Arbiter51x

Arbiter51x t1_jdcqhiy wrote

Putting surface water into an aquifer would be a natural disaster and would actualy contaminate the ground water.

Aquaifer water is naturally purified as water moves down through the ground. You can drink it without treatment. (most of the time).

Now, if we used large, underground caverns to store flood water for future treatment, that would be something. But flood water is full of bacteria, and unfortunately a lot of man made shit like plastic, heavy metals and chemics which can't be easily filter or separated by conventional water treatment.

16

Arbiter51x t1_j8mifz1 wrote

I think that major problem is nothing in these designs can be certified to be built to any form of technical standard or building code.

We see this problem in the nuclear industry all the time- its very difficult to advance new building codes when you are locked into ASME / ASTM and 10CFR because they all rely on underlying codes (B31, B51) which are built on decades old, proven design. Everything in Nuclear is mission critical, and I would imagine it's the same in Space travel. High quality, proven design, based on established codes and known calculations to back them up. That is proper engineering design.

7

Arbiter51x t1_iu4k6y7 wrote

Dyson would be BIFL if changing the battery didn't require sending the whole unit away for repair. I don't get why power tools have been doing this fore decades, but the geniuses at Dyson can't figure it out.

We have a Dyson. I will not buy another Dyson. Not enough power, terrible performance. Expensive filters which need to be replaced about once a year to maintain performance. (which also produces a lot of plastic waste, becuase the whole end cap needs to be replaced).

I'm done with dyson. I've gone back to corded vacuums like Miele and shark.

1