that was what you were saying because you gave a non-answer to fluffernutter's question. This is what happens when your argument consists of a non-answer. The onus was on you to explain how your advocated car-free lifestyle would meet his needs and you effectively refused to explain.

It's not a funny think at all. Physical activity is important for recovery. Taxis and things would get expensive pretty fast. Here's the thing that confuses me though. Having gone through a multi-year medical crisis and recovery myself, I am aware of how many different visits to hospitals, clinics of various kind, etc. are involved. Your 80 year old relative presumably needed that for broken hips and follow up visits, etc. Are all of those resources within walking distance of where they live and, if they weren't, how did they get there?

Seems a bit sad. I've always thought that, of all the places I knew in the English speaking world, the US was the worst about letting employees actually take their allotted days for vacation, personal time, etc. or just take a few hours to help out a relative. I mean, I know you're in London, and that's a bit different than the rest of England or the UK in general, but has it really gotten so bad there? Or is like a "rugged individualist" family philosophy or something?

You keep saying these things, but they aren't really relevant to what I have actually been saying. I am pretty sure (I mean, the "car-brained" insults and so forth pretty much clinch it) that the slightest hint of disagreement regarding automatically slots people into some category in your mind where you apply all sorts of stereotypes and biases to them. Which means you're not even arguing with me, you're arguing with a straw man you've built up in your mind. How about actually engaging with me based on what I am actually saying?

Right, but you didn't address the case A vs. case B. You have implied that, somehow, he would have less options with a car available than without, which I find odd. The point of the exercise was for you to demonstrate how his options were limited by a car being available.

The fact that you simply tried to DARVO the observation rather than simply addressing it and affirming that you aren't ableist. It's not really a good look.

When people use the claim that someone is playing the X card - where X represents some concept like racism, sexism, ableism, agism, etc.) - it is usually quite widely recognized that the person making the claim comes off sounding like someone who actually represents X. I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt on that. Sometimes people just use awkward phrasing, etc. that comes out wrong. Doubling down, trying to flip it into a ridiculous accusation against me, and trying to alter what I said so that I was claiming something other than the use of language was ableist does not improve the impression.

I was safe behind the wheel. Sitting was fine. I wasn't blacking out or anything so there was no danger of that. Vomiting while driving wasn't a problem either, I would just keep driving until I could pull over safely. Most of the time, I didn't even vomit up anything. My body would keep trying for ages though which is very uncomfortable. Ditto for the lungs. Or any of the other issues. Nothing about it ever left me instantly incapacitated, at least not as far as controlling my arms, eyes, hands and feet. Carrying my whole body around was another question of course. I asked my doctors about it, and they asked questions about my condition and gave me the OK to drive. You can try pull an "AHA!" over it and demonize me, but the simple fact is I was responsible and safe.

Yes, that is about what I assumed you thought about those who disagree with you on this. Essentially taking a solipsistic view that they are just p-zombies. I have actually been trying to discuss this, but you just won't seem to actually consider anything anyone else has to say and you keep warping what they're saying to fit some narrative in your head so you can just slot them in as some generic villain. It's clear you're maybe just a bit fanatical about this. All I was doing at the start of this was providing a counterpoint to show that a statistical correlation doesn't make an absolute rule, and also that perhaps your model was a little limited. Now I am apparently a mindless non-person. Sigh.

That wasn't my claim at all. I'm not going to just repeat myself over and over. Go back in the thread and read what I actually said.

It's one that you effectively made up. I should assume accidental misinterpretation rather than intentional disinformation, but you're the one who needs to correct your understanding of what I actually wrote.

In the words of Pauli: "That is not only not right, it is not even wrong!" (I mean, I think he said it in German, originally). That's a very weird inversion of what I was saying. Something that normal logic could not come up with. You're somehow conflating the potential availability of a ride in a car with someone somehow being forced not to walk. It doesn't make the remotest bit of sense.

Stop telling me what I supposedly am. I could not care less about cars except in a pragmatic sense where they are functional system. Also, you are apparently misunderstanding what I said about you recommending that fluffernutter become an ascetic. In response to fluffernutter how they were supposed to shop, travel to the pool for competitive swim classes, get to music class, etc. in the available time, you gave no real answer. So, I commented that it appeared that you wanted fluffernutter to just give all that stuff up to be able to go car free.

No, I didn't say that at all. I said that you were advising fluffernutter to be one. Also, did you not recognize that as a satirical take.

As an aside, why would not liking alcohol make me any more of an ascetic than not liking Brussels sprouts? For that matter a heck of a lot of religious ascetics seem to brew and consume their own alcohol despite otherwise not having worldly possessions, sleeping on a slab and living a rigid lifestyle empty of leisure activities.

Well, my 80 year old mother and 79 year old father drive themselves. If your 80 year old relative doesn't then they can use some sort of rideshare/car service/taxi/shuttle bus to get around, but what I imagine they probably wish is that their younger relative had a car so that they can drive them places. If they're that sick, they certainly aren't walking or biking to the store for their groceries and loading up and lugging them back home. For that matter, why don't you tell me, what does your 80 year old relative do? I realize the relative might be hypothetical, but if not, then just tell me what they can hypothetically do in case A where there is a car available, and case B where there isn't. Is there any actual difference?

Also, on another note, talking about a supposed "'what about the disabled' card" is coming off as kind of ableist. Maybe you don't mean it that way, but it's pretty callously dismissive. Here's a related personal anecdote from when I was disabled. I was visiting the hospital (scheduled visit, not one of the emergency ones) and had to drive a considerable distance to get there because they were the only hospital who could treat me. Anyway, I parked in the parking garage and started walking to my appointment. Anyway, I made it a point to walk as much as possible at that time to try to get whatever exercise I could. I took the stairs instead of the elevator, etc. All of it was really slow with the severe anemia, nausea, atelectasis, etc., but it was important to do it. However, when I got to the lobby of the parking garage where the ticket machines and counter were, I had to make a detour to grab a plastic garbage bin so I could spend about ten minutes vomiting over and over into it. A nurse passing by stopped to help and then a police officer. Once I recovered enough, the officer gave me a ride the rest of the way across the hospital campus to the door closest to my appointment. I wanted to walk, but without the drive, I might have had to wait another ten minutes or so to recover before I can do it.

Now, at present, I am able bodied and I truly hope I will stay that way. After a lifetime of not paying much attention (although I never would have been as dismissive as you seem to be) to the struggles of the sick and elderly slowly shambling from place to place, I got to have that experience myself. I didn't have it as bad as some, but I got a clear understanding. You get to truly appreciate the mobility and other capabilities you used to have and understand how difficult it can be not to have those. It also gives me a perspective on your philosophy on "car dependence" and how, while it might be great for you (now), it is definitely somewhat exclusionary.

Sorry if I was unclear by using the word "isolated", that has connotations that I wasn't aiming for. I am drawing a blank for the best word. Calling them cells, or bubbles might be a better way to put it. The point is that, while within a larger city, they are really their own separate community. In short, you claim that you're talking about London, but the majority of London is not walkable, it's more like you have a bunch of villages packed together that are walkable. It's not a property that automatically transfers to the sum of the parts.

You missed explaining how I'm wrong. In other words, how are these people _more capable_ of travel without cars than with them?

I understand that completely. Repeating the claim that I don't doesn't make it true. If you were able to follow my rural living example at all, you should already know that I know that a place that is "car dependent" means a place where you are dependent on a car. I mean, basic English grammar alone gets me that.

Statistically, the average human is dead and has an age in the hundreds of thousands of years. What's your point? I never said anything about the statistics. My original post where I said "In my experience, this is far from true in many cases." does not actually disagree with that statement. Lets not get into some loop where I keep on restating what I wrote in my previous posts over and over again. I've had enough of that recently. There's no point in anyone disagreeing if what they're disagreeing with isn't what the other person is saying.