NASA's Perseverance Mars Rover Has Made Oxygen 7 Times In Exploration Milestone

Stefanie Waldek reports via Space.com: Led by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), the Mars Oxygen In-Situ Resource Utilization Experiment (MOXIE) is a small instrument on the Perseverance rover that's designed to transform carbon dioxide, which comprises some 96% of the atmosphere on Mars, into breathable oxygen. Oxygen, of course, is crucial for a human mission to Mars. Since February 2021, the device has run seven times, each time producing about 0.2 ounces (6 grams) of oxygen per hour. That's on par with the abilities of small trees here on Earth.

MOXIE has now operated in a variety of conditions on Mars, both day and night, through all four seasons. The researchers expect that a version of the instrument approximately 100 times larger than MOXIE could potentially create breathable oxygen for future astronauts who visit the Red Planet. If explorers can't make their own oxygen on Mars, supplies from Earth would take up valuable mass on a spacecraft. Furthermore, MOXIE's products could also be used as an ingredient for rocket fuel -- pretty crucial to ensuring the mission isn't one-way. A rocket would need 33 to 50 tons (30 to 45 metric tons) of liquid oxygen propellant in order to launch humans off Mars. "This is the first demonstration of actually using resources on the surface of another planetary body, and transforming them chemically into something that would be useful for a human mission," MOXIE deputy principal investigator Jeffrey Hoffman, a professor of the practice in MIT's Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics and a former NASA astronaut, said in a statement. "It's historic in that sense."

The research has been published in the journal Science Advances.

what about the CO?

[belmolis]

This process produces two molecules of carbon monoxide for every molecule of oxygen. What happens to the carbon monoxide? An atmosphere with a lot of carbon monoxide in it is presumably not desirable. Is the CO stored somewhere?

Re:what about the CO?

[sbszine]

It's for life support not terraforming, so for a handful of astronauts they would just vent the monoxide. If you wanted something more sustainable you could use a Sabatier reactor instead where the byproduct is methane (rocket fuel). They're not doing that for this experiment as it requires hydrogen as feedstock.

Re:

[AleRunner]

Was going to ask "is there a reasonable source of hydrogen on Mars" but it seems that hydrogen is one of the main things you'd have to import [nasa.gov].

Re:

[John Cavendish]

There seems to be plenty of water, just not everywhere.

Re:

[ShanghaiBill]

We could divert a few comets to crash into Mars.

Halley's Comet is due in 2061 and contains 100 billion tonnes of water.

Re:

[LifesABeach]

curious.
what would it take

Re:

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Mining the Kuiper belt seems like the most feasible approach for distant future (say 1ky). Use a nuclear steam rocket to move large blocks of ice; the low orbital velocity minimizes the velocity changes you'd need to do.

Re:

[belmolis]

Wow, an informative response rather than a diatribe. What is happening to /.? Thanks.

Re:what about the CO?

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Martian atmosphere already contains 0.06% of CO, so there's no way you could make a measurable difference in any foreseeable future. As for storing it in the future, that might be a good idea because carbon monoxide could actually be a viable fuel on Mars. [nasa.gov]

Re:

[e3m4n]

one thing to consider, and often forgotten, is that when talking about percentages, its not comparable to earth. The atmospheric pressure, and thereby molarity, of these molecules are a small by comparison. The winds on mars can get up to 200mph, but because of such low pressure, they barely can push anything around. So while it seems like there is an abundance of CO2 on mars, its not like they have 14.7psia of the stuff.

Re:

[K. S. Kyosuke]

If Martian atmosphere contains 0.06% of carbon monoxide, then it contains around 15 gigatonnes of carbon monoxide. Please explain to me how exactly will we be able to significantly change that number in any foreseeable future by means of human activity. From grams to gigatonnes is a difference of 15 orders of magnitude.

Re:

[Cyberax]

Carbon monoxide is also essential for metal mining via Mond process, which probably is the only viable way to mine metals on Mars.

Re:

[techno-vampire]

Two things you've overlooked The Mond Process [wikipedia.org] is used to refine ore, not mine it and it only aapears wo work on nickel.

Re:

[Cyberax]

Mond process is used on Earth only to refine nickel, because iron and other metals can be more easily produced via other means. You don't want to use a process that involves large amounts of CO unless you have to. And you certainly won't go around pumping CO into ground and collecting wildly toxic carbonyls.

Re:

[K. S. Kyosuke]

You don't want to use a process that involves large amounts of CO unless you have to

Except that's how normal smelting works, isn't it? Iron ore is reduced in smelters precisely by means of large amounts of carbon monoxide. [scienceaid.co.uk] And unless I'm mistaken, iron is the metal that comprises the vast majority of current metallurgy.

Re:

[Cyberax]

That's technically true, but in smelters CO never leaves the smelter. It's produced in-situ and is immediately consumed (or burned to CO2).

Re:

[XXongo]

This process produces two molecules of carbon monoxide for every molecule of oxygen. What happens to the carbon monoxide? An atmosphere with a lot of carbon monoxide in it is presumably not desirable. Is the CO stored somewhere?

Carbon monoxide is already a component of the Martian atmosphere. The atmosphere has about 2 times 10 to the 10th tons of it.

The amount we could add by making oxygen is small compared to this.

Just living off the land ...

[drnb]

Its just the modern version of living off the land on the frontier.

Re:

[JanSand]

This eagerness to start considerable population growth on a desert planet with little possible water and no natural breathable air while the Earth is still quite an inhabitable place strikes me as most peculiar considering that much more vigorous efforts are still quite possible to reverse the insanities that will, in the next few decades make Earth something of a death trap. Moving to Mars is, in no way, comparable to the frontiers of previous developments considering the immense obstacle of merely getting

Re:

[tragedy]

If you look at death tolls in, for example, Jamestown, or the Oregon Trail, or just making the Atlantic crossing, the frontier comment makes a fair bit of sense. Sure they had breathable air and plants they could eat, etc but they also had disease and a host of factors that apparently prevented them from actually living off the land (it seems like, in many cases, that was because many of the people making the trip did not actually have the practical skills to live off the land, or the resources did not exis

Re:

[JanSand]

I am well aware that the initial Europeans and others had no easy time in adapting to the American continents but this is quite different than adapting to the fundamental differences of an alien planet with far,far deeper differences from those on Earth. The differences in gravity, in radiation exposure, in temperature extremes and a breathable atmosphere plus even the totally sterile minerals with no life to accommodate the vast array of microscopic creatures essential to human existence simply does not e

Re:

[drnb]

Human and other life on this planet took billions of years to form ...

And one of those species rose to the top of the pile because they developed technology to thwart or modify nature. Technology can address all the problems you listed. Earth orbit is more hostile than Mars. And we have explorers who have spent over a year in earth orbit.

... the totally sterile minerals with no life ...

That is an open question that the explorers going there are hoping to answer.

I fully doubt even our best minds are equal to the task of conquering the problems of Mars ...

Science and Engineering are working on it. That pair tends to eventually figure things out.
https://royalsocietypublishing... [royalsocie...ishing.org]

... when we still succumb to essential difficulties that vary in minor ways on our own planet today.

What we succumb to today is far less

Re:

[JanSand]

I agree we have the potential but am very doubtful about the essential.

Re:

[drnb]

I agree we have the potential but am very doubtful about the essential.

A sampling:
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/def... [nasa.gov]

Re:

[JanSand]

All of these advances are wonderfully worthwhile but the monster problem is a disunited Earth designed, not to create a united world, but to encourage battles over control over its populations to encourage social divisions. It's an ancient bundle of negative hierarchies and it is basically aimed at destroying civilization to support a powerful elite. The horrifying financial and technological forces vastly profiting on weapon innovation and world disunity is aimed at destroying everything.

Re:

[drnb]

All of these advances are wonderfully worthwhile but the monster problem ...

is not NASA's, nor exploration in general's, fault.

Re:

[JanSand]

All of civilization is now confronting the mismatch of human desires to the fundamental of a sustained existence on the planet. We seem not able to possibly confront the consequences effectively and the ultimate tragedy is just beginning to be horribly demonstrated. NASA cannot divorce itself from being a vital element in the process. Trump's eagerness to insert space technology into the mechanics of military conquest is tremendously dangerous and totally unnecessary.

Re:

[tragedy]

I am well aware that the initial Europeans and others had no easy time in adapting to the American continents but this is quite different than adapting to the fundamental differences of an alien planet with far,far deeper differences from those on Earth. The differences in gravity, in radiation exposure, in temperature extremes and a breathable atmosphere plus even the totally sterile minerals with no life to accommodate the vast array of microscopic creatures essential to human existence simply does not exist. Human and other life on this planet took billions of years to form themselves to fit into what this planet offers and many attempts of Earth life had innumerable failures while gaining enough success here and there to create an amazing complex. Adapting to Mars is like starting from scratch and although humanity is quite clever, I fully doubt even our best minds are equal to the task of conquering the problems of Mars when we still succumb to essential difficulties that vary in minor ways on our own planet today.

There are a number of fundamental questions and challenges that we need answers or solutions to. Some of them, we won't even know if they are problems until people go there. I'll list some of the issues in rough order of importance.

Oxygen/air: We know that we can make from the atmosphere or from water. It requires some power, but it's not a crippling amount.

Water: Mars actually has plenty. Sure, on average, it's very dry, but we already know where to find some very large deposits of ice, already concentrate

Re:

[JanSand]

These are problems that we know which do not even exist here on Earth and still, the early colonists in the Americas frequently vanished leaving little evidence of what happened. Of course, there is no need for guns to kill natives there but frankly, although I agree that scientific groups living there is a worthwhile project, I don't see the need to establish cities there when basic problems here are soon to make life very difficult and here is where the efforts and finance should be expended and we do not

Re:

[tragedy]

Radiation and bad/toxic soil are problems here on Earth too. Sometimes not having oxygen is an issue as well. We just automatically assume it's there, but then sometimes it isn't. Lake Nyos in Cameroon had an eruption in the 80's that turned the lake effervescent and killed thousands of people from the CO2. Plenty of people don't know that they live in houses flooded with Radon. In some areas of California people get Valley Fever from inhaling dust. Earth is full of hazards. Many of them are complete unknow

Re:

[JanSand]

The major problem, it seems to me, is just getting there and having a backup in case of emergencies - and the lack of sufficient spending right here now for major problems on Earth with proper energy sources and disdain for the massive numbers of people in real trouble signifies to me humanity simply is not ready for interplanetary social systems. If living in space was solved we could have a fleet of space cities orbiting Earth with the more orÂless solved fundamental problems. Then one or two could b

Re:

[tragedy]

But we have not even made a reasonable beginning in this

You seem to also be saying though, that we can't attempt a reasonable beginning because we haven't already done it. I get it about how we should have more infrastructure in space already and I would really like it if someone had actually tried a space station that can be spun up for simulated gravity already. Making that a goal we have to hit first, however, would pretty much require starting over again. Redundancy on a mission to Mars would be nice,. You would want them to send several craft at once, on th

Re:

[JanSand]

Perhaps I am over negative about world problems since realization of powerful destructive forces in weather changes is just beginning to be accepted and perhaps it is too late to save us. We need a bright total unity of understanding that unless nations stop fighting each other and finally join in a powerful change to save the world together we shall not survive. Building a new civilization on Mars is a very long term project if it is possible.

Re:

[tragedy]

I get where you're coming from but the scale of money required to go to Mars is nothing compared to what's needed to fix the world's problems. Even then, the real issue for most of those problems is the lack of will to fix them. Even the antipathy towards fixing them in many cases. From my perspective, the only way to fix a lot of these problems is by overwhelming technical advantage. In other words, the technical fix to the problem has to be ultimately cheaper and have less drawbacks all around. Not by jus

Re:

[JanSand]

I agree absolutely but just read this https://www.counterpunch.org/2... [counterpunch.org] and give me any confidence that the world has a decent chance to so revise itself to persist and take advantage of its technological possibilities. I have no special talents and do not consider myself at a special level of intellect but I cannot deny myself that something is quite obviously and disastrously wrong.

Re:

[tragedy]

Oh we've totally messed up our ecosystem. I am not denying this in any way. What we're seeing is just the results of how badly we messed up the world three or four decades ago also. We won't see the true results of what we're doing today for decades more. Any mitigations or fixes we apply not won't really bear any fruit for decades as well. It's called the long tail and most people who think things are just fine are apparently completely unaware of it. Things are definitely terrible. Abandoning space travel

Re:

[JanSand]

I admire your optimism but not decades, but right now Pakistan is in horrible trouble and the rising heat in India is beginning to be fatal to an increasing number of people. Every new appraisement of how close we are to detrimental conditions that are terrifying in many ways shortens the time for massive disaster. All novel and powerful technology takes time to be effective and accepted and it looks very likely that necessary time has vanished.

Re:

[tragedy]

I admire your optimism but not decades...

I'm not being optimistic. I think you might not have gotten what I'm trying to say. The problems we're experiencing now are the inevitable result of what we did decades ago. Even if we stop every single destructive activity we're going on right now, we're still due a whole lot worse than what's happening now for everything we've done in the intervening decades. Sure, some things have a more immediate effect. Consider though, the article the other day on "zombie ice". It's a dumb name, but the problem it des

Re:

[JanSand]

I'm thoroughly amazed that you seem unaware that this horrifying destruction is in vigorous operation right now where people are dying from the heat currently and massive floods and droughts and massive fires are destroying very large areas of food production. This is not some distant possibility that may be conquered by the mere slight revision of national policies. No doubt there is much worse to come and at a speed that vast changes are vitally necessary and the token efforts now in process are so ineffe

Re:

[tragedy]

I'm thoroughly amazed that you seem unaware that this horrifying destruction is in vigorous operation right now where people are dying from the heat currently and massive floods and droughts and massive fires are destroying very large areas of food production. This is not some distant possibility that may be conquered by the mere slight revision of national policies. No doubt there is much worse to come and at a speed that vast changes are vitally necessary and the token efforts now in process are so ineffectual that they are openly comic.

?????

Are you just not reading what I'm writing at all?! What I'm saying is that what we're experiencing now is the fallout from things we did decades and decades ago, and we've done a lot worse since then and we're still due the consequences of everything we've done in the meantime.

Re:

[JanSand]

Sorry. I got the wrong impression.

Re:

[tragedy]

That's fine. I completely get it. It can be extremely frustrating to see too little being done, and always too late.

Re:

[JanSand]

One of the major problems hitting us right now is the lack of water for growing food crops and the huge floods destroying vast areas of populated land. Almost nothing is being done and when the results of this are felt, millions more will suffer. I find civilization quite insane.

Re:

[hey!]

If you look at death tolls in, for example, Jamestown, or the Oregon Trail

If you do that it tells you nothing about the habitability of the place, since the deaths took place in an *already inhabited* place, although in the case of Jamestown they chose a place that Indians didn't settle because it was unsuitable for agriculture.

From a modern perspective the settlers themselves were primitives and savages. The reason they died in such numbers is that they had no idea how to organize an expedition or colony.. Modern shareholders would demand surveys (that would have showed there w

Re:

[tragedy]

From a modern perspective the settlers themselves were primitives and savages. The reason they died in such numbers is that they had no idea how to organize an expedition or colony.. Modern shareholders would demand surveys (that would have showed there was no gold in the area) and feasibility studies -- and if they did not the insurance company surely would. Modern life is so absurdly complicated because we expect businesses not to kill over 70% of their workers in their first three years of operation.

I'm not sure if you're arguing for or against the viability of a Mars colony there, since all sorts of studies would obviously be done before any colonists arrive.

Re:

[hey!]

I'm not for it or against it, because really the big question is whether having human habitation on Mars is an end itself or a means to an end. If it is *only* a means to an end it's probably not a good idea because there's bound to be more cost effective ways of achieving those ends. But I don't think practical economic concerns have to drive the decision.

I think we'll eventually have a Mars colony *because we want one*. And as long as we have one, it makes sense to find revenue sources to offset the cost

Re:

[tragedy]

This is the exact opposite of the early New World colonies, where the investors were pursing quite sensible goals -- to invest money for a high return -- but through returns they had no justification to believe existed (finding large deposits of gold or geographic shortcuts to China's fabulous wealth). It's the difference between doing something because you value it in itself, and doing it because of wishful thinking.

It seems like the actual settlers must have been following the quite sensible goal of dying of starvation/dysentery/scurvy/an arrow to the head, etc. I mean, if we're following the logic of the king who built 4 castles in a swamp, each on top of the sunken/burned ruins of the last from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, then I suppose a civilization built on the corpses of those who intended to live in it is fine. I would argue that they're not acting in an informed, rational manner. If that's because they're

Explorers live off the land too

[drnb]

This eagerness to start considerable population growth ...

Straw man.

You realize that explorers live off the land too? Lewis and Clark for example.

Re:

[JanSand]

Two explorers and an Indian guide could manage here. Mars requires massive experiment and three people would become an alien nightmare very quickly.

Wired to go as far as tech allows

[drnb]

Two explorers and an Indian guide could manage here. Mars requires massive experiment and three people would become an alien nightmare very quickly.

Actually it was a party of about 42 people (the Corps of Discovery) plus various native guides along the way. With some of the the best technology of the day. All spread across several boats. Part of their mission was basic science.

We'll need better technology for mars, be that ships or tools. And as mentioned in another post, quite serious scientists and engineers are working on the basics of survival: air, water, shelter and food; as well as the tools for the science. And just as we did with Apollo, we

Re:

[JanSand]

I don't claim a Mars civilization is impossible, merely that our technology is not yet at a level to advance quickly and easily. In several ways our civilization is headed for self destruction and I am not convinced we will avoid that.

Re:

[drnb]

I don't claim a Mars civilization is impossible, merely that our technology is not yet at a level to advance quickly and easily ...

We have the tech to go to the moon for a visit, we are getting close to the tech for longer stays. The experience with a lunar habitat will get us close to a mars habitat. Science and engineering is a process.

Re:

[JanSand]

Absolutely!

Re:

[chas.williams]

If you wanted to live off the land, you would extract oxygen from the existing perchlorates.

Re:

[drnb]

If you wanted to live off the land, you would extract oxygen from the existing perchlorates.

This was perhaps an easier experiment for the rover. I am all for sending many rovers with many experiments before sending human explorers. I'd expect the experiments to become increasingly practical over time.

MOXIE is pointless and a waste of space

[ReadHerring]

MOXIE is an experiment that could have been done in the basement of any of a hundred universities. There was no reason to fly it to Mars and even then there was no reason to put on a mobile rover. It is an incredible waste of real estate on the rover for an pointless demo. The space could have been used for an useful instrument such as SAM II instead of the pointless MOXIE. The big question is why the idiotic MOXIE was part of this rover in the first place. I suspect that it was the heavy hand of NASA'

Re:MOXIE is pointless and a waste of space

[Eunomion]

You deeply misunderstand NASA politics. In our political system, the Human Directorate's job...however Orwellian it may be...is to reduce expectations and excitement so that bloated, obsolete cost-plus contracts can proceed in the dark without upsetting any applecarts or facing real tests. They're the very last group that would be authorized to demonstrate the feasibility of life-support technology on Mars. They weren't even allowed to install a planned centrifuge-g module on ISS.

Re:

[ReadHerring]

Then what is the point of MOXIE and who was behind it? The Science Directorate was certainly not behind it since MOXIE has no scientific merit. The mission objectives of the rovers is to look for evidence of environments that were conduce to life and search for possible organic residues; MOXIE has nothing to do this mission objective; it was tacked on like a useless appendage at a freak show. It is a ridiculous stunt. The worst part is the MOXIE used up precious space on the rover that could have been

Not MOIRUE?

[chas.williams]

Do these people know how acronyms work?

Will it stay?

[quonset]

While the amount produced during these experiments is insignificant, if larger amounts of oxygen are able to be produced at some point in the future, will it remain within Mars' atmosphere or will it go into space? Is Mars' gravity strong enough to hold this oxygen?

Yes, I realize the production of oxygen will be for the people (if they ever get there) to breathe inside shelters, but certainly some will get out.

Just curious.

Re:Will it stay?

[RockDoctor]

Is Mars' gravity strong enough to hold this oxygen?

Essentially, yes.

A far more serious problem for Mars' atmosphere (for certain human-centric meanings of "problem") is that water in the atmosphere (high or low ; it's too thin to make much difference) is vulnerable to splitting by UV light from the Sun into hydroxyl and hydrogen radicals, and the hydrogen then escapes. How much of Mars' original inventory of water has been thus photolysed away versus how much has been frozen into the sub-soil remains unclear, but it probably doesn't matter : there isn't enough water in the asteroid belt to make Mars vaguely habitable.

I suppose you could try importing water from one of the Jovian icy moons. If you didn't care about having to haul the stuff "up hill" out of Jupiter's gravity well. So you'd need free power and free reaction mass from somewhere.

Re:

[drinkypoo]

Some have proposed using comets :)

Re:

[RockDoctor]

Well, with a decent one coming along every few years (one "decent" 10km mean diameter dirty snowball outweighing about 60 tiddlers of 2.5km diameter), that would only take around 100,000 years.

Of course, the planet would be close to uninhabitable for most of that time. It'd be the old "Chixulub nuclear winter" every couple of years. but without too much of the simultaneous atmospheric "pump and dump" from the Deccan. Unless some fool accidentally lands one on Olympus Mons / Tharsis plateau. Not a lot of po

Not sure what the point of that was.

[Eunomion]

Making O2 from CO2 is not technologically complex or difficult, and the challenge of utilizing it on a manned mission is purely about scale: Something obviously not addressed by MOXIE's tiny output. I do appreciate the symbolic stand though, strongly asserting that the point of all this is expanding human civilization, not just to discover minute details about the primordial history of a dead rock.

Re:

[iikkakeranen]

Why would you *not* test it at a small scale before building a Mars colony sized version? I don't understand why people have a problem with this. Isn't this the same way just about everything is developed? We make small models of airplanes before setting up an assembly line to build the final product. The smaller scale you can make the proof of concept, the cheaper it'll be. In this case, it's a tiny experiment piggy-backing on a rover that's doing all kinds of other stuff too. It doesn't add a significant

Re:

[Eunomion]

I'm not saying they shouldn't have done it. I just don't know the details of what risks they felt needed to be retired on this scale.

Obligatory

[DontBeAMoran]

"Oxygen, of course, is crucial for a human mission to Mars."

[Insert "You don't say?" Nicolas Cage meme here]

Plant a tree

[imcdona]

Trees convert CO2 to oxygen. Why not plant some trees?

One down, two more, Radiation and Gravity to go.

[mike2006]

There will be no human missions until they can work out the problems with radiation and gravity. There would need to be some breakthrough to create artificial gravity to/from Mars and while on Mars. Same goes for radiation. Otherwise you will just have people dying slow horrible deaths with a myriad of serious health problems.

The manned mission talk is just another $$$ scam like everything else in our society.

Re:

[ReadHerring]

Yup. The manned mission to Mars talk is just a money scam. Humans do not belong on Mars. Mars would make the worst place on earth, look like Club Med. As far as radiation, one solution is to live underground, but why go all the way to Mars to do that; you might as well live in a mine shaft here on Earth and have a much easier time of it. The gravity issue is not really solvable unless you live in a centrifuge. But it would have to be an underground centrifuge.....but again, why bother? Might as well

If it works on Mars then it works on Earth

[MacMann]

This production of oxygen from CO2 in the air is the same process for the production of carbon from CO2 in the air. If someone can prove it viable to produce oxygen and methane using carbon dioxide and water on Mars then they can do the same thing on Earth. The plan is to launch a nuclear fission reactor to Mars for in-situ production of rocket fuel for a return trip to Earth. If they can produce rocket fuel on Mars using nuclear power, by extraction of CO2 from the atmosphere, then they solved the probl

nothing was "made"

[dltaylor]

The oxygen was already there, just bound to some carbon. Making oxygen would require some form of transmutation, either some amount of fusion. fission, or, at least, some radioactive decay (IIRC, there's an isotope of nitrogen that decays to a stable isotope of oxygen).

Every time I see one of those oxygen concentrator ads that claims you can "make your own oxygen", I mentally cringe.

Although there is a usable amount of oxygen at Earth, having the tech to make it via fusion should also yield useful power sin