Magnetic Trunk Could Collect Moon Dust 82
Matthew Sparkes writes "Astronauts living on the Moon will need lots of water, oxygen and other resources that can be extracted from the lunar soil. Collecting this in a mechanical way could throw up lots of dust that could harm equipment and astronauts health, as well as ruining the view. The answer may be to create a flexible tube with magnetic coils spaced at regular intervals along its length that could suck up the iron-heavy dust. The research was presented on Thursday at the Lunar and Planetary Society Conference in Houston, Texas. Another study suggests burying lunar habitats with packaged moon dust could help regulate their temperature. On the airless Moon, the surface bakes to over 100 Celsius during the day and plunges to a frigid -150 C at night."
Or do both (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Which makes me wonder - if you're standing at a specific place on the moon (or leave a thermometer there) how long would it be in the range of 20 - 25C in its plunge fro
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
In other words, on the moon, a day equals a month, so you have only two occasions of "comfortable" temperature per month. Also, due to the lack of atmosphere, these transitions aren't going to take days. There is no atmosphere to warm up, just
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Ts*(Rs/2D)^.5=Tb
where Ts is the temperature of the sun, Tb the temperature of the body you're concerned with (both temperatures in an absolute scale), Rs is the radius of the sun, and D is the distance to the sun. If you don't know what 2, ^ and .5 mean, please go away.
You'd think temperature would be inversely related to the square of the distance, but temperature based on radiation is a fourth-power function, so when you actually grin
Re: (Score:2)
Some way of fixing the dust in place would be needed, but there are plenty of foams well suited to that sort of job. I say foams because by starting as a semi liquid they would gain better coverage over the dust.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Did you ever see any of the Apollo surface footage? Even the particles in the 'rooster tails' kicked-up by the Lunar Roving vehicles used by Apollos 14/15/16 (h
moon dust? (Score:1)
Re:moon dust? (Score:4, Informative)
Moon junk? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Have you been living under a rock or are you just completely retarded?
AFAIK We've been to the moon...several times...Whoever modded you "Interesting" is a moron. I would much rather see us spend money on things like this than billions of dollars invading other countries for oil. *cough* Iraq War *cough*
Re: (Score:1)
Doesn't make the argument valid, though - if the money wouldn't go to space it still wouldn't go to helping poor countries.
Re: (Score:1)
Granted, it's not too hard to figure it out but starting a sentence in the subject line and having it continue into the message is somewhat poor communications.
Not to come off as a grammar nazi but subject lines should contain subjects, the body of the post should be complete thoughts. There should be a clear and definite line between the two.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
the fact that the earth has it's own magnetic field has nothing to do with the smaller magnets on the surface of earth (and on the fridge) working or not.
Radioactive? (Score:1)
And 500,000 years ago... (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't imagine wanting to be anywhere that has a seasonal variation, large predators, and no physical contact with other primates. But really... I have never been very likely to evolve.
Never forget that the comfortable life you enjoy is possible because of the risks others have taken in the past.
Prepare for an internet smackdown (Score:3, Informative)
We could not go to the moon. Maybe focus on... problems on earth? Just a thought...
This cartoon illustrates the complete idiocy of that line of reasoning:
http://www.wellingtongrey.net/miscellanea/archive/ 2006-12-18-why-go.html [wellingtongrey.net]
read it and then slink away in embarrassment over your shortsighted, ultimately suicidal philosophy. People who think the way you do are basically just selfish. You demand to be made comfortable even though it means the death of your species in the long run. Do us all a favor
Just get TV up there (Score:3, Funny)
Moonba (Score:3, Funny)
So, will the astronauts keep their base clean using autonomous robotic, magnetic vacuum cleaners called Moonbas?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even better, why not send up a Super Model [iht.com]?
How the hell? (Score:5, Interesting)
How the hell is this going to be a problem - especially the part about ruining the view - when dust on the moon falls back to the ground at the same speed as a dropped hammer [nasa.gov].
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think any seriously-considered proposals for permanent moon bases involve astronauts remaining in spacesuits the entire time. We'd probably want to pressurize [fill with air] a whole area, for example a domed area on the surface or a tunnel below the surface.
My house has its own floor, but I still track dirt in, and it travels well enough even with 1 whole g pulling it down.
Re: (Score:2)
And the moon doesnt. Thus all dust particles just parabola back to the ground.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A) Your house has a floor, but it doesn't have a re-pressurization chamber, where you could wash off and/or filter out any dust/dirt.
B) Dust travels well on earth because of the heavy atmosphere. Fish "travel well enough" in water, but take away their heavy water atmosphere, and suddenly they fall like a rock.
Re: (Score:2)
To B: I don't see how that applies. Are you saying Moon Dust is too heavy for normal air? That may be. As I
Re: (Score:2)
This is not remotely comparable. I'm sure you don't lock yourself in an air-tight room for an hour, with multi-million dollar cleaning equipment.
I didn't suggest a vacuum, I suggested washing.
No, I was referring to dust in a vacuu
Re:How the hell? (Score:4, Insightful)
yes but you're missing an important part - the moon's gravity is so weak, you could probably throw a hammer and put it into orbit, because the speed of a dropped hammer is actually pretty low.
So the concern is that some mechanical process, maybe a fast spinning wheel or maybe the use of explosives, will actually put dust grains into orbit. It turns out, the moon already has a very thin atmosphere:
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/Moon/atmosphere.ht
composed of a few atoms that are basically in orbit. So the point is, it is possible to create a dust atmosphere on the moon. We want to be careful when we start mining or whatever. We don't want to make that atmosphere significantly worse, because that dust will gum up machines.
Re:How the hell? (Score:5, Informative)
I kind of doubt it. For a circular orbit at a distance of 1km above the lunar surface, the velocity of the hammer would have to be ~1500m/s. That's more than 3,000 mph/5,400 kph. That'd be a hell of a toss.
Unless, of course, my math is wrong, which is possible - but escape velocity with respect to lunar gravity from the surface of the moon is ~2.5km/s, so the number passes the smell test.
Re: (Score:2)
But the concern about dust is (I think) as I stated.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Even if it didn't hit anything there's no way that kind of orbit would be remotley stable. Whilst The Moon does not have any appreciable atmosphere it does have mascons, which means you cannot treat it's gravity as being from a point source so close to the surface.
Re: (Score:2)
Lunar gravity isn't that low. Though there certainly are bodies where throwing a tool (or rock) means that there is a good chance putting it into an orbit which is likely to result in it hitting you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So the concern is that some mechanical process, maybe a fast spinning wheel or maybe the use of explosives, will actually put dust grains into orbit. It turns out, the moon already has a very thin atmosphere:
If it's not escape velocity, then the orbit will intersect the Moon. Hence your dust problem lasts no longer than one orbit. On the Moon, escape velocity is 2.4 km/s. Some types of explosives would be able to generate motion that fast. I can see a short term problem when that dust comes down, but no
Pave the moon! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Why the hell not! In the process, we could start some freeway projects, put up several strip malls and start a few master planned communities! We'll feel right at home up there!!1!
Computers (Score:3, Funny)
Seriously, we can power it all with solar power, and host all of our websites there. The lag isn't so bad (rougly 2 seconds to get a packet back at lightspeed). The heat from the machines could be used to warm up habitable spaces in the shade.
Best yet, all those computers will just soak up the dust like a magnet. Or, perhaps they could just launch thousands of those air dust cans with the mission...
Re: (Score:2)
Not really a problem with data archiving, espcially since the lag is going to be fairly constant. Even a fairly long time to wait for an ack isn't a bit problem if you intend sending a large amount of data in one go.
Re:Computers (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
That would work, if you didn't mind 14 days of downtime due to a solar power outtage.
If you want solar powered servers, I'd stick them at a Lagrange point (L4 or L5). Stable with an unimpeded view of the sun.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
<Professor Frink Voice>Well I'm sure you could, theoretically, NOT *flavin* launch a data center into space. *Muhaivin*</Professor Frink Voice>
Offsite Backup (Score:2)
lunar cycle (Score:1)
Series of tubes? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Additional Advantages (Score:1)
The main problem.. (Score:4, Informative)
This Vacuum Will Suck (Score:1)
Don't Blow the Dust (Score:2, Insightful)
We certainly should be harvesting as much of the local resources for exploration and human colonization. But we should do as much as we can with current science and technology (which is quite a lot) to read those records and preserve their info before de
Re: (Score:2)
The information you're talking about is basically holographic. "Destroying" (a loaded term; "perturbing" would be a lot closer) even 1% of the Moon's surface couldn't even be said to destroy 1% of the useful data, because we just won't need it.
Moreover, the Moon is not the only body in the Solar System that will have such a record.
And this all assumes that information will ever actually be extractable and useful for an
Re: (Score:2)
Why don't you try telling your story about "loaded terms" to someone whose post you actually read. So I can talk to someone else, someone reasonable about the unique records that should just be copied into data thoroughly before destroying it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Statistics? Why don't you look into basic sc
Re: (Score:2)
Your point is so stupid it boggles the mind. Try it. The craters will lay on top of each other, not cancel!
When backyard science can contradict your claims, you should to
Re: (Score:2)
Your mind boggles so easily because you are both a rock-bottom fool, and from all the rattling from your loud mouth. While it's boggling you ignore that you started flaming me, after I posted something sensible that you disagreed with like an obnoxious jerk.
Goodbye, dummy.
I am not a GeoThermal engineer... (Score:2)
What would it take to harness the temp difference between these two sides to generate energy?