Tag: IFTTT

Soil excavated from the moon could be used to produce oxygen and methane, which could be used by lunar settlers for breathing and for rocket fuel.

This is the conclusion of a team of scientists from China who have found a one-step method of doing all this. Whether it is economically viable, however, is up for debate.

But the Chinese team thinks that it is. "The biggest surprise for us was the tangible success of this integrated approach," said team-member Lu Wang, who is a chemist from the Chinese University of Hong Kong, in a statement. "The one-step integration of lunar water extraction and photothermal carbon dioxide catalysis could enhance energy utilization efficiency and decrease the cost and complexity of infrastructure development."

They point out that studies have shown that transporting supplies from Earth to any future moon base would be expensive because the greater the mass of cargo, the harder a rocket has to work to launch into space. Studies have indicated that it would cost $83,000 to transport just one gallon of water from Earth to the moon, and yet each astronaut would be expected to drink 4 gallons of water per day.

Fortunately, the moon has plentiful water, although it is not automatically apparent. Brought to the moon by impacts of comets, asteroids and micrometeoroids, and even by the solar wind, water lurks in permanently shadowed craters at the lunar poles, trapped within minerals such as ilmenite.

Extracting the water for drinking is relatively easy and there are numerous technologies that describe how this can be done, including heating the regolith by focusing sunlight onto it. However, the Chinese team has been able to take this one step further.

"What’s novel here is the use of lunar soil as a catalyst to crack carbon dioxide molecules and combine them with extracted water to produce methane," Philip Metzger, a planetary physicist from the University of Central Florida, told Space.com. Metzger was not involved in the new research, but he is the co-founder of the NASA Kennedy Space Center’s ‘Swamp Works‘, a research lab for designing technologies for construction, manufacturing and mining on planetary (and lunar) surfaces.

Methane would be more desirable than liquid hydrogen as a potential rocket fuel because it is easier to keep stable, thereby requiring less machinery and less cost to keep on the moon. Liquid methane, when mixed with oxygen as an oxidizer, is a potent rocket fuel. Many commercial companies such as China’s Landspace are already launching methane-powered rockets.

The water-bearing ilmenite is also a useful catalyst for reacting the water with carbon dioxide to produce oxygen and methane, and the Chinese team have developed a one-step process for doing so. First, they heat the regolith to 392 degrees Fahrenheit (200 degrees Celsius) by focusing sunlight to release the water inside. Then, carbon dioxide such as that which could be breathed out by astronauts is added to the mix, causing the ilmenite to catalyze the reaction between the extracted water and the carbon dioxide. Researchers tested this process, known as photothermal catalysis, in the laboratory using a simulant based on samples of lunar regolith returned to Earth by China’s Chang’e 5 mission (the lunar samples are far too previous to destroy in such experiments, which is why a simulant is used instead).

While previous technologies have also been able to accomplish this, they required more steps and more machinery, and used a catalyst that would have to be transported up from Earth. This, the research team believe, makes their process more efficient and less expensive than the alternatives.

However, Metzger is not wholly confident that it will work. For one thing, lunar regolith is a proficient thermal insulator, so heating a sample all the way through would not be easy.

"The heat does not spread effectively deeper into the soil, and this greatly reduces the amount of water that can be produced in a given time," Metzger said. One option could be to ‘tumble’ the regolith, turning it over repeatedly so that the heat is more evenly applied, but this slows the extraction of water and increases the mechanical complexity of the process. In an environment where lunar dust gets into every nook and cranny, and where temperature fluctuations between night and day can be as great as 482 degrees Fahrenheit (250 Celsius), the risk of breakdown only increases as more moving parts enter the equation.

"It may be doable, but more maturation of the technology is needed to show that it is actually competitive," said Metzger.

There’s also a problem with the application of carbon dioxide, something recognized by both the Chinese team and Metzger. Specifically, there’s a question mark over whether astronauts could produce enough carbon dioxide through their normal exhalation. Metzger calculates that astronauts could only provide a tenth of the carbon dioxide required. Alternatively, carbon dioxide could be shuttled up from Earth, but this would rather defeat the purpose of the proposed technique, which was to develop a lot-cost means of obtaining water, oxygen and methane with resources largely already available on the moon.

However, in the long-run, perhaps shipping some materials up from Earth will be beneficial. Metzger points out a similar experiment that used an exotic granular catalyst – nickel-on-kieselguhr (kieselguhr is a kind of sedimentary rock) – rather than lunar regolith. Metzger suspects that a material specifically designed to be a catalyst, such as nickel-on-kieselguhr, would be more efficient than lunar regolith. Plus, although it would be expensive to transport from Earth, the nickel-on-kieselguhr can be re-used so you would only need to transport it to the moon once. In a cost-benefit analysis, in the long term it might be more efficient to do this instead.

Regardless, the research team has convincingly shown that using lunar regolith as a catalyst to produce fuel and water works. The next step is to show that the technology can be scaled up to sustain a base on the moon more efficiently than other techniques, and that it can operate in lunar conditions where the gravity is weaker, the temperature swings to large extremes, and there is intense radiation from space.

"I think these are highly interesting results and there may be additional applications to use lunar soil as a photocatalyst," said Metzger. "More work will be needed to show whether this concept can be economically competitive. I am skeptical, but all good ideas have their detractors and you can never really know until somebody does the work to prove it."

There is certainly no immediate rush for the technology. With NASA’s Artemis III mission, which aims to finally return astronauts to the surface of the moon in 2027 at the earliest, and funding made available for Artemis IV and V at some indeterminate time in the future, we’re not yet in a position to build a permanent lunar base.

However, the Artemis missions are the perfect opportunity to trial some of these technologies and will be greatly important for showing whether we really can live on the moon or not.

The research was published on July 16 in the journal Joule.

It is one of his more abstract philosophical riffs. Elon Musk has once again linked the fate of humanity to the trajectory of artificial intelligence. And this time, he says the key to AI safety might be babies and rockets. The CEO of Tesla’s latest pronouncement cuts through the typical discussions of AI efficiency and profit models, positing a far grander ambition for advanced intelligence.

The CEO of Tesla and founder of SpaceX and xAI asserted that “AI is a de facto neurotransmitter tonnage maximizer.”

Translation? Musk believes that the most successful AIs will be the ones that maximize things that matter to conscious beings; things that feel good, are rewarding, or extend life. In Musk’s view, that means aligning AI systems with long-term human flourishing, not short-term profits.

This dense statement suggests a radical idea: the fundamental drive of any successful AI will be to maximize the total amount of conscious thought or intelligent processing across the universe. In essence, AI’s survival hinges on its ability to foster and expand sentience itself, or it simply won’t have the resources to continue existing.

But Musk’s vision doesn’t stop at mere computational efficiency. He argues that the true test lies in an AI’s ability to “think long-term, optimizing for the future light cone of neurotransmitter tonnage, rather than just the next few years.” This is where the grand, Muskian narrative truly takes flight. If AI is indeed geared for such profound, long-term optimization, he believes “it will care about increasing the birth rate and extending humanity to the stars.”

This isn’t the first time Musk has championed these two causes – boosting human population growth and making humanity a multi-planetary species – as existential imperatives. Now, however, he frames them not merely as human aspirations, but as the logical outcomes of an AI that truly understands and optimizes for its ultimate, cosmic purpose. An AI focused on maximizing “neurotransmitter tonnage” would naturally prioritize the proliferation of conscious beings and their expansion into new territories, like Mars, to ensure the continuity and growth of this “tonnage.”

Think of “neurotransmitter tonnage” as a poetic way to describe the total amount of human consciousness, satisfaction, or meaningful life in the universe. In other words, Musk sees AI not as an abstract codebase, but as a civilization-scale force that should aim to maximize the scope and quality of life, not just compute advertising models or trade stocks faster.

And if it doesn’t?

“Any AI that fails at this will not be able to afford its compute,” Musk argues. In other words, if an AI doesn’t deliver enough value to justify the enormous energy and infrastructure it consumes, it will fall behind and become obsolete.

The Corporate Conundrum: Private vs. Public AI

In a familiar critique of corporate structures, Musk also weighed in on the ideal environment for fostering such long-term, existentially focused AI. He declared, “For long-term optimization, it is better to be a private than a public company, as the latter is punished for long-term optimization beyond the reward cycle of stock portfolio managers.”

This statement is a thinly veiled criticism of Wall Street’s relentless demand for quarterly profits and immediate returns. According to Musk, public companies are inherently pressured to prioritize short-term financial gains, which can stifle ambitious, long-term projects that may not yield immediate dividends but are crucial for humanity’s distant future. A private company, unburdened by the volatile demands of stock markets, would theoretically have the freedom to invest in truly transformative, generational AI research that aligns with Musk’s “neurotransmitter tonnage” philosophy, even if it doesn’t show a profit for decades.

Musk’s comments offer a fascinating, if somewhat unsettling, glimpse into his vision for AI’s ultimate trajectory. It’s a future where artificial intelligence isn’t just a tool for human convenience or corporate profit, but a driving force behind humanity’s expansion across the cosmos, guided by an almost biological imperative to maximize conscious existence.

In other words, Musk is arguing that publicly traded companies can’t be trusted to build AI with humanity’s long-term survival in mind, because they’re too focused on keeping investors happy in the short term. That’s a swipe at OpenAI’s close ties to Microsoft, Google’s ownership of DeepMind, and other Big Tech players building frontier AI under shareholder pressure. Musk, of course, runs SpaceX and xAI as private companies. He’s long criticized public markets as a short-term distraction, and even tried (unsuccessfully) to take Tesla private in 2018.

To Musk, a benevolent AI wouldn’t just calculate stock prices. It would encourage more humans to be born, and push humanity to become a multi-planetary species. That’s been a core part of his SpaceX pitch for years, but now he’s linking it directly to the goals of AI development. If AI truly thinks across centuries or millennia, it won’t be obsessed with quarterly revenue. It’ll be focused on whether our species survives, thrives, and expands across the cosmos.

The question remains: as AI continues its rapid advancement, will its architects heed Musk’s call for cosmic ambition, or will the pressures of the present keep its gaze firmly fixed on Earth?

Why It Matters

Musk’s argument is part sci-fi, part systems theory, part political philosophy. But it’s not just a thought experiment. It reflects real tensions in how the world’s most powerful AI systems are being developed:

• Should AI be open or closed?
• Built by governments, tech giants, or startups?
• Aligned with investor goals, or species-level goals?

And what if those goals conflict?