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!"
Not as big a problem as Luna... (Score:5, Informative)
As TFA points out, the lack of weathering processes on Luna leaves the dust/regolith mainly as sharp-edged grains, which actually gives them incredible abrasive power. This poses an enormous problem for mechanical assemblies that have any wear surfaces. The Apollo astronauts, IIRC, went through a couple pairs of suit gloves each simply from the wear of the dust on their metallic glove locking rings.
Martian dust might have a similar range of effects, but I hadn't heard of the "toxic dust" issue, yet; that's the interesting bit. Silicosis of the lungs and related disorders, yes; toxicity, no. Yikes.
Toxic dust makes me think of the blended iPhone. "Don't breathe this." Sorry, that's another article...
-joe.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Warning: Time Loop Detected!!! (Score:2)
I suspect you mean 8 years after the first person journeyed into space.
Re: (Score:2)
> I suspect you mean 8 years after the first person journeyed into space.
By "we" he meant the US. It's a well known fact in UFO-spotting circles that alien abductees had been taken to the moon, other planets and even other solar systems well before 1969.
For more details on this and other suppressed facts contact your nearest UFO expert; just look under "insane asylum" in the phone book.
Re: (Score:2)
However, if they were able to go to the moon in 1969 and deal with the dust there, where AFAIK they didn't have a sample of lunar dust either, then I think that in 2007 we should have no problem dealing with Martian dust.
I wouldn't be so sure.
Remember that our first dealing with lunar dust was July 20th, 1969, where astronauts spent a whopping 2 and a half hours outside and something like 22 hours total on the lunar surface. So, to use a fun example, if Martian dust is as abrasive as lunar dust and it's blowing around, this might just have an affect on astronaut spacesuits and such. Considering the expense of going to Mars, yes, I do expect the first mission to spend more than 2 hours outside and 22 hours on the surface.
Just Fine (Score:2)
Oh for crissakes! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't, but apparently that's not enough for people to see that dust isn't that big of a deal. Meh.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, if it were only that easy.
The problem is, answering those questions means a fairly heavy (as such things go) automated laboratory in place of the fairly light (as such things go) robotic arm and sensors... Which means the existing airbag design (which has already been stretched beyond it's limits) will have to stretched yet further - or replaced entirely.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Another as of yet unanswered question (Score:5, Funny)
Will it blend?
(Sorry, but I just discovered the videos today, so my view of the universe if somewhat blendocentric)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not build a mission that, you know, does what the original plans intended them to do in that regard?
Money. such a mission is more expensive and complex thus failure would not only be more likely but also more costly. The original sample return mission got canned after the Mars Climate Orbiter and Mars Polar Lander failures. There is a new sample return mission planned but it likely won't launch before the late 2010s. Also the Russians are planning a mission to get soil from Phobos.
dead skin (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Also before anyone starts with the arguement about the tertiary earthside benefits of developing and sending the p
Re: (Score:2)
Whats the point of learning anything about it if you don't intend to go there.
It's called "science." Just because we don't intend to go to other galaxies doesn't mean we don't study them. Anyway, we might go to Mars someday, but at this point in our technological development, it's a complete waste of time. There's nothing we can get from astronauts that we can't get from a whole slew of probes.
Re: (Score:2)
The goal isn't science. The goal is to set the stage for eventual interplanetary colonization.
Science is great, but not everything having to do with space is science (slashdot's classification of everything space-related under "Science" to the contrary).
Re: (Score:2)
The goal isn't science. The goal is to set the stage for eventual interplanetary colonization.
If the goal is interplanetary colonization, this is a massive waste of funds. The problem with colonization is NOT the challenges of living on the planet. That is secondary to challenge number one... it is WAY the fuck too expensive to toss stuff out of this gravity well. There are plenty of brave and crazy explorers and pioneers in this world. The reason why half of the US is piled up on the west coast is because there are plenty of people desperate to move forward and that damn sea got in their way.
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: (Score:2)
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.
Give me a 1,000 Ford Escorts with a scoop bolted on the front, and you can have your Caterpillar D11. Sure, the Escort may not be as powerful or as efficient, but I suspect 1,000 of them pushing dirt around would give me a big advantage.
You know, thinking about it, this is almost the John Henry [wikipedia.org] legend all over again. We have to send a human because a machin
Re: (Score:2)
If merely pushing dirt around was all a D11 did, you'd have a point.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's put it this way... What the two rovers have accomplished in three years? Could be accomplished by two trained field geologists in two *weeks*.
No doubt, but for the cost it takes to get two trained field geologist there (alive) and keep them breathing for those two weeks (much less get them back alive) you could have dropped a few hundred (or thousand?) Mars rovers on the planet. You could have made a massive kick ass, nuclear powered lab with dozen different robots as big as soccer mom's SUV with all the equipment you could ever dream of.
Moving humans is hard and expensive. We eat, we breath air, we need to move around, and our muscles tend to
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
We like to make goals, and be triumphant. When you look at human nature,Mars is the next logical choice to send people.
Yes, robots will play a role. In preparation, aid, and to continue to do things after we leave. We will go, just so we can push out are chests, point to a bright point in the sky and say "We conquered the obstacles to get there, sent people and got them home."
That is why we dominate, and that is why man is
Re: (Score:2)
Have a look at these plans [time.com] from 1969.
In a later refinement explained in the article, the least ambitious (cheapest) plan the manned Mars landing at 1990. I figure we probably had a manned mission to Mars fifteen or twenty years ago, but no one rememb
Re: (Score:2)
Of course. Think of all the urgent projects we need to fund here, like bridges to nowhere in Alaska, or touring polka groups to entertain the few troops remaining on their bases in the South, or replacing all that spent ammunition and broken military hardware, or invading Iran.
Stop wasting money in space, and lets get on with our proper business of wasting money here on Earth while killing each other off. It's our real purpose in life, after al
Re: (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 exp
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I beg to differ.
Let's instead make it easy for cheap, expendable humans (aka adventurers, explorers, treasure hunters) to go out there; they will then pave the road for the rest of us quicker than a thousand probes.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, Mars has an atmosphere. That's how they get dust storms and clouds and the like.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, it's sort of a silly argument. If we have the capability of giving Mars an atmosphere, we probably have the ability to replace chunks torn off by solar winds.
Re: (Score:2)
Um, Mars has an atmosphere. That's how they get dust storms and clouds and the like.
Technically, yes. Mars has an "Atmosphere". It's less than 1/100th as dense as our atmosphere, though. When people say "mars is too carbon-dioxide rich", they're slinging around numbers like mars' atmosphere is 99% ubreathable, or whatever, without mentioning that even if it were the same percentages of gasses as earth, there isn't enough of the damn stuff to breathe.
Solar Winds are supposedly to blame.
However, one thing
Re: (Score:2)
Really, there are plenty of material available about how a manned Mars mission or a robotic sample return mission will be done. If you can read and have internet access, which you obviously do,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Martian dust is just.... (Score:4, Funny)
Sex, anyone? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Obligatory (Score:2)
What makes the dust rise? (Score:4, Interesting)
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_dus
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/tor
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/Cha
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%202
http://www.usjma.jp/~kaminari/Gallery/Gallery%20S
http://www.usjma.jp/~kaminari/Gallery/Gallery%20S
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.
Getting off the rock (again) (Score:2)
Why do we want to send Humans? (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
That's a great idea (Score:5, Funny)
The sheer vision - it borders on godlike.
Need dust samples. (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
"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"
Yeah, because we can build submarines that operate for 6+ months at a time deep under the sea but not a tin can that can keep people alive in space for that time. You seem to not know about the many humans who have lived
Re: (Score:2)
And, contrary to your opinion, neither any submarine experience, nor ISS or Mir did contribute anything for the solution of that problem. The GP seems to know more
Re: (Score:2)
Lung related concerns (Score:3, Funny)
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.
the big question (Score:2, Interesting)
Actually, given that everything blended comes out as toxic dust... what happens if you put toxic dust INTO the blender?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Jesus Christ, Just Go There (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
firstly the dust on mar is going to be vastly different to here on earth. no weather or geo activity is going to mean it'll be rough and cut up your lungs if you breath it in meaning you can't let any into the breathing space. we also need to know things like it's ph and other chemical properties to make sure it won't eat through life support equipment.
what about the moon? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Answer 1: a two weeks moon mission was dangerous, very expensive, most Appolo astronauts suffer from glaucoma due to the radiations and we are currently unable to schedulle another one withing the next 5 years.
I'd like us to go to mars, but (Score:2)
That said, I think that we should be looking into manned space travel, because ultimately we are going to want to send *people* into space. Learning stuff about the geology of mars is nice, but speaking long term the real value of space exploration is that we're going to have people living out there someday.
Oh, for chuff's sake (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Currently needless worry... (Score:2)
"The president says we're going there". Sure he is. He's also saying lots of other things.
He is not, however, financing NASA for this. Yes, they're cutting all kinds of other projects to scrape the money together. But it won't work, simply because they need true support From Above to do so instead of just some babbling.
I cannot believe that many people think we're really going to Mars any time soon. Sure, we should. Yes, we'd learn lots (always important!). Yes, obviously it's
Re: (Score:2)
"The president says we're going there". Sure he is. He's also saying lots of other things.
He is not, however, financing NASA for this. Yes, they're cutting all kinds of other projects to scrape the money together. But it won't work, simply because they need true support From Above to do so instead of just some babbling.
Bush is gone in 18 months. Will you be as quick to blame the next president when he or she also doesn't fund it enough? Or even chops the concept altogethe
Re: (Score:2)
Re:We'll never know. (Score:4, Informative)
good kick in the pants by the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL), which will be launching in 2009.
Of course, the public have very varied opinions about this...for example,when you Google "Mars Sample Return" you still get http://www.icamsr.org/ [icamsr.org] as your first hit. Sheesh.
Uphill battle, maybe.
--joe.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Wouldn't any biohazard, bacteria or virius, culture fairly easily in a petri dish? If it could survive and breed in us, it could survive and breed in a lab. It's not like we don't already have experience with weaponized viriuses, what's another few grams of potential mass extinction added to the collection?
And for every who thinks we stopped biological weapons research in 19
Re:We'll never know. (Score:4, Informative)
(In that case, I would be more concerned about the effects on us when opening access to closed underground lakes on Earth, but those are still also far more susceptible to being destroyed by "our" biological environment, not the other way round.)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine turning your head right and not seeing what's there for at least half an hour.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think this is right. When Mars was in opposition to earth, it was just three light minutes away. I think now it is about 10 or 11 light minutes distant.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
200 pounds of meat (Score:2)
Yes, on Earth. On Mars, 200 pounds of meat need 20000 pounds of support equipment. Humans breathe air, eat food, take dumps of shit. Robots recharge their batteries from sunlight, and that's it.
What we really need for exploring Mars is better artificial intelligence. Instead of sending 200 tons of support equipment, why not send a 20 ton computer able to, as you say, "Immediately discern between 'interesting' and 'uninteresting' ro
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The real question is (Score:4, Interesting)
"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."
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: (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: (Score:2)
Nah - just send 'em one-way... heaps cheaper!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
rj
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except to gain experience making piloted landings on Mars, to gain experience sending crews through the radioactivity-laden wastelands of interstellar space, to gain experience walking on Mars, to gain experience sustaining human life on Mars, to gain experience working with the Martian environment...there's a lot of complex shit involved with putting human beings on Mars, and you don't want to be
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Umm, launching probes? (Score:2)
For cost efficiency, one could launch all ten surface probes and one mother-probe on one or two launches. The mother probe stays in orbit while the surface probes collect soil from their assigned areas. After collecting samples, the surface probes launch back into orbit, transfer the soil samples to the mother ship, and then enter a decaying orbit. Mothership brings ten (or li
Re: (Score:2)
That's pretty much bullshit then. The Mars Direct plan calls for a 1 year manned surface mission, waiting for the Earth and Mars to move into prime position until they return. Although maybe an initial manned mission would last for 11 days, that would be, at best, practice for the real manned missions.
Live there. (Score:2)
With that said, the questions that I see here remind of what I heard as a child. ppl, including scientists, were worried that the lunar lander would sink into 10 foot of dust. They thought that they would come back with new monsters. All in all, before the first HUMAN trip to mars occurs, we will send a mis
Re: (Score:2)
Fleeing to Mars as a way to save humanity easily rates right up there as one of the worst but most often cited ideas to go to Mars.
There are only two types of events that could wipe out human life. You could have some some sort life killer event that just effects earth (comets, asteroids, nuclear war, whate
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:New movie title (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Make a manned mission (a reasonable one, say a couple years for flight to and fro, and a year on the planet) and I'll go find out if it's toxic, has electrical properties, etc.
It's a gamble I would take in exchange for the experience.
-nB
Sample Return Mission (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thinking about your comment on the rovers, will this mean folks will say "They can put a man on the moon but they can't get dust of Mars!"
Re:Why?? (Score:5, Informative)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6460089
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap980327.html [nasa.gov]
http://dailybeacon.utk.edu/showarticle.php?articl
As expected, enginerds never seem to want to underestimate a problem especially when they've heard of a similar problem before...