Okay. Here we go.


Carbon dioxide removal could be done by an EDC (Electrochemical Depolarisation Concentrator) which then takes the gaseous hydrogen/carbon dioxide mixture to a reactor. In this reaction, which is the first reaction in the Bosch process, carbon dioxide and hydrogen get turned into carbon monoxide and water. The water then gets sent to an electrolysis chamber for splitting into hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen can then be recycled and the oxygen be used again. The problem is that carbon monoxide is currently venting out. That takes oxygen with it. So, to make up for it, ilmenite reduction can produce roughly 10.5% oxygen out of 100% ilmenite through a simple 2-step process of heating the ilmenite to 600 degrees Celsius to evaporate the volatiles and then heating it to 900 degrees Celsius to release the oxygen. This could be automated by small rovers or by an astronaut. Later on, if the Bosch reactor's design has improved, another reaction can take place with the carbon monoxide to form particulate carbon and oxygen. You'd have a 100% closed-loop oxygen system then, but the problem is that the reaction is slow, and the carbon clogs up the catylists. Please tell me what you think so far, and don't be too critical. Believe it or not, I truly am only 13, but since I don't have much of a social life, this is what I study a lot.
__________________
Wow! Finally, a qualified Administrator of NASA! Michael Griffin has my support!

That's a pretty good idea. My idea was to seperate the CO2 by cooling the air (hence solidifing the CO2) remove gaseuos and liquid air with a pump, reheat the chamber and remove the CO2 with a pump, then burn magnesium in it. After that the MgO is placed in HCL which yeilds H2O and MgCl2. The the H20 is electrolosised and the MgCl is placed in a daniel cell. The Resulting componetes are remixed to yeild, Mg, O2 and HCl all this process would rewuire is energy and a bit of room. The carbon can be harvested to make repair parts. thsi sort of life support system would require quite a few cubic feet to operate well, maybe the size of a small car. If your process can work in a smaller space, that would be very beneficial.
__________________
What is mind? No matter. What is matter? never mind

Actually, that process that I described shouldn't take up too much space. The EDCs can be built into the modules, along with the hydrogen tanks. The electrolysis chamber and the CO2/H2 to CO/H2O reactor for the Bosch process would be in a separate module. In fact, to be specific, it would be in a module I was thinking of that would be just for life support so that it would be very simple to hook up to the rest of the base, and it would be easy to fix if something shut down. Depending on the volume of the module and the volume of the life support equipment, there may be even extra room for logistical supplies... well, at least some that is. Also, if the CO/H2 to C/H2O (part of the Bosch process) would be fined tuned enough for a lunar base, then it could be installed later on internally if completed before the module goes to the Moon or extenally as an add-on. If you design the modules for simplicity, then all you'd have to do is connect hoses and wires.

Your process sounds pretty good, too. It may take up a little extra room, but does it completely turn the CO2 into oxygen and carbon and whatever else you used to reduce it, or does some of the oxygen leak out? It looks to me that it's completely closed-looped, so that extra space may be worth it. My motto is, "If it can fit on a lander, then send it!"

Also, the ilmenite reduction process shouldn't be too big either, but it would have to be external of the module (Well, at least the hopper and the heat chamber). But, it should be a little bit bigger than a riding lawnmower.
__________________
Wow! Finally, a qualified Administrator of NASA! Michael Griffin has my support!

I suppose that your system could probably be made small enough to fit in a backpack for personal use. the only thing that would limit the size would be a power supply. Current blocking supplies that can produce free energy without any side effects could be used. I estemated that a 100 Kw supply could easily be made to fit inside one cubic foot. And on my system if all the connecting equipment is made right no O2 would leak out. My systems best use would be large bases or long range vehicles. My design could probably be made smaller but energy use effeciency would drop. This is because my design requires quite a few heat exchangers and temperature ranges.
__________________
What is mind? No matter. What is matter? never mind

You know, we just thought out what could be used for life support from personal units to small outposts to large colonies... not too bad in only four posts. Now, does anyone know of any processes that can take CH4 (methane) and break it down into hydrogen and carbon? If so, then there is a much more efficient way then both of our methods. The Sabitier (?spelled wrong?) process take hydrogen and CO2 as before, but in a different reaction, turns it into methane and oxygen in one step. If you could reduce methane to hydrogen and carbon, then you could have a very small closed-looped system. Any ideas on how to though?

Just an idea, but there is a certain type of bacterium in soil that breaks down methane into hydrogen and carbon. I wonder if we got a bunch of those in a chamber and pumped some methane in there.
__________________
Wow! Finally, a qualified Administrator of NASA! Michael Griffin has my support!

I would still like to know if methane can be broken down into hydrogen and carbon. Can it in a simple reaction? I would ask my chemistry teacher... oh, but wait. He's been called up and is in Afghanistan...
__________________
Wow! Finally, a qualified Administrator of NASA! Michael Griffin has my support!

Combustion converts methane to water and carbon dioxide...

For large colonies, what's wrong with using plants to recycle the air?

eventualy plants can do the work, but they require
a: light, a very ineficient way of providing energy to a reaction
B: soil, or a hydroponics system, both of which are heavy
C: Nitrogen, which is not available on on what will probably be on mars, which is probably going to be the first place we colonise, apart from perhaps the moon.
D: a very complex nitrogen cycle to get nitrates into the soil.

a bunch of equipment and reaction chambers sounds a lot more user friendly in comparison.

I'm in favour of the sabitier reaction, personaly, as it is the same one tat can be used to make fuel, so we will probably develop the sabitier reaction to a fine art.

A: Same as whatever powers the other reactions... not to mention, sunlight is also a good power source for plants

B: You'd be suprised how simple and efficient hydroponic systems can be. In my home province, the largest industry is producing illicit drugs through hydroponics. We've gotten quite good at it.

C: Theoretically you really wouldn't need much nitrogen since this is theoretically a closed system... and the mass of the nitrogen that must be transported is probably much less than the mass of the food that the plants would produce and thus not need to be brought along.

D: Fixing nitrogen can be done by bacteria... and could help with sewage treatment. Remember, for closed system life support you have to deal with sewage...

Honestly, if biker gangs can build efficient hydropaunic setups I think anyone can.

we don't know how plants will do when subjected to the conditions of another planet, or outer space. there may not be enough sunlight, or there may be far to much. if we use artificial light, then much of it will be wasted.

hydroponics on the scale nececary for a life suport system become bulky and complex, due to the sheer volume of plants required.

by definition, if it nds up in space, then it was part of your launch mass. the conservation of mass alone tells us that. no launch mass is saved by making food in-situ, apart from posbliy storage.

not just bacteria, several kinds of bacteria, all at the right lebels and depths within the soil. keeping these bacteria is a big problem for farmers here on earth, it's an even bigger problem in a totaly controlled system, where nature isn't doing most of the work for you.

organic processes brings a level of guess work into the system. you can never be sure jsut how they'll grow, or how much oxygen they'll produce, or if they'll all mysteriously die a week into the flight.

in contrast, we are in complete control of artifical systems. we know exactly what is going on, and can easily analyse and rectify any faults.

Say for instance a fungal infection is brought on board. for starters, you would have to find it. in an artificial system, problems can be seen imediately, as the entire system can be monitored, and you know exactly how it will behave. but to find something like a fungus, you would have to check every plant. then you must race the clock to eradicate the fugus before it destroys the entire crop. with an artificial system, you would shut it down to prevent further damage, and then fix the problem at relative lesiure.