The Dusty Concern for the Mission to Mars

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!"

Oh for crissakes!

[erroneus]

Just put together another pair of Mars Rovers and update them to answer those questions and to survive better than the ones down there now. The two rovers on Mars now have been ridiculously successful and have outlived their expected lives tremendously. So not only should we send improved rovers, we should send tools, equipment and supplies there too. Perhaps some rovers capable of assembling structures to house the eventual human guests. I think there's little doubt we can do it. So why aren't we? (yeah I know, money... the question is rhetorical... I wish I could join NASA...)

Re:New movie title

[iamlucky13]

Nope...the Mars Exploration Rovers' microscopic imagers can't resolve finely enough to measure grain size or geometry, and they have no way of measuring electrical properties. The Mars Surface Laboratory, to launch in 2009, will have slightly better resolution, but still not grain sized. In fact, I think in order to get a good idea what they finest grains look like, nothing short of an electron microscope will do. The rovers focus on geology and chemical composition, but not as much on things like dust geometry and electrical properties.

Regardless of whether or not its feasible to equip a lander to determine these properties itself, NASA and other groups would really like to get their hands directly on some Martian surface material, so a robotic sample return mission will very likely happen in the next 10-20 years regardless of whether plans move forward for manned exploration.

What makes the dust rise?

[pln2bz]

NASA would be wise to also carefully contemplate what is inducing the dust to rise to form dust storms in the first place. They already have access to THEMIS images from the Mars Odyssey Mission that suggest that there is filamentation of Martian dust storms at both the leading and trailing edges. For a sample image (there are others too), go to:

http://themis.asu.edu/zoom-20060512a [asu.edu]

Furthermore, we also know that Martian dust devils can contain lightning bolts at their cores:

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/14jul_dust devils.htm [nasa.gov]

In addition to that, we also know that firsthand accounts from people who have seen the inside of a tornado and lived to tell about it indicate that tornadoes here on Earth tend to shimmer like a fluorescent light from the inside. This is typically obstructed from the outside by dust. There's a brief mention here. I'm sure there are other sources for this information:

http://library.thinkquest.org/C003603/english/torn adoes/insidetheeye.shtml [thinkquest.org]

This could indicate that tornadoes and Martian dust devils are actually both electrical plasmas, and that the electrical activity is inducing the vortex -- not the other way around.

It is possible that vortexes are the natural result of the right-hand rule within electrodynamics. Peter Thomson's Charge Sheath Vortex site is an excellent tutorial on how this may be so:

http://www.peter-thomson.co.uk/tornado/fusion/Char ge_sheath_vortex_basics_for_tornado.html [peter-thomson.co.uk]

He demonstrates his point at the end by creating a miniature vortex using electricity in a petri dish.

My point here is that NASA should seriously consider that the Martian dust is molecularly bipolar and is responding to solar and other electrical plasmas that are affecting the Martian planet. The evidence from both Mars and Earth suggests that it is a possibility.

We already know for a fact that upper atmosphere lightning exists. The weather scientists told us that this was not possible, and they were proven to be wrong. It's now easy to find pictures of upper-atmosphere sprites on the web. Try these:

http://usjma.jp/~sprite/sprite2005.11pic.html [usjma.jp]

http://www.usjma.jp/~kaminari/Sprite%202006/S%2020 06%20%203/sprite2006.3.13.html [usjma.jp]

http://www.usjma.jp/~kaminari/Gallery/Gallery%20SP RITE/galleryhome.html [usjma.jp]

http://www.usjma.jp/~kaminari/Gallery/Gallery%20SP RITE/Carrot/gscar01.html [usjma.jp]

So, why isn't it possible that they could also be wrong about current theories about tornadoes? And why in the world are those dust storms filamentary? When we see enigmatic features on Mars, we should create future missions to follow that data. As of recently, NASA has been exclusively following their script instead of the anomalies. We need to be doing both.

Why do we want to send Humans?

[tgatliff]

Certainly we should build space crafts that leave open the option for possible human "passengers", but, in my opinion, our focus should be on building capable and independent robots to do our dirty work for us. The current "boots on the ground" at Mars are great examples. In fact, we are in desperate need right now of moving to true computer intelligence instead of our current programmable logic.

A level of a 4 year old would actually be sufficient for most applications. Not only is this type of technology useful on world exploration, but it would revolutionize our world. One small example is that burglarly and building fires would become a thing of the past if we had a truely intelligent computer systems monitoring and managing buildings.

the big question

[Simon Garlick]

Will it blend?

Actually, given that everything blended comes out as toxic dust... what happens if you put toxic dust INTO the blender?

Re:I have their answers and a solution.

[wildsurf]

Better solution: Build the habitat 10 meters undergound, pressurized to 1 atmosphere, with a long U-shaped tunnel filled with water, connecting the floor of the habitat to the planet's surface! (Think of the moon pool in The Abyss.) The astronauts can then SWIM back and forth between the surface and the habitat, eliminating the need for a complicated airlock, and ameliorating the dust concerns; it's much easier to get dust off in water than in air. (You'd obviously need to cover and insulate the surface exit when not in use, to prevent the water from freezing/sublimating, but that should be trivial.)

Re:The real question is

[Shihar]

"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."

With the amount of money we would need to blow to get a handful of humans there (much less getting them back), we could EASILY build a robot to do each and every single one of those things. You could send a massive unmanned nuclear powered Mars lab complete with every single piece of analytical equipment you could wish for and a dozen rovers that range from toy car size to frigging backhoe. Not only could you dig a hole 1 foot deep, you could excavate a trench 10 feet deep, grab a sample, and throw it under a SEM.

The logistics of sending a human to Mars are silly. The rewards are pittance compared to what you could get for a fraction of the price with unmanned equipment. Sending humans to Mars is silly when we can barely crawl out of our own gravity well as it is. If NASA wants to do something productive, they could directly take on the problem of making space travel cheap so that everyone can do it, not a dozen humans per year. Forget screwing around the edges, NASA should dump the manned space program and pour all of its money into only three things; earth science, astronomy, and making space access as cheap as humanly possible.

As spiffy as the moon landing was, its only real practical value was to show the Soviet Union how big and meaty an American cock could get and how long the Americans could piss with it. Pissing contests are generally silly, but a pissing contest with yourself is just stupid... which is what the Mars mission is.

Take the money we are going to blow on Mars, and start working on a way to get humans into space so that there are actual commercial applications. If we could get the cost of sending a human into orbit down to say a million dollars or so, you could start seeing some real commercial applications and humans living in space full time.

Re:Hate to be a killjoy, but...

[eyewhin]

You have obviously never heard of the Genesis Rock. During the Apollo 15 mission, a rock was picked up by astronaut Scott, which he, by seeing it, felt that it was something special. It turned out that it was a very special rock. The point is, while robots are good at collecting samples and analyzing information, human beings are way ahead in the area of reasoning, an important trait when visiting unknown places.

Oh, for chuff's sake

[ajs318]

For chuff's sake, just run a kamikaze mission. Don't even bother about getting the astronauts back. Enough lives are being wasted pointlessly in Iraq and Afghanistan. If a few astronauts give their lives collecting important data which can be sent back to Earth and used to plan a safer mission in future, well, that counts as much more pointful than getting blown to bits in a war there is no hope of winning.

Re:Oh, for chuff's sake

[sjaskow]

I'd be glad to volunteer. Sure, my family would miss me, but they could also say "he's one of the first people to have visited another planet" for the next 1000 years or so.