Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

NASA Needs Fake Moon Dust

Posted by Zonk on Fri Dec 29, 2006 06:38 PM
from the like-to-see-the-requisition-form-for-that dept.
NASA Moon Space Science
crisco writes "NASA's renewed interest in lunar exploration and 'in situ resource utilization,' or ISRU, is driving the need for tons of carefully faked lunar dust and sand for testing purposes: 'We don't have enough real moondust to go around,' says Larry Taylor, director of Planetary Geosciences Institute at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville. To run all the tests, "we need to make a well-qualified lunar simulant.' And not just a few bags will do. 'We need tons of it, mainly for working on technologies for diggers and wheels and machinery on the surface,' adds David S. McKay, chief scientist for astrobiology at the Johnson Space Center (JSC)."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

NASA Needs Fake Moon Dust 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Fake moon landing site (Score:5, Funny)

    by Joe The Dragon (967727) on Friday December 29 2006, @06:40PM (#17404354)
    Just take it form the Fake moon landing site.
    • We need tons of it, mainly for working on technologies for diggers and wheels and machinery on the surface,
      And fake videos..

    • Re:Fake moon landing site (Score:5, Funny)

      by wootest (694923) on Friday December 29 2006, @08:59PM (#17405308)
      I didn't originally come up with this (although I wish I did), but the US is probably the only country where there are people who believe the moon landing was fake and wrestling is real.
  • mean it really WAS a windy day in Arizona...

  • obvious solution (Score:3, Funny)

    by Surt (22457) on Friday December 29 2006, @06:55PM (#17404498) Homepage Journal
    Blow up the moon. We probably have enough nukes to do it, and how hard can delivery be? The amount of material that drops on the earth as a result will surely be at least several tons.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by SeeSchloss (886510)
      I'm always astonished by the level of ignorance of people regarding nukes and blowing up large objects... I seriously doubt any amount of nukes detonated on the surface of the Moon would be able to blow it up, detonating all of the Earth's arsenal a thousand of kilometers or so under the surface might produce some results (but 'm doubtful about it) but there's no way we can do that.

      I remember this time I was talking about sending nuclear waste or nukes to the Sun to get rid of them to someone, and another g

  • Oh boy... (Score:4, Funny)

    by wertarbyte (811674) on Friday December 29 2006, @06:56PM (#17404508) Homepage
    Another movie remake.

  • ash (Score:4, Interesting)

    by hurfy (735314) on Friday December 29 2006, @06:57PM (#17404520)
    I thought that huge pile of ash from Mt St Helens was a close substitute.

    Aren't there still piles of it at the end of the ?Toutle? river. Used to be tons and tons of it stacked up by I-5. I'll bet the price is right too ;)

    Heck maybe it is worse than lunar dust and they can overbuild the vehicles a bit to get thru it :)
  • I happen to have just what they need and it's been stored in a vacuum. Even contains evidence of lunar canines and space dust bunnies. NASA - please let me know if you're interested before Tuesday (trash pick-up).

  • Armstrong describes the Lunar soil (Score:5, Informative)

    by Fox_1 (128616) on Friday December 29 2006, @07:07PM (#17404580) Homepage
    Armstrong and Aldrin found a thin dust layer on the surface of the moon.
    'I am at the foot of the ladder. The LM [lunar module ] footpads are only depressed in the surface about one or two inches, although the surface appears. to be very, very fine grained, as. you get close to it. It is almost like a powder. Now and then it is very fine. I am going to step off the LM now. That is one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.'
    When he started walking on the surface of the moon he said:
    'The surface is fine and powdery. I can - I can pick it up loosely with my toe. It does adhere in fine layers like powdered charcoal to the sole and sides. of my boots. I only go in a small fraction of an inch, maybe an eighth of an inch, but I can see the footprints. of my boots and the treads in the fine sandy particles.'
    When he was collecting samples:
    'This is very interesting. It is a very soft surface, but here and there where I plug with the contingency sample collector, I run into a very hard surface, but it appears to be very cohesive material of the same sort. I will try to get a rock in here.'
    Apparently the ground was unyielding enough that they had trouble getting the flag planted.

    • Re:Armstrong describes the Lunar soil (Score:4, Interesting)

      by agent0range_ (472103) on Friday December 29 2006, @08:07PM (#17404976)

      As I understand the lunar dust is much "rougher" as it hasn't been polished by the same forces (eg: wind and water), which causes it to stick to just about everything.

      The Effects of Lunar Dust on EVA Systems During the Apollo Missions [nasa.gov]

      "the effects could be sorted into nine categories: vision obscuration, false instrument readings, dust coating and contamination, loss of traction, clogging of mechanisms, abrasion, thermal control problems, seal failures, and inhalation and irritation. Although simple dust mitigation measures were sufficient to mitigate some of the problems (i.e., loss of traction) it was found that these measures were ineffective to mitigate many of the more serious problems (i.e., clogging, abrasion, diminished heat rejection). The severity of the dust problems were consistently underestimated by ground tests, indicating a need to develop better simulation facilities and procedures."

      I wonder how someone could manufacture "fake moon dust" here on earth. Meh, at least I can sleep at night knowing this isn't my problem.

      • Manufacturing nano particle in mass has been going on for a few years now. Shouldn't be hard to use some of these processes to make moon dust. Sure it won't have the same randomness possibly, but it shouldn't be too hard, just an issue of scale. How much does NASA really want this, are they willing to buy enough to fund a factory.
        • I get the impression that there are some sources that have been around since the 80's. The lunar soil simulants have been improving in quality and cost since then. I think a lot of the new simulants are necessary to test out industrial processes that might be used on the Moon and to better understand the likely effects of lunar dust abrasion.

  • Got abrasive dust? (Score:4, Informative)

    by JayTech (935793) on Friday December 29 2006, @07:09PM (#17404592)
    Sounds like a nearly impossible task to replicate lunar dust considering how abrasive the stuff is. This article [wired.com] does a good job of explaining.
  • why not use recycled building materials that are crushed into a fine powder or whatever consistency is "near" moondust?

    Drywall/sheetrock, concrete, I'm sure it can be ground-down and it provides a use for them instead of being chucked into the landfill.

    • Re:why not use... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Overzeetop (214511) on Friday December 29 2006, @07:50PM (#17404852) Journal
      If the lunar surface is primarily aluminum oxide of some form (not that it is, but that sounds kind of right) then is will be both durable and abrasive. If testing is required to determine life expectancies of both operating equipment and excavation/drilling machinery then they will need to replicate both the particle size, distribution (in terms of seive percentages) and durability/hardness.

      Excuse me...I need to go start my RFP paperwork...
  • NASA is finally winning over the last few people who believe that the original moon landings were faked and now as they prepare to go back they put out a call for tons of fake lunar soil. I'd suspect that they do some of these things to intentionally draw the charges.

    LK
  • We've been using it to simulate craters in the classroom for decades.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by rucs_hack (784150)
      would that be fine enough though. The stuff they need would need to be the same as material that had been pounded by meteorites for billions of years and irradiated for that long too.

      Wasn't it found to be very fine and thus 'sticky'.

      I suspect some heavy industrial processing would be required to replicate it. However, without the same gravitational field it would behave differently anyhow, so a less accurate analogue would likely suffice.

  • Riiiiiight (Score:5, Funny)

    by CODiNE (27417) on Friday December 29 2006, @07:45PM (#17404820) Homepage
    They just want us to think they don't know how to make fake moon dust. :)

  • How close is volcanic ash? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by istartedi (132515) on Friday December 29 2006, @07:50PM (#17404844) Journal

    It's quite abundant, and I'm sure there are some places in the Phillipines or maybe even our own Mt. St. Helens area where they've still got excess and would be happy to get rid of it. If that doesn't fit the bill, how hard is it to find rocks of the same composition as the moon, and grind them up?

    • I think the trick would probably be to get some volcanic stone, and then expose it to repeated explosions (not grinding) in an anaerobic environment, in as close to vacuum as you can generate on earth. By the way, grinding is definitely not the way to go here, as that would tend to polish the grains, making them far smoother than lunar dust.

  • Funny idea.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kigrwik (462930) on Friday December 29 2006, @07:53PM (#17404872)
    With the gravity being different, the mechanics won't fit, whether or not the dust is moon-like or not.

  • lunar simulant (Score:4, Funny)

    by robably (1044462) on Friday December 29 2006, @07:55PM (#17404898) Journal
    a well-qualified lunar simulant
    That's no moon, it's a Space Station.

    And it's got a degree.

  • Alternative Source Found (Score:5, Funny)

    by Gunfighter (1944) on Friday December 29 2006, @08:10PM (#17404984) Homepage
    From what I've seen from lunar landing footage and descriptions of the lunar surface, I have about a pound of material that would make a great substitute. It's caked on my video card and motherboard inside my computer case. I'll just scoop it up into a ziplock back and mail it to NASA. Perhaps if the other two million Slashdot readers can empty theirs as well, they would have enough to complete their mission. Where should we mail this stuff to?
  • Whoever gets this contract, I bet NASA ends up paying $100,000 a ton for dirt.
  • Why not just use whatever they used for those famously faked moon landings?
  • Dust and dirt from Earth have generally been exposed to natural erosion forces that round off the corners from the rock fragments. The stuff coming from the Moon has not experienced equivalent weathering, and so it is much more abrasive than one might expect. As NASA begins to design new lunar equipment, it needs to test just how the prototypes will hold up to the Moon's "environment."

  • No NASA, no.. (Score:3, Funny)

    by Plutonite (999141) on Friday December 29 2006, @08:46PM (#17405216)
    You're not going to cure the apathy of us 18-25 year olds with fake pot. I'm telling you, we're better than that, we are the myspace generation!

    Wait a minute..fake moondust will do just fine.
  • Let them use the huge supply there...

  • could supply tons of baby powder quite easily...

    • Re:okay, folks.. (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 29 2006, @06:47PM (#17404418)
      Apparently, tons of them, mainly for working on technologies for diggers and wheels and machinery on the surface.

    • Re:okay, folks.. (Score:4, Funny)

      by cavtroop (859432) on Friday December 29 2006, @06:50PM (#17404452)
      You must be new here....
    • and some one moded them all "Redundent"...

      including the first one, wich leads me to think the mod agrees and is simply saying those posts are "no, duh" type posts.

      cmon, its a joke, laugh!

      (admitedly I was going to make a fake moon landing joke as well, but as it has already been beaten into the ground, I am gona have to pass, wich obviously opens me up to a "you must be new here" comment, and shortly there after we should see a "In soviet russi, moon dust fakes you!", and a "I for one welcome our new fake-mo

    • Re: okay, folks.. (Score:5, Funny)

      by robably (1044462) on Friday December 29 2006, @07:04PM (#17404568) Journal
      That's 5 comments so far about leftover sand from the fake lunar landings.
      Congratulations, you made it 6!

      And, um, I made it 7.

      • Bad astronomy debunking url (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Here's the url to phil plaits debunking. I highly recommend that anyone thinking the moonlandings are a hoax check it out.

        http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html [badastronomy.com]

          • Re:Bad astronomy debunking url (Score:4, Interesting)

            by Peet42 (904274) <Peet42@Nets c a p e . n et> on Saturday December 30 2006, @05:58AM (#17407746)
            In the erarly days of UK Channel 4 they had a documentary on the "faking" of the moon landings. For the first two segments they brought on all sorts of conspiracy theorists who showed photos of the landing and explained why the lighting and shadows just couldn't fall the way they did, how features were in front of "registration marks" etc.; pretty much the same arguments you hear nowadays.

            The third segment was the memorable one, though. They brought on someone from NASA to refute their claims. Not an astronaut. Not a scientist. An airbrush artist from their "Educational Outreach" initiative. :-)

            He looked at all their "proof" and said "I airbrushed every one of those photos for distribution around US Schools in the 1970s, and the airbrushed versions are the ones that have been doing the rounds in the Public Domain ever since. I put the detail into that boot sole. I joined two photos together there, which is why you see that rock twice..." And so on.

            Basically he said "If you lot hadn't been too cheapskate to pay $10 for copies from the original negatives instead of analysing non-scientific publicity materials this conspiracy theory would never have started."

            That documentary was over 20 years ago now, yet still the theories continue.

    • Re: (Score:2, Redundant)

      by TheSHAD0W (258774)
      Actually, it's because the "permanent moonbase" will be a lot larger than the Apollo site so they need a MUCH larger stage.
    • You joke, but I absolutely remember hearing this same thing a few years ago. I think it was possibly more than five or six years back. Probably it was on NPR.

      I haven't read TFA, but in the story I remember hearing, NASA used to have literally thousands of pounds of moon rock and dust from the Apollo missions, but over the years it's been parceled out for various purposes (including being given to school kids, etc.) and now they only have a few pounds left. They want someone to come up with a simulated sand so they can test how it gets into bearings and stuff.

      What I'd like to know is why is this still an issue? If it was a problem five or six years ago, you'd think they'd have gotten around to solving it by now. And yet it's still being discussed as if it was a new problem. Then again, I guess this is NASA we're talking about.

      The last time I heard about this, the closest moon-dust simulacrum was some type of pulverized volcanic ash. My immediate question was whether you could really simulate the lunar surface using Earth gravity -- even if you were using real moon dust, it seems like its effects on equipment would be radically different on the moon, than it would be here. Here on Earth you have humidity and various atmospheric effects, plus gravity, that could affect how the dust gets into bearings and other components; all of these wouldn't exist on the moon. It seems like if you want to test parts for use on the moon, you'd need something that's not the same as moon dust here on earth.
      • I'm pretty sure that I could design a test fixture for wheel bearings and the like that operated at vacuum. Big parts would be harder, but still possible. Maybe you could get away with an inert atmosphere instead of a vacuum for certain parts. Dry nitrogen might work for certain tests. But in any case, you need to get the conditions as close as you can - you can't get away with the usual, just build it 4 times stronger than you need to... too much weight.

        • Re:I swear I've heard this one already. (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Gordonjcp (186804) on Friday December 29 2006, @08:34PM (#17405142) Homepage
          Fine dust clumps up differently in a vacuum, and becomes incredibly hard. There's no air to get between the grains, y'see. Think about the crufty stuff that builds up on your PC case fans, then imagine it with all the air squeezed out...
          • Hmmmm, another reason is that the dust that builds up on PC case fans has a lot of human skin cells and hair in it. It might be worth studying how that sort of dust interacts (under both vacuum and a reasonable pressure) with straight lunar dust.
      • haven't read TFA, but in the story I remember hearing, NASA used to have literally thousands of pounds of moon rock and dust from the Apollo missions, but over the years it's been parceled out for various purposes (including being given to school kids, etc.) and now they only have a few pounds left. Not to detract from the rest of your statement, but there's *no way* the Apollo program brought back "thousands" of pounds of samples from the moon, considering: -Only six (IIRC) of the Apollo missions actuall
        • You're right; Wikipedia says there were 842 lbs of samples collected in total by the Apollo program. I could have sworn though that the program I heard a few years ago said something about thousands of pounds of dust, but maybe they were engaging in a little poetic license.

          Interestingly, WP states that almost 650 lbs of the original 842 is still in storage in Houston TX.
          • Don't feel bad; maybe the program was produced by the English, and it was a statement of worth, not weight. ;)
        • You ever see one of the retrieved-from-splashdown Modules? They're barely big enough for the dudes that were in them.

                Not only that, but remember that moon rocks weight 1/6th of what earth rocks weigh ;)
    • there's another request from NASA, which was previously considered unrelated:

      NASA needs hundreds of gallons of reddish-orange dye

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.