It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

SCI/TECH: Developing the Oxygen Source for the Moon Base

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2005 @ 10:00 AM
link   
Having a ready supply of oxygen on the Moon is obviously a pre-requisite for permanent bases there. Ferrying such supply from Earth is not economical, especially if Moon bases themselves are to become a resupply bases for expeditions into deeper space. Now, the race is on to develop a method to extract O2 from the moon rocks.
 



www.cnn.com
(CNN) -- NASA has offered a $250,000 prize to any scientist who discovers a way of extracting breathable oxygen from moondust.

The competition is the latest in NASA's "Centennial Challenges" series, which aims to stimulate the development of technologies useful to space exploration.

To claim the MoonROx prize, scientists must develop and demonstrate hardware capable of extracting at least five kilograms of breathable oxygen from a simulated lunar soil made from volcanic ash in an eight-hour period.

MoonROx stands for Moon Regolith Oxygen -- regolith being the loose layer of rocks and debris covering the surface of a planet or moon.




Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


I wouldn't bet it's doable, but if anything close to the requirements is developed, that would indeed be a huge step forward, in Moon exploration.

[edit on 25-5-2005 by Aelita]

[edit on 25-5-2005 by Aelita]




posted on May, 25 2005 @ 10:27 AM
link   
I think we can all agree on two things here --

1) This is a cool contest.

2) The headline to this story is grievously misleading.

Zip



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 10:40 AM
link   
Nasa Is getting off cheap, It seems the tech would be priceless.



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 10:47 AM
link   
This was my feeling as well. The tech is priceless even for the Moon application, and in addition probably can be used on small asteroids, thus making traveling in the solar system easier.



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 10:48 AM
link   
$250,000, that is cheap, unless you can keep all of the rights and patents to the process. In that case, $250,000 would be a nice little bonus until the real money started coming in.

I'm glad to see that contests like this are happening.



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 10:55 AM
link   
A question that come to mind is that what's the real motive behind this contest...

Also, would it be possible to create a greenhouse instead...?



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 11:00 AM
link   
I should imagine research costs into such technology would exceed 250,000 anyway, so if you did invent such a thing, you'd be better off selling to the highest bidder. Considering how much cash NASA wastes, 250 grand is an insult. Lazy, cheap bastards, you can invent it your-damn-selves if that's all your gonna offer.



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 11:08 AM
link   
Well individual prizes for the Methusela Mouse prize is much less and yet Scientists continually work towards it, and most of the winners put their prize money back into the pot. 250,000 is more then enough as with prizes like these, the competitors will usually spend anywhere from 3 times to 5 times the amount of the prize just for the Noteriety of having thier name as the inventor of this device. Burt Rutan won the X-Prize and he's set to start a whole new industry with his patented technology. Prizes are only a way to spark innovation, the amount is really meaningless except to cover some of the costs of development. No one knows how much SS1 cost but IMO it cost more then 3 times the 10 mil pot.



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 11:27 AM
link   
I think that offering a prize in a contest like this is more a way to get NASA in the news more in a positive light than anything else.

I personally think as it has been stated here it would cost more to develop this than the reward. But the bragging rights to the person who invented it would be huge and it would help them in getting future grants I am sure.

One thing I was confused by in the article was the mention that robots needed oxygen also -- is there someone on here that can explain why that would be?



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 11:37 AM
link   


One thing I was confused by in the article was the mention that robots needed oxygen also -- is there someone on here that can explain why that would be?


Only thing I can think of is that they may require to use combustion from time to time, but that doesn't really make any sense
I'm clueless as well about that one as a 'Bot would most likely use Solar Power or Nuclear Power. Maybe..maybe ... nope lost it. Hope someone can fill us in on this requirement.



posted on May, 25 2005 @ 12:21 PM
link   
I don't think they meant robots per se, but rather "new approaches" to both human and robotic missions. Vague enough to be true



posted on May, 27 2005 @ 12:15 AM
link   
I would just like to point out that there are several methods that would work today to get air from the moons soil. All of you seem to think this has to be invented.


Basically Nasa wants a more efficient method. Hence the specified goal "Extract at least 5 kilograms of oxygen within eight hours".



posted on May, 27 2005 @ 12:40 AM
link   
i will agree it is indeed a measly sum to offer.
the idea behind it though is a sound one. the same thing drove the aircrat industry in the 20' and 30's. i seriously doubt that without all the differant rewards for flying to spacific destinations , that aircraft would not have advanced quite so fast.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join