Lunar Dust: A Major Worry for Moon Visitors 464
smooth wombat writes "Wired has a story which talks about a danger to possible future inhabitants of the Moon that is rarely brought up: the highly abrasive lunar dust. Unlike Earth, the Moon has no erosive capabilities to smooth the edges of rocks or dust. As a result the lunar dust has arms that stick out, like Velcro, and sticks to everything. As the astronauts who walked on the moon found out, the dust scratched lenses and corroded seals within hours. Some of the particles are only microns across which means once they get into your lungs, they stay there. This could cause a lung disease similar to silicosis."
Live on the Moon? Thank you smokers! (Score:5, Funny)
Who do we have to thank about that? The smokers of the world!
Just think. Iron lungs, operations, tracheotomies, breathing machines, voice boxes, all that. All that moon dust that's gonna end up in your lungs? Second hand dust, just like second hand smoke. Right? Right.
All the technology to handle lung disease is already here. You should be thanking the tobacco companies right now. Or... you should be lighting up... to umm, help your lungs adjust to the moon dust... Yeah!
I for one salute the smokers of this world, for giving us the technology to explore and survive on the moon and in outer space.
---
This joke was brought to you by camel cigarettes. Now light up, maggots!
Re:Live on the Moon? Thank you smokers! (Score:5, Interesting)
As well as not being ground down by the action of air and water like dust on earth is, many of these particles could contain practically any mix of extremely reactive substances, substances that have not been oxidised for example, by the actions of an air atmosphere.
Re:Live on the Moon? Thank you smokers! (Score:3, Interesting)
From memory some divers have used iron filing pads in wetsuits to keep warm in bad conditions because the oxidising in seawater provides enough heat to offset the cold
Re:Live on the Moon? Thank you smokers! (Score:3, Informative)
"America" is not a continent. Brazil and Canada are not in "America", they are in "South America" and "North America" respectively.
Additionally, your definition of "the rest of the world" must not include any countries in the Americas besides America. I know several Mexicans, Canadians that would take offense to being called "American".
Mmmm.... flypaper (Score:5, Funny)
Sorry, being lunar today.
Yes it has! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Live on the Moon? Thank you smokers! (Score:4, Funny)
Easy Solution: (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Easy Solution: (Score:5, Funny)
obligatory [cheston.com]
Who cares? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Live on the Moon? Thank you smokers! (Score:3, Interesting)
TW
lawsuits (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:lawsuits (Score:2, Funny)
Re:lawsuits (Score:3, Funny)
Yet (Score:2)
Re: Effects of the colonial era on human diversity (Score:2)
Re: Effects of the colonial era on human diversity (Score:3, Informative)
The Arawaks were the former inhabitants of the Greater Antilles, and were (primarily) a fairly peacefull people that utilized a hybrid hunter-gathering/agrarian system of nomadic farming on the islands.
The Caribs were invaders from the mainland, probably from what is modern day Brazil. They moved up the island chain starting in modern day Trinidad, killing and eating the Arawaks.
While not canib
So what it means is (Score:4, Funny)
Re:So what it means is (Score:3, Interesting)
I actually thought the same thing too, but how. Can't blow the dust off, that' would be like sandblasting the suit. You can't wash it off, then instead of a floating dust problem you've got a bouncing mud problem. Some kind of human safe Sonicator could be ivented I suppose.
Re:So what it means is (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:So what it means is (Score:3, Funny)
Hydrofluoric acid, what won't you do?
It also has to be something that doesn't react with space suits, which might pose a problem.
Oh.
Re:So what it means is (Score:3, Funny)
Re:So what it means is (Score:3, Funny)
asbestos (Score:4, Interesting)
Boot Room is Needed (Score:2)
Just mix with water and the complaints will only be about tracking mud all through the station.
Lung disease in vaccum? (Score:3, Funny)
I wonder if breathing a vaccum without 'dust' in the air would cause a lung disease too?
Re:Lung disease in vaccum? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Lung disease in vaccum? (Score:4, Funny)
1) Space suit covered with dust
2) Walk into airlock, pressurize
3) Dust now suspended in air
4) Remove helmet
5) ?????
6) Silicosis!
Re:Lung disease in vaccum? (Score:2, Informative)
This is this the dumbest comment I've read today.
breathing a vaccum
'dust' in the air
Anything with air, can't be a vacuum.
Re:Lung disease in vaccum? (Score:3, Funny)
Pamela to the rescue! (Score:3, Funny)
Silicosis: the decrease in lung capacity as a result of excessive pressure due to silicone implants.
Lung Disease (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that if you're freely breathing in dust with no protection between you and the lunar surface, you've got bigger issues to worry about than silicosis.
Re:Lung Disease (Score:3, Interesting)
The dust gets on your space suit. You go back inside. Some of the dust falls off and floats in the air inside. Later you breath it in.
Sounds to me like they are going to need some really good washdown. And a vacuum cleaner can actually work with air being sucked in to pull some particles along with it. The big question is just how much of an effort is needed.
Re:Lung Disease (Score:5, Informative)
Lunar dust is reported to smell like exploded firecrackers [24.73.239.154], according to a 2002 interview with John Hirasaki, an Apollo recovery technician:
Google cache here. [64.233.187.104]
Firecracker smell makes sense (Score:4, Insightful)
Since there's not much free oxygen on the moon, the dust is likely to contain any number of compounds that will rapidly oxidize on contact with a human-breathable atmosphere.
So all the comments about moon dust smelling "burnt" sound pretty likely. Fire can be seen as an example of a rapid oxidation effect, after all.
Re:Lung Disease (Score:5, Interesting)
For example see this picture [comcast.net] of Gene Cernan after a lunar EVA.
Dictionary entry for lunar dust... (Score:5, Funny)
Lunar dust (loo-near duhst)n.
Highly abrasive and difficult to remove.
see Republicans
So... (Score:5, Funny)
dust in lungs (Score:3)
Sounds like the makings of a "dirty bomb".
Lunar Dust or mesothelioma litigation & lawsui (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Lunar Dust or mesothelioma litigation & law (Score:2)
oh no... (Score:2, Funny)
Get in line (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Get in line (Score:3, Insightful)
Fark (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Fark (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Fark (Score:3, Funny)
So what? (Score:2)
The only potential problem would be during outdoor activities and construction, but I am sure simple solutions can be found.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Okay (Score:3, Informative)
Walking on the lunar surface with protective gear prevents this problem until you go inside, and remove the said gear. While you are removing the gear, you are currently breathing in the particles. Think of it like wearing a dry suit while scuba diving
No. 1 problem? (Score:5, Funny)
And here I thought it was the lack of segnificant atmosphere. Silly me.
Although I do think it is great that we are considering other major problems.
Re:No. 1 problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No. 1 problem? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:No. 1 problem? (Score:3, Insightful)
You have to put a little more perspective on it all. In the 60's, when vaccuum tubes w
Simple solution.. (Score:2)
So we start eroding the moon. How hard can that be?!? Create an atmosphere, bring some water, don't plant anything*. In a few years you have perfectly safe eroded dust.
*Note that not planting anything is not an actual step, but listed for cautionary purposes.
Re:Simple solution.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Moon dust? Bah! Try Black Rock Desert Dust (Score:3, Interesting)
Missing the Point (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Missing the Point (Score:5, Funny)
Get a big fat vacuum cleaner and cleanup the area where you want to build your house on the moon. After all there is no wind on the moon, so once the dust is cleaned up, it won't come back so quickly. If you drive of course around with some moon vehicle you might still have a bunch of dust issues left, but then maybe you can build roads up there.
Re:Missing the Point (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Missing the Point (Score:4, Funny)
--
(Not a rocket scientist, but an electrical engineer).
Re:Missing the Point (Score:5, Funny)
---------------
Save the Seals from NASA!
We already have the solution... (Score:2)
Just equip every airlock with that marvel of 1980s technology... [google.com]
New Lung Disease, New Name (Score:5, Funny)
Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicolunarosis!!!
Oh, okay.. (Score:3, Funny)
Easy Solution! (Score:3, Funny)
While you're there, you can also look into the new iPod accessory iCopulate [thinkgeek.com] which allows intimacy between mp3 players never before fantasized. And for the suit that has everything, Executve Pong [thinkgeek.com]. There's also Alarm Pills [thinkgeek.com] that help you wake up and fall asleep and a new USB-powered Fundue set [thinkgeek.com] available.
playa dust (Score:3, Informative)
even worse for moon travelers (Score:3, Funny)
Trivial (Score:4, Interesting)
There is no reason you would need to expose the INSIDE of the structure you live in to the OUTSIDE of the suit. Design the suit so that getting into the suit is the same as leaving the dust-free area. That means sort of 'docking' it. That way you are only exposed to the inside of the suit, never the outside.
Obviously you will have to repair and maintain the suit. When this comes up you'll have to clean it before bringing it in. At least you won't have to clean it after every use, and you won't need complicated (heavy, thus expensive) equipment to dedust people who go outside for 10 minutes to check something. Plus, no deduster means no failing deduster, which means you won't have to let dusty ass people inside because the vaccum broke.
The real question is why do you have a suit. It will only be necessary to go outside very rarely I would imagine, so the dust becomes less of an issue. Just suck it off anybody coming in and forget about it. You will have to be running some serious hepa/ultraviolet air cleaners anyway, because dust from human skin and abrasion between objects will just build up without limit otherwise. You'll have to ultraviolet the air somehow, or you risk things like legionairs disease, and nitrous oxide buildup.
I would be more worried about wear due to abrasion. Unless parts can be fashioned easily on the moon this could be a serious problem. Perhaps parts exposed to dust could be made out of a polymer that can be melted and remolded, so that the only loss is the small amount of plastic that is actually abraded off, instead of the entire part being ruined.
Simple solution: orbital settlements (Score:5, Insightful)
See Mike Combs' space settlement FAQ [aol.com] which says:
Sunlight also drives the life-support system of the habitat, so the day/night cycle can be set to whatever is convenient. Compare this to the moon, where there is 14 days of continuous daylight, and then a 14-day-long night. Here, some alternate energy source would probably have to be used half the time.
Zero G would be a liability if there were no alternative to it. Astronauts experience loss of bone mass and muscle tone after prolonged exposure to weightlessness. But most of a space habitat would be under Earth-normal gravity, although there would be easy access to regions of reduced gravity and zero G (perhaps for personal flight). With planets, on the other hand, you have to take the gravity that's there, and it's often the wrong kind of gravity to keep us healthy. Lunarians or Martians would probably not be able to visit the Earth (nor accelerate at 1 G).
Re:Simple solution: orbital settlements (Score:5, Insightful)
Natural Resources!
Simply put, you need to have "stuff" in order to build anything, and planets like Mars and the Moon have lots of that stuff.
A neat advantage that Mars also offers is that you can start a human civilazation with comparatively fewer resources to start with, as they can draw from the local environment in a much easier fashion than you can by simply sitting in "empty" space, such as LEO. The ISS is a prime example of this, where all of the resources have to be brought up from the Earth in order to sustain human life up there... subject to budget cuts, mismanagement at HQ, and changes of priorities.
That said, you can still obtain some resource from asteroids, but that means you have to run out to them and set up camps on those asteroids to carve up the resources for the space stations you are talking about, or simply start building the settlements themselves right there. You still got planetary settlement then, regardless of where you ship the metal & minerals afterward.
In short, I don't see a way that you can avoid settlements on the Moon or Mars in the next 500-1000 years, and any manufactured worlds (like an O'Neil colony) would have to at least have a symbiotic relationship with miners living on dirt with gravity.
BTW, when you are dealing with agriculture in space, there are a lot of unknowns that will go into the picture. To suggest that there will be no pests or weeds is showing signs of ignorance as to how food is actually grown, as you need a very complex relationship between microorganisms, insects, and multiple species of plants in order to grow healthy crops. Even most farmers take this for granted as they push dirt around, but it is still something that they use to their advantage even here on the Earth. I've had to pull too much sweet corn out of soybean fields to think that weeds are merely noxious plants that God somehow put in there to "torment mankind". This is going to be an issue, however, for any agriculture that takes place off of the Earth.
Also RE: mobile territories--- This is going to be much harder than you think. If you want to have a space colony that can be moved around, it has to be built substantially different from something that is simply built in place to stay there. For a practical current application to compare against, look up or examine the building practices for mobile homes ("manufactured homes" in the current lexicon) vs. on-site constructed homes. Mobile homes have to have steel beams in certain places in order to keep the thing together as it travels down a freeway at 70 mph, and other construction considerations that must be done that keep certain floorplans from being done. Yes, there are some very creative architects that do seeming wonders with manufactured homes, but you can still look at the outside of a house and tell the difference. What make a manufactured home cheap is the economies of scale when they are mass-produced, and not having to haul as much labor on-site. This will not be an option in space for centuries if not for over 1000 years.
If you already have a solid and well established colony on bodies like Mars or the Moon (self-sustaining even), then you will be able to talk about manufactured worlds. Until then, you will have to lift everything from the Earth, which is prohibitively expensive for any very large project, or something that has not risen to the level of being of national importance, Robert Bigelow not withstanding.
So, we use EVA suits that DOCK rather than enter. (Score:5, Insightful)
Where the backpack mounts, underneath it on the back of the suit, there's a hatch.
Astronaut backs up to the side of the habitat,
removes the backpack or hinges it to one side.
There's a flat oval surface big enough to exit from.
A matching surface on the habitat also opens up.
On it there's a sticky surface like a Post-It note.
Astronaut presses the suit up against that surface, and it seals around the edge.
The sticky surface traps all the dust on the outside of the suit hatch and anything that stuck to the surface gets peeled away along with the sticky layer, out from between the EVA suit and the actual habitat surface.
Think of the old magic trick of slipping a tablecloth out from under the table setting, or of putting down one side of double-sticky tape and then pulling the covering paper out from in between the parts you want to stay in contact.
Then you have a pair of freshly cleaned surfaces stuck together -- astronaut on one side in the EVA suit, and true airlock on the other side in the habitat (yes, you do want a backup door.
Pull the little zip strip all the way around, roll up the membrane with any remaining dust stuck in between two thin layers of clean material.
Astronaut backs into the airlock.
Pull down another clean sheet of sealing material over the opening, with whatever connectors are required for flushing out and cleaning the EVA suit.
Close the portal, leaving the cleaned suit hanging there on the outside of the habitat waiting to be entered next time.
Step through the real airlock door, seal it, wash up, lather-rinse-repeat.
Go into the habitat.
Yes, I take this stuff seriously.
Short of setting up a nice big sprinkler system and freezing the whole area to control the dust, it's going to be a constant issue.
Mars is looking friendlier all the time, as are the Lagrange points.
Maybe the Moon really is for the machines.
Mars? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Mars? (Score:4, Informative)
Logically it shouldn't be like on the Moon since Mars has an atmosphere - it even has dust storms.
But this is one more remainder that decision taken some time ago by NASA to go first to the Moon and then to Mars makes no real sense. This was discussed widely, also on /. but one of the reasons was that Moon would serve as a testing ground for solutions to be used on Mars. As this example shows Moon may require totally different habitats, suits and equipment - in some aspects even up to much higher standards than for Mars.
Lunar dust may be a health threat? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Informative)
The Apollo astronauts couldn't help but get covered in the stuff as they struggled to stay upright on the moon's surface, where the force of gravity is one-sixth of that on Earth. Later, they tracked the dust back into their space capsules and inhaled it when they took off their helmets.
It won't happen again.
Toner Research (Score:5, Interesting)
You can also make toner with such a small particle size distribution it is actually taken into the blood stream and excreted, well, normally.
You get into trouble, however, when you get into particle sizes between the two of those ranges (Which escape me ATM).
That sized dust goes into the lung and stays there- too large to get absorbed, too small to get exhaled out.
It will also exhibit most of the properties of statically charged nano-particulates: It gets everywhere, fast.
There may be a 'clean room' to disengage the suits, but no matter how you adjust for the problem (save going underwater in an ultrasonic scrubber) that dust will move with you.
Maybe installation of those 'ion-breeze' units from SharperImage will fix it....
Re:Toner Research (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Toner Research (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Funny)
- Lightweight jumpsuits you wear on the outside of your pressure suit, which you put on and take off in the airlock.
- Blow the site clean with gas jets or ions before you go for a walk. There no wind -- once the dust is gone, it's not coming back any time soon.
- Mag-cloride does a bang up job gumming the road dust together here on earth, spray the site with some before you get out of the capsule. You can be sure it will dry fast.
- The dust is only inches thick. Use a broom. Move the dust out of your normal outside work areas. Don't just wallow in it like a moon-billy. Act civilized!
Re:Hmmm (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it won't. Not to Americans anyway. Not with NASA's already paltry budget being cut to fund more Pentagon spending.
It might be a problem for the Chinese, but as long as we can keep buying cheap Chinese make consumer products at Wal*Mart, America won't give a damn.
Wake up America! Your birthright is being sold to Halliburton. Your schools have been hi-jacked by Christian Fundamentalists who believe that their Creation story ought to be taught in biology classes, and Florida is
Look at me, I'm a panic artist in tinfoil! (Score:5, Insightful)
Christian Fundamentalists and Creationism are not the biggest problems in American schools today. I'm not sure what the biggest problem is (I've begun to realize that my last hypothesis was rather narrowminded), however, I'm starting to think that a deep fear of controversy, and the lack of clear purpose are in a dead heat for it.
Schools seem unwilling to teach about ideas and issues people feel strongly about one way or another. Schools also can't seem to figure out if they exist strictly to do the bidding of the parents, or to have some measure of independence and personal destiny of their own. That ties in with the issue of controversy, though, I suppose. (Then there's also my pet issue with schools: the sink holes that are administrations)
On the issue of broadcast(and cable/satellite) standards, I have to agree with The Wilschon and wonder what this has to do with science, or the Moon. Nevertheless you're talking about one Representative(of 435) and one Senator(of 100). I don't know what kind of support they have for their ideas, but I'm not about to become panicked over the fact that they have them. Senators and Congressmen are allowed to have dumb ideas too... just so long as they don't get the votes to pass them into law.
As to stem cell research(which you can say), like one of the ACs said, he isn't outlawing it, just restricting Federal funding. We're funding it out here in California [ca.gov], though.
Yes, my headline is rather flamish(flemish?), but seriously man, the Dark Ages? If you're going to act as an alarmist, at least come up with some original thoughts.
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Funny)
There is no excuse for reading the article. The only excuse for even going and loading it, is to try and cut/paste into a posting here, trolling for karma. You should damn well know better by now, actually making intelligent comments based on the articles content is a sure sign of total incompetence with regard to how /. works.
It won't happen again.
It damn well better not, this kind of behaviour can only result in intelligent and <shudder>informed</shudder> commentary. Thats NOT what /. is all about...
Re:Hmmm (Score:4, Insightful)
WTF does soon mean?
Re:Hmmm (Score:2)
Re:Hmmm (Score:4, Interesting)
Moreover, once you have a permanent base, thing are going to get that much worse. It is extraordinarily hard to keep micron-sized particles out completely whenever you enter and exit the airlock.
Re:Hmmm (Score:2)
Re:Hmmm (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Something like this for the suites, a respirator then doing it again for the person should eliminate enough of the threat to make it little to worry about. As for abrasions on boots or lences? There could be a sleaved system that slides over them to take the blunt of the damage like sock or contact lences. These could be clearned and reused several times until they become unsafe or unproductive.
Of course this would be more suitable for permanent structures then it would be for landing craft. Somethign that could be done to litigate the risk would be to have a second landing vehicle with the neccesary componants and then have the landing craft dock with it after landing. The second lander could be motorized and have the ability to manuver to different parts of the moon by remote control to make it more convientient and less expensive. Once permanent structures are made, there would be little need for them again unless they can be fabricated into the the desing of the biodomes (whatever) and become one of it's functional clean room. It might even be able to goto the landing craft, pickup visitors and return them to the permanent structures to reduce the risk of colision when landing a craft at the building.
This fits so well in my little imaginary moon world. The shuttles could land far enough away to not endanger the settlement and the left over mision decontaminators become the airport shuttles. I bet there could even be a loading dock built into them so supplies could be lifted out of the cargo bay with the arm and placed directly on the transport like a shiping container.
Indoors, silly (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Indoors, silly (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Space suit (Score:2)
Re:Lunar Dust Photos and Explanation (Score:4, Informative)
Not only that (Score:3, Insightful)
Google sentences from his "articles" and see for yourself.
Re:Wow, what a trivial concern (Score:2)
Re:Lungs? (Score:2)
It might serve you well to RTFA:
Moon dust is much more jagged than dust on Earth because there's no water or wind on the moon to toss it around and grind down its edges.
*snip*
Also, the dust is littered with bonded shards of glass and minerals known as agglutinates, which were formed in the heat of meteorite impacts. Agglutinates have not been found on Earth, and scie
Re:Silicosis? Pfft... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:the real reason.... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Pressurized... (Score:5, Informative)
You seem to have your pressures mixed up. The pressure inside the cabin of an airplane is substantially *higher* then the air pressure outside. (IIRC, the difference is about 15 lbs / in). That would tend to make the cabin door want to burst open, as opposed to staying closed.
Notwithstanding, the article doesn't really discuss the concern of dust getting into the suit. The concern is dust on the suit, which then comes into the lunar facility with the astronaut. The astronaut (lunarnaut?) then takes off his helmet inside the facility and BAM! Lunar dust can now conceivably get into his lungs.
The bigger problem is any lunar dust that makes its way back to the spacecraft. When the craft goes back into space and into zero-g, the particles which were resting on the ground are now floating in the air.