Overlooked Way To Refine Lunar Regolith (Paper Review)

[@Anthrofuturism]

Link to (FREE) paper: wiki.opensourceecology.org/images/a/a9/Landis.pdf

[@ch1n3du3]

Landis truly deserves to be a lunar saint

[@crunchybones2528]

what an impoverished understanding of what a Saint is

[@aditj]

He did think through a fair bit, eh?

[@user-qf6yt3id3w]

"You have to wear protection because it is as corrosive as a succubus with syphillis" I love these little weird asides in with the futurism.

[@12pentaborane]

Isaac Arthur mixed with barely contained Chris Boden.

[@TS-jm7jm]

​​@@12pentaborane but more scientific than isaac arthur tries to be most of the time

[@shallmaddocks4690]

This factorio mod gonna be WILD

[@apricotcomputers3943]

you have unlimited video content with the endless sea of white papers 🎉

[@KingOfAllJackals]

3:11 Hey, depending on my diet I too have a gas and solid pipeline!

[@mineline5620]

The perfect christmas present! These videos the last days realy were a present. Thanks.

[@tonybron1225]

very interesting

[@mangus6191]

RAHHHHH ANOTHER POST FROM OUT GLORIOUS KING RAHHHHH

[@Anthrofuturism]

@@mangus6191 no you're the king

[@realnameverified416]

Great video!

[@Gehargen2]

One thing to consider is that calcium can be used as a dopant to make solar cells. You need two types of layers to make solar cells, not just pure silicon. Aluminium is used to make one of those (It's more common to use boron here on earth, but that's in short supply.) The other type uses phosphorous, which would be imported anyway, as it's used for plant fertilizer. In a perfect world, a kg of each dopant could make about 6000 panels of normal commercial size, but that's not going to happen. In section 2.6 of the same paper, they mention other side products that can be gotten including arsenic, gallium, and others that do similar jobs as dopants. It's possible to use those with more refining to make the cells entirely locally, replacing quality with raw scale. (Aluminium is not as good a dopant as boron, but hey, it's basically free.) Just a thing to consider. Cyclical systems are great. A technology we're developing on earth for organic and aqueous wastes is Hydrothermal liquefaction, which turns water into a reagent that rips molecules apart and provides organic feedstock materials like acids (formic acid is a common byproduct) as well as a coal-like carbon byproduct that can be burned and ashed for the metals and other compounds in there. Very neat stuff.

[@nekomakhea9440]

Since aluminum and iron are the main products, alloying them may be desirable if the ratios are controlled. According to "Brittle intermetallic compound makes ultrastrong low-density steel with large ductility" by Kim, Kim, & Kim 2015, certain iron-nickel-aluminum alloys are alleged to have strength to weight similar to titanium, and ductility similar to steel, for about 10% the cost of titanium. Without the nickel, ferroaluminum tends to be brittle but it could still be useful structurally just as cast iron was useful structurally for quite a while despite being brittle. I would imagine Lunar Industrialization would spur significant interest in researching newer and better ferroaluminum alloys.

[@realnameverified416]

Hi. I'm seeing the title of the videos in Portuguese (the language my browser is set to). I think this is something creators do, but I'm not sure? I've read it's a way to increase engagement but in my opinion only makes it harder to know what the video is about, specially if it's a technical video. The title of this video appears to me as: "Maneira negligenciada de refinar o regolito lunar (revisão de artigo)" And while not sematically wrong, it reads very weird. It took me a moment to realize what the video was about. Love your videos! Please keep making them!

[@Anthrofuturism]

@@realnameverified416 I didn't set this, totally on youtubes end

[@joehelland1635]

Gotta love the dry one liners sprinkled in 😂

[@kraKowD]

this is very cool! You gotta keep making videos!

[@resvero8342]

Could you do a video on transporting liquid oxygen to Leo to refuel spaceships?

[@tachyonmkg55414]

where did you find that Andy Morin track?

[@TheBetterNASAProject]

Interesting video, however thermal decomposition is going to be the way to go since different compounds break down at different temperatures the entire process can be fairly easily automated.

[@Anthrofuturism]

@@TheBetterNASAProject that's pyrolysis

[@jeffrey5961]

10:45 AnthroFuturism agrees with you.

[@TheBetterNASAProject]

@@jeffrey5961 thanks

[@peterallen5575]

You could use this technology to fill/refuel a bulk minerals barge powered by rockets using liquid oxygen and powdered aluminum as fuels (which is about as efficient as your average solid rocket motor; the only reason to use such an engine is because on the Moon refueling it means basically shoveling regolith into the hoppers and extracting the fuels from it as opposed to having to land at a base). This would reduce the need to move stripmined regolith along ground routes to launching sites and its refueling process greatly reduces the rocket's downtime between shipments, thus boosting launch cadence and getting more mass to orbit while also refining its cargo while enroute to orbital resource depots.

[@laurencehaccour9876]

Thank you for sharing this - your channel deserves far more views!

[@duckhunter711]

God I love your content

[@OdysseythroughtheUniverse]

Interesting. In my new video, uploaded recently, I found out that there is a thing I call "immersion blindness", that is probably things one doesn't mention because It seems clear to the creator because one has spent hours with the material. Also, there are so many things one can overlook. Please be aware that you tackle a project that is usually done by thousands of engineers so mistakes, oversights, and neglect creep in, that will also happen to you, me and even NASA engineers at the start of the Apollo program, not knowing to check rocket staging before lifting off. Keep up your good work, and have some restful days.

[@markironmonger223]

I can definitely see how this would be a likely "first start" process being that a prefabbed unit can be sent up both prior to humans and fully tested and proven. Build vacuum conditioned environment a bit bigger than a starship, build-test-repeat, and dump the product on the lunar surface for the advance crew to set up. Done properly even a small unit would just consistently be producing an ever scaling starter pack for the colony, and then acting more as a critical minimum production guarantee so the specialized mass refinement processes can be allowed to fail and be revised. The solar manufacturing injection is not just icing on the cake, it's more cake. As a starter array this would save precious energy when it's needed most. The complexity downsides shouldn't be a radical issue compared to the fold up satellites the industry has had to produce for decades due to payload and fairing constraints, and being closed loop the import restriction is merely a speed nerf. Also, great work, keep producing wonderful content!

[@manitoba-op4jx]

the joke about tablesalt in the water and it's affect is some monty python level comedy

[@kisassa]

Tablesalt? The joke is about flouride, table salt is sodium chloride.

[@rileyjohnson2973]

To separate the Aluminum and the Iron in the “solids pipeline” can we simply put an electromagnet above the conveyor or whatever is transporting it to physically separate the two materials?

[@kisassa]

Sadly, no. The two elements are mixed on an atomic level, and iron loses its magnetic properties at temperatures far below its melting point.

[@燧發槍]

NOW THAT I HAVE YOUR ATTENTION, READ THIS This is really out there, but I learned once about a proposed system to use the energy of mass coming from the moon to power Spaceflight. You would have to launch a mass from the moon and slightly decelerate it so it’s orbit aligns with a large spinning orbital tether’s, the tether would grab hold of the mass and speed its own rotation by slowing down the mass’ orbital momentum. The mass would do this multiple times until its perigee is very close to earth where another tether does the same thing until its apogee is also in low earth orbit. It can fall down to earth then. A spacecraft could then fly to the near tether and use its rotational momentum to boost it up to the higher tether that would bring its orbit equal to the moon’s. This would of course be a very inefficient and far off system, but would conserve and use otherwise wasted energy. What do you guys think?

[@Anthrofuturism]

@燧發槍 rotovator? Do you have a link to more info?

[@燧發槍]

@ no, I am very sorry, it has been some time and I don’t remember who it was, just that it was an interesting but seemingly improbable concept

[@csours]

Instructions unclear, teeth fell out

[@KingOfAllJackals]

Watching this and the sterling engine video makes me think back to the polar base video. This process needs both high energy/heat but also low temperature steps (fractional distillation). Sterling engines also need a hot cold delta. Depending on where you are in the day night cycle, one of these is relatively easier to get and the other is harder. Then in two weeks those flip. I’m wondering if… 1) a polar location that has constant access to “day” and “night” doesn’t have some additional benefits. 2) is there a potential for hot/cold batteries in the form of insulated hot and cold masses? During a day cycle heat/melt some regolith to serve as a “hot” battery and during the night super chill a different insulated mass of regolith using the abundant “cold”. There are no free lunches so neither will be 100% efficient but could they be made efficient enough. 3. Is a simple wall/berm enough to create an artificial “night”? As a thought experiment build a 100’ wall running north/south. In the lunar morning one side would be in sun and the other side would remain in “night” until local noon. After a brief switchover, the “afternoon” side of the wall would be exposed to day and the opposite side would be exposed to “night”. With an atmosphere the difference between the lit and shaded side of such a barrier is pretty minimal because of convection but would this be a usable temperature delta to drive sterling engines or at least drive industrial processes?

[@Anthrofuturism]

@@KingOfAllJackals you make a good point. I may need to revisit that location video.

[@KingOfAllJackals]

@ any sense if the physics of just having a north/south wall checks out? If you’re on the shaded side of the wall you could radiate IR with very little incoming energy…right?

[@screamingeagles2670]

I just wanted to say, I found your channel some weeks ago and since then have been binging every video you’ve put out so far. It’s nice to find other people who are as excited about industrializing the moon. Maybe not a topic for a super long video but would be good for a short, I was wondering what system will be used to keep track of time on the moon. What I mean is what time will the clocks of lunar machines be synchronized too? Will moon colonists use Earth time? If so then what ECT? What clock is best used for the moon. Not a trivial question when you consider that our automated lunar heavy machinery will need to adhere to a schedule of some kind.

[@Anthrofuturism]

@@screamingeagles2670 great question. I think earth time will be grandfathered in but you're right tracking it might be a bit harder. I think it'll rely on whatever system we use for location as well which is a pretty hard question since there's no lunar stationary orbit

[@Brainchild110]

GMT. Because it's zero, and therefore "Earth time". ...but actually probably whatever time NASA uses for their space systems.

[@Brainchild110]

OK, I've been thinking about this. And i can see it working safely under only a few specific circumstances. 1. The refinery is built in its entirety on earth in a unit that fits in Starships (multiple) and can be shipped to the moon. 2. It be fully automated to run, and built to be maintained by remote vehicles. Humans cannot go near this thing if its running pure flourine. 3. The flourine sections must be one single shipment piece as it will need specialist, high integrity welds throughout. No flanges. 4. NO FLANGES!!! Welds only (thermite?). 5. The things be built miles away from any settlement. Probably therefore it would need its own power sources. 6. Imports and exports be via pipeline or rail, also automated. 7. With all the above, it would best be one of the first things shipped to the surface, or amoungst the first BIG shipments of heavy equipment, so you could get the most out of its efficiency. And it can be operated from earth instead of using expensive moon manpower. But in all likelihood, this would not be built as flourine is so dangerous, and even testing the design on Earth would be seen as a hugely expensive and risky venture.

[@Marc83Aus]

So much electrolysis. It seems what we really need to advance lunar industrialization is to maximise electricity production. Some pipeline for producing solar cells using lunar materials perhaps.

[@Akuma.73]

What if there is a way to construct and deconstruct any matter with precise frequencies? Manipulating spacetime but that is yet to be achieved. Maybe you could do it with the right combination of atoms interacting with each other. It will be a complex process but if understood completely would be possible to do. These methods will be the ultimate solutions to managing our resources. APM - atomically precise manufacturing.

[@Brainchild110]

Also, Fluorine is an incredibly dangerous substance to work with. So any accidents wouldn't be small involving this setup.

[@nextrobo7964]

Im just gonna trust you (stranger on the Internet) and likr your comment

[@rexmann1984]

That's what I'm screaming! Good God man, I want to go home to my kids at night.

[@Boydar]

As is oxygen and hydrogen, because we are talking about modern and safe space applications and not some contemporary chemist in their lab

[@rexmann1984]

@@Boydar no, not even on the same level. Fluorine reacts with basically everything. Usually violently. Breathing in a non-lethal dose of hydrogen would most definitely be lethal if it was fluorine.

[@andriinaum1411]

How dangerous would it be when people are in spacesuits? It’s basically the best possible chem-protection suit

[@linguine490]

RFK reference

[@40watt53]

literally factorio

[@Roxor128]

Probably has more in common with mods like Nullius than the base game, though.

[@Scrogan]

What the hell kind of anode do you need to use to not corrode when making fluorine? Are there any electrically conductive fluorides?

[@AndreasPeters-r3e]

I once knew, but I forgot... The key however is passivation. Sometimes, material reaction with others still don´t corrode each other, when their reaction is limited to their surface. That´s called passivation. Copper roofs are a famous example. When they turn green, that is Copper oxide (similar to rust´on steel). I then stops, because the copper oxide cannot be further oxidised by air and rain and these roofs hold for centuries.

[@Scrogan]

@ yeah there definitely needs to be a layer on the outside that just can’t be oxidised, but the anode needs to be electrically conductive. Indium tin oxide is conductive, and so is lead oxide I believe, but these oxides would still be oxidised by fluorine. You need a conductive fluoride.

[@olawlor]

Industrially they seem to use graphite, even though it slowly wears it's cheap enough to just add more. There's a 1941 MIT Bachelor's Thesis that looked at various fluoride melts and anodes, and found with a KF - HF low temperature mix, a nickel anode worked. At the higher temp of KF -NaF molten salt a nickel anode was attacked. The 1886 Moissan synthesis of fluorine used a platinum anode, but this did wear substantially.

[@Scrogan]

@ oh neat. I can’t really imagine what a KF/HF mix would look like, since I figured HF would be a gas that would just evaporate out of molten KF. Constantly needing graphite would be a problem on the moon, but maybe glassy carbon would work, or boron-doped-diamond. I’d quite like to have some really inert anodes for chlorine chemistry, but man they’re expensive.

[@waywardgeologist2520]

The calcium and magnesium oxides can be targeted towards Venus.

[@Ian-l5j]

this makes me hungry for toothpaste

[@leggysoft]

Funnily the F put in water comes from the waste F from Aluminum production, Alcoa has killed many cows from dumping it illegally in rivers because they're more sensitive to it than humans. Fluorine cycle is really high maintenance - Is nickel common on the moon? It's critical for F resistant alloys.

[@rexmann1984]

I'd go to the moon for free. But, you couldn't pay me enough to work with fluorine. It's so finicky and lethal. Just not worth it

[@technokicksyourass]

Yeah, this is one of those ideas that looks great on paper, but the safety and redundancy that would be needed to work with it would make it way too expensive. Not to mention all the weird side reactions you would get from such a reactive element.

[@zvorenergy]

100%

[@seditt5146]

I say we set a nuke off inside a crater to glass the surface into a sphere then vaporize Aluminum, so it settles down on the surface. Its already a vacuum so the plating can likely go rather smoothly and we could get a huge thermal mirror easily. Sure thats back of the napkin type stuff but I dont think its as terrible idea as it sounds. I am sure the logistics could be worked out. Nuking an area to glass it likely isnt as bad as it sounds and could potentially make landing areas and other needed platforms easier than expected. Radiation is not nearly as problematic as here on earth. IDK, How craft you think this idea is?

[@bigdiccmarty9335]

Oh no, the irradiated crater stricken wasteland just became a slightly more irradiated, crater stricken wasteland

[@mennol3885]

As long as the particles don't reach escape velocity. There is no air to create a natural boundary where the explosive pressure is balanced and a mushroom cloud forms. So the outward motion just keeps on going, until the solar wind gets hold of the particles.

[@kisassa]

I doubt nuking a crater would get you an evenly round enough end result to use it as a solar collector. But Im no physicist, so I might be wrong. Though if we are committed to sending fissile material to the moon, cant we just send a small reactor?

[@coalnel]

One problem I see all the time in this kinda stuff (from a guy who doesn’t do engineering or chemistry) is the fault proofing process. Building each system is problematic but fixing each system is even more problematic. What happens when one chemical gets into the part of another system? Well to compensate you’d create some kind of filter (requiring more complexity) between each system. Okay so you start designing a filter and you realize it needs to be replaceable, so you need more engineering to make a device that is just able to remove and slot in a new filter. There are a ton of things like this and the problem with a super complex system like this is it’s scalability. Each of these systems must be built to unique specifications (can’t put the iron/aluminum in the fluoride electrolysis). So that means that all of the parts need to be custom which is a nightmare. It’s also not prevalent enough yet to justify a factory that produces each of these parts yet. We might need to exclude some solids from the recycling process in order to simplify the design. Once we’re done with it just leave it in a massive pile, it’ll be useful later. Liquid and gas storage is a bit more complicated tho.

[@Anthrofuturism]

@@coalnel yeah it's definitely on the level of complexity as a bowl of spaghetti lol

[@mouserr]

i was listening and enjoying the content right up till you decided gross humor was the way to go, welcome to the do not recommend list for being trash

[@S-T-A-R-M-A-N]

Hi, I was watching your video "Probably Not the Poles" and found it quite informative, but you mentioned, specifically at minute 5:58, that using water from the poles for rocket fuel is wasteful, could you clarify that point? because I really agree on the fact that we could supply quite well the demand for drinking water on the moon just by sending it from the earth without having to depend on the water from the poles, but then, we could take advantage of that same lunar water for Hydrolox rockets, which, to be honest, is the best way to use it (despite the fact that it is not reusable), I did the calculations, and a 15 dry ton ship with 10 tons of payload could have up to 3700 m/s of Delta-V (enough to enter and leave lunar orbit) using only 32 tons of Hydrolox (Or failing that, 32 tons of water, considering the Hydrolox mixture ratio of 6:1), and in fact, this fuel is probably the best candidate for frequent flights to go and return to the moon, Methalox is impossible to refine on the moon (Since there is no carbon in it), other propellants such as MMH+N²O⁴ are extremely corrosive and do not suitable for continuous reuse and Kerolox is a bit of the same, therefore, the only (and best) way to operate lunar rockets is with Hydrolox, so we can take advantage of Shackleton or its surroundings for this purpose, at least for the short and medium term.

[@Anthrofuturism]

@@S-T-A-R-M-A-N we can use metal powder fuels :) there's other options too but water on the moon is worth a lot.

[@S-T-A-R-M-A-N]

@@Anthrofuturism Could you elaborate further? If you can't at the moment, could you offer me sources so I can corroborate? I'd like to better understand your point, since hydrolox itself is the most energetic chemical fuel of all, with little fuel you already have enough Delta-V, and I doubt that the process of electrolyzing regolith is as complex as using metal powders, but I'd like to hear from you, I'd appreciate it.

[@Anthrofuturism]

@S-T-A-R-M-A-N www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0094576524003448?via%3Dihub

[@S-T-A-R-M-A-N]

@@Anthrofuturism Thanks a lot! I really see potential in using metals for fuel, unfortunately I can’t find any engines that have been tested that use this type of fuel, and I made some quick equations of the estimates, I put a dry mass ship of 30 tons (Structure, tank, etc.) with a payload of another 20 tons, to reach a Delta-V margin of 3700 m/s (enough to enter and leave lunar orbit plus a safety margin) would require a minimum of 170 tons of this hypothetical propellant, but without much more information (like density, TWR and mix ratio) I can’t have a concrete perspective for this, anyway, I think that Hydrolox engines are already quite mature technology, and in the short and medium term they could be our best option, and then we can move on to metal powder engines, even so, I think you should talk in depth about this topic in a video, and if you have already done so, I would appreciate it if you could tell me which one, thanks a lot!

[@Anthrofuturism]

@S-T-A-R-M-A-N yes short term hydrolox makes sense but setting up an Insitu fuel economy as scale should go for metal powder fuels.