The Dusty Concern for the Mission to Mars 174
eldavojohn writes "Astronauts sent to the red planet may find much of their job involving the task of dusting off their equipment and suits. The president says we're going there but the dusty planet has some obstacles and uncertainties for engineers because we don't have a sample of Martian dust. Is it toxic? Will it conduct electricity and short circuits? Will astronauts suffer from the triboelectric effect? How large is the average grain? Will humans be allergic to it? Will sinuses jeopardize a mission? Will a dust storm stop a take off and return flight? So many uncertainties from something as simple as dust but one thing is clear — we need samples!"
Re:The real question is (Score:5, Insightful)
"Dig a 1-foot deep hole in 30 seconds, as opposed to 30 years."
"Walk further than 100m per day"
"Walk into the bowl of a crater, poke around for interesting rocks, and carry the interesting rocks out."
"Immediately discern between 'interesting' and 'uninteresting' rocks without having to wait 24 hours to ask for new instructions."
No disrespect intended to our robot overlords; they've done wonderful work over the past few decades, but sometimes the right tool for a job is pickaxe powered by 200 pounds of meat.
Just a sec' here... (Score:3, Insightful)
IIRC, the Mars rovers were originally (at least in concept, before budgetary reality set in) designed to drag back a sample or two. Why not build a mission that, you know, does what the original plans intended them to do in that regard? If nothing else, get up something with better instrumentation; Viking 1 and 2 were supposed to have the tools to answer nearly all of the questions, though they had been found to be flawed in many respects and hampered by things which today's tech has a better chance of overcoming.
Dunno... just sounds too easy to dismiss in light of all the ungodly extrapolation that we are capable of from mere astronomy, let alone what we can bring to bear with instruments on the ground there right now.
Hate to be a killjoy, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Can we stop pretending we're going to send astronauts to Mars? There's is no way we're going to spend the enormous amount of money required to do it, and we don't even know if the astronauts can survive the radiation exposure on the trip.
Besides the fact that it won't be done by any government in the next 30 years, it *shouldn't* be done. I've harped on this before, but it's still true: we could send 1,000 probes similar to the Mars Lander for the price it takes to do a P.R. stunt like sending humans to Mars. Yeah, it's romantic, but if the goal is science, then it's a total waste.
I like space. I'm a supporter of space. But I think humans should go on the back burner until space exploration is much, much, much more of a mature technology. We don't even have casual trips to orbit, much less the moon, much less significant space stations, and much, much less Mars.
Let's be rational about space exploration and let an army of robots do the work, instead of a few fragile, expensive humans.
Sex, anyone? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The real question is (Score:3, Insightful)
And, ummm, this would be a lot simpler and cheaper than having the humans continue the remaining 0.001 percent of the way?
rj
Re:Hate to be a killjoy, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
That's kinda like substituting 1000 Ford Escorts for a Caterpillar D11. You'll have a lot more metal laying about - but you won't get as much done.
That's a self defeating argument - as the technology won't mature unless you send people in the first place.
Re:Hate to be a killjoy, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
You do make good points, but there are some things that are cheaper and easier to do using fragile expensive humans.
I have their answers and a solution. (Score:4, Insightful)
Everything you fear is true, plan for it.
solution, give the astronauts a pair of leaf blowers to blow each other off before heading back in the habitat, that would reduce dust ingress into the habitat significantly, make all suits banished to the entry room, force a shower in recycled water before entering station.
They got any hard problems? because industrial complexes have dealt with these problems already for decades.
Dust is the least of the problems (Score:5, Insightful)
There are several much more significant challenges than dust:
* The lack of any kind of spaceship capable of making the return trip
* The lack of any kind of system for keeping the crew alive in space for that long
* The lack of any serious programme to develop the above
* The lack of the money such a programme would require
* The lack of the political will to address any of the points above
* The lack of public interest in any of the points above *this* point
Overall, I think it's probably not a good idea to burn Earth yet.
Re:Oh for crissakes! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sex, anyone? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The real question is (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Hate to be a killjoy, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Can we stop pretending we're going to send astronauts to Mars? There's is no way we're going to spend the enormous amount of money required to do it, and we don't even know if the astronauts can survive the radiation exposure on the trip.
Please. We know the risks, and they are not lethal. Maybe you don't know, but to say "we" don't is absolute BS. The radiation in space is called Cosmic Radiation, and about half of the radiation experienced in an average human's lifetime is CR. So we are pretty familiar with it. So then it falls to how much? How much radiation will you experience flying to Mars?
Suprisingly not as much as you think. Transatlantic trips by airline pilots and crew will get exposed over a 25 year career with more than half of the radiation you'd get spending a year in between Mars and Earth as well as a year and a half on Mars. But that only affects lifelong factors. You seem to be talking about surviving the trip TO Mars. Seems you need some education on radiation.
Radiation sickness is the immediate result of a very high dose of radiation. That threshold varies in small percentages from person to person, but it is approximately 75 rem. In a conjunction trajectory mission the worst solar flare (that wouldn't kill the people who are still on Earth) would provide a dosage of 5 rem. The whole round trip, some 30 months away from the cradle,would expose you to about 50 rem. If you condensed ALL of the CR radiation you would be exposed to into a single big burst it is unlikely to make you sick, let alone kill you. The trip out there would expose you to approximately 19 rem. Over 6 months
You would have greater risk of lifelong effects from radiation by staying home, laying on the beach w/o sunscreen and soaking up that radiation.
Besides the fact that it won't be done by any government in the next 30 years,
While I hope that's the case, I wouldn't put it past China.
I've harped on this before, but it's still true: we could send 1,000 probes similar to the Mars Lander for the price it takes to do a P.R. stunt like sending humans to Mars. Yeah, it's romantic, but if the goal is science, then it's a total waste.
And I've illustrated with facts and reality that if your goal is to do actual science you need something capable of doing actual science on Mars. Robots don't do science. They gather data. Is the battlefield robot scouting over the enemy territory doing science? No, it's doing exactly what Spirit and Opportunity do: gather data. That aside, which gathers more data per trip, humans or rovers.
Look at how much ground the rovers have covered. Look at the data points they've gathered. A team of 4-6 humans on the planet would gather orders of magnitude more data, would conduct actual science (you know: hypothesize, experiment, analyze, refine hypothesize...) than ten times as many rovers, and do it in far shorter time. As of a couple weeks ago, Spirit has traveled about 7km. If you took one Manned Lunar Lander to Mars, you'd have the ability to cover 10km out from your basecamp (20km round trip). That's using 30 year old battery technology.
Using modern technology, and using a either combination of solar and in situ produced liquid fuel, or either alone, a modern Mars rover would have more than ten to twenty times the range of the Lunar rovers. It is neither trivial nor incredibly hard/impossible for us to build and deploy a lightweight, energy flush, rover capable of supporting a 2-3 man crew traveling on the surface of Mars for up to and over more than 500km from base camp.
Yet Spirit has traveled just over 7k in what, three and half years is it? How many Spirit missions would it take to cover that kind of distance, or how long for a single Spirit? Isn't it's daily record something like 770 feet? Let's double that. Let us say that the rover could cover 250 meters per day. Well if a manned rover can take it easy and cover 20km per d
Re:Lung related concerns (Score:4, Insightful)
So 1- it is worse than asbestos and 2- Since Mars has volacanos and the martian dust is known to also be very fine, there is a real risk they will have similar nasty effects on exposed humans.