Slashdot Mirror


Lunar Dust: A Major Worry for Moon Visitors

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."

464 comments

  1. Live on the Moon? Thank you smokers! by DarkHelmet · · Score: 5, Funny
    I'm sure that people will solve this problem, so that we, as a race, can live on the moon just fine.

    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!

    --
    /^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
    1. Re:Live on the Moon? Thank you smokers! by rebeka+thomas · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Worth mentioning is that lunar dust has not been in contact with the common gases we simply breathe as humans. Nor with the fluids & matter of our lungs.

      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.

      --
      RST
    2. Re:Live on the Moon? Thank you smokers! by momogasuki · · Score: 4, Funny

      Why don't we just put the smokers on the moon? They don't care about their lungs anyway...

    3. Re:Live on the Moon? Thank you smokers! by Total_Wimp · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Nah, it wont even get to that. They can control the dust just by hosing it down. Duh!

      TW

    4. Re:Live on the Moon? Thank you smokers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Aren't some common substances really reactive in a powdered form too? afaik there's a lot of iron out in space, and iron powder can be seriously explosive in the right conditions, or at least get very hot and burn when exposed to water & air. Take a deep breath of the wrong kind of moon dust and get third degree burns all down your lungs!

      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 of the water.

    5. Re:Live on the Moon? Thank you smokers! by paroneayea · · Score: 1

      That we'll even be able to make it long enough to develop technology that will allow living on the moon feasible seems entirely optimistic, considering recent studies...

      --
      http://mediagoblin.org/
    6. Re:Live on the Moon? Thank you smokers! by Infinite+Entropy · · Score: 1

      ALL of those little hand heaters you buy wrapped in plastic use the oxidation of iron powder to work. They aren't anything special.

    7. Re:Live on the Moon? Thank you smokers! by BottleCup · · Score: 1

      I'm sure they'll do just that once they figure out where to find sufficient amounts of water for it. Water is trivial here on earth, but on the moon?

    8. Re:Live on the Moon? Thank you smokers! by MemoryAid · · Score: 1

      Hose it down with waste oil (because water would evaporate) just like Times Beach, Missouri.

      --
      Language students: Don't try to learn English here. This ain't it.
    9. Re:Live on the Moon? Thank you smokers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't say I've ever seen or used one of those, only heard about the diving ones years ago.

    10. Re:Live on the Moon? Thank you smokers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3 words...Giant rock tumbler. My sister used to have one back in the 70's. Filter all the dust through it and voila!

    11. Re:Live on the Moon? Thank you smokers! by Infinite+Entropy · · Score: 1

      You must not live in a state with cold winters. If you did, you WOULD have seen them.

    12. Re:Live on the Moon? Thank you smokers! by Moofie · · Score: 1

      You're absolutely right. You better commit suicide now. Can I have your computer?

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    13. Re:Live on the Moon? Thank you smokers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I live in far north queensland, australia. We're probably about as close to the equator as Cuba, perhaps a little further away :)

    14. Re:Live on the Moon? Thank you smokers! by Vulturo · · Score: 1

      Hosing it down may not be a viable solution due to non availability of water on the moon. You cant go about carrying water or any other fluid from earth for the purpose.

      There are a lot of inhospitable terrain on the earth as well, but we do work around that

      Maybe civilisations on the moon could start off by demarcating certain space for building a city, and then "bulldozing" the terrain - generally using a ground levelling technique

      The article talks about the moon being inhospitable for civilization due to dust, but IMO but there are many other factors excluding dust.

      Despite that however, if earthings decide to start civilisations on the moon, dust is not going to be their #1 problem to fix. Things can happen in a phazed manner (if at all)

      --
      Vulturo, Prince Of Darkness
    15. Re:Live on the Moon? Thank you smokers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I live in sweden and I have never seen them.

      Must be the sissy USians who needs stuff like that

    16. Re:Live on the Moon? Thank you smokers! by Infinite+Entropy · · Score: 1

      I see a HUGE marketing oppurtunity here. Those things are great. They get to about 120 to 130 F for about 7 hours. My mom had here thyroid removed and she goes through hundreds.

    17. Re:Live on the Moon? Thank you smokers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in UK and have seen them.. however have never been enough of a pussy to actually buy one!.... :o)

      how is the USA going to take over the world if they have to stop every ten minutes to keep their hands warm!

    18. Re:Live on the Moon? Thank you smokers! by Infinite+Entropy · · Score: 1

      Maybe we need them because we need to do so much outside work in the winter instead of cowering from the cold. Nothing like a day on the farm when its minus 15 F. (As it was where I worked last winter)

    19. Re:Live on the Moon? Thank you smokers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      USian is not a word, grow up.

    20. Re:Live on the Moon? Thank you smokers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is in the rest of the world, where "American" is a common word for people from America, e.g. countries like Canada or Brazil.

    21. Re:Live on the Moon? Thank you smokers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you had a proper job you wouldnt have to work on a farm in the freezing cold.. now stop being a bitch and go shoe a horse.. redneck

    22. Re:Live on the Moon? Thank you smokers! by hplasm · · Score: 0

      Merkin?

      --
      ...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
    23. Re:Live on the Moon? Thank you smokers! by clarkcox3 · · Score: 2, 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".

      --
      There are no tiger attacks in my area and it's all because this rock I'm holding keeps the tigers away.
    24. Re:Live on the Moon? Thank you smokers! by ForestGrump · · Score: 1

      Same reason why Hitler couldn't take over Russia.

      --
      Is it true that more people vote for the winner of American Idol, than vote for the president? -Ali G.
    25. Re:Live on the Moon? Thank you smokers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're welcome! (cough..., cough...)
      Damn, gotta get another one...

    26. Re:Live on the Moon? Thank you smokers! by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 0

      Whereabouts in America is Sweden?

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    27. Re:Live on the Moon? Thank you smokers! by wgaryhas · · Score: 1

      So, if everyone had a "proper" job there would be no food?

      --
      "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." - H.L. Mencken
    28. Re:Live on the Moon? Thank you smokers! by PeanutGallery · · Score: 1

      I'm sure that people will solve this problem, so that we, as a race, can live on the moon just fine.

      Put a "Welcome" mat outside the LEM to encourage astronauts to wipe their feet?

      (It serves a dual role in making the place look more "homey" to extraterrestrials who decide to pop over for a martini.)

      I'll even sell you guys one scientifically designed for the space program. (I scratch off the Shopko sticker and up the price by $100,000.)

      --
      -- Just another unsolicited opinion... from the Peanut Gallery.
    29. Re:Live on the Moon? Thank you smokers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, no it isn't.

    30. Re:Live on the Moon? Thank you smokers! by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 1
      "America" is the combo of North America and South America. It's also not the name of a country. The proper name of the country is "The United States of America".

      And, yeah, most Canadians hate being called american unless it's clear that the person speaking is talking of the supercontinent as opposed to the lazy name for the country.

      --
      Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
    31. Re:Live on the Moon? Thank you smokers! by francisew · · Score: 1

      Really good point. Although some people have replied to the effect that it has already been in contact in the Apollo missions, I agree with you that not enough of the adverse surface chemistry is known.

      The chemical reactivity of the particles is not the only concern. Due to the quantity of particles (in a wide variety of shapes and sizes), these dust particles might act as catalysts or enzymes when in contact with biological media. The strange mix of rough crystals/minerals involved would probably cause significant additional complications.

      Perhaps the dust might be sorted (in a mass spec?) and used in industrial processes?

      Someone else suggested (as a wisecrack?) using flypaper, or gluing the dust to paper as an adornment (moon-dust paper, cute).

      Actually, that's not a bad idea.

      Using sticky paper (like tape, or flypaper), the moon dust could be efficiently captured inside the airlock, regardless of particle size.

      Rebeka: I keep running across your slashdot comments. They're usually insightful to a point where I recognize your writing. Do you have a background in chemistry? Thanks for the interesting percepts.

      Francis

    32. Re:Live on the Moon? Thank you smokers! by Infinite+Entropy · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Wow, are you a fucking stupid troll. You like milk, ice cream, choclolate, yougurt? Where do you think all that milk comes from? Dairy farmers do more in a half hour than you do all week.

    33. Re:Live on the Moon? Thank you smokers! by MegaHyster · · Score: 0
      You can't conquor the world with cold hands!

      It's not civilized...

      --
      All good things...
    34. Re:Live on the Moon? Thank you smokers! by zero_offset · · Score: 1

      Worth mentioning is that lunar dust has not been in contact with the common gases we simply breathe as humans. Nor with the fluids & matter of our lungs.

      RTFA. Hell, don't even RTFA, just THINK about it briefly.

      It clings to the outside of your suits, tools, and vehicles, which you presumably bring indoors at some point. Voila, it makes contact with the common gasses you simply breathe as a human, and from there it is a very short trip to your fluids , lungs, and other favorite meaty bits.

      --

      Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005

    35. Re:Live on the Moon? Thank you smokers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wtf.. why can't you post all this shit in 1 post?
      oh wait.. you must be thinking youll get modded for each post right? jesus, what is it with you people, karma dont mean shit, ok.

    36. Re:Live on the Moon? Thank you smokers! by RockModeNick · · Score: 1

      Why not use cyclonic motion of air to remove all the particles like some vaccum cleaners do?

    37. Re:Live on the Moon? Thank you smokers! by francisew · · Score: 1

      That's a really good idea, although I'm not sure it would work because of the extremely small size of the particles. The cyclonic action would work especially well for larger particles (as I understand it, cyclonic vavuum cleaners work through deposition by gravity filtration).

  2. Hmmm by Chess_the_cat · · Score: 0

    Don't think they have to worry about it getting into their lungs unless they plan on removing their breathing apparatus.

    --
    Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
    1. Re:Hmmm by Azadre · · Score: 1

      But what if they want to swim with moon babes? What then!?

    2. Re:Hmmm by chimpo13 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Sorry, I accidently RTFA.

      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.

    3. Re:Hmmm by worst_name_ever · · Score: 1

      Or, more likely, tracking in dust that then gets into the life support system.

      --

      In Soviet Rush, today's Tom Sawyer gets high on you.
    4. Re:Hmmm by InfiniteWisdom · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That is something they most certainly would plan on doing once they return to the space capsule.

      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.

    5. Re:Hmmm by idlake · · Score: 1

      RTFA. Yes, they do plan on removing their breathing apparatus, like after the reenter the capsule. Dust on the outside of their space suits then gets into the capsule. Article also contains possible solutions. You should read it.

    6. Re:Hmmm by mr.mighty · · Score: 2, Informative

      This dust could get everywhere. Sooner or later you take off your space suit, you track dust into the biodome on your boots, you park the moon buggy in the garage, etc. Dust just a few microns has the potential to work its way all through air circulation systems, etc. It'll be a nightmare to deal with.

    7. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It won't happen again.

      Because we're not going back any time soon.

    8. Re:Hmmm by QuantumG · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Because we're not going back any time soon.

      WTF does soon mean?

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    9. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure why I'm getting a sarcastic vibe from your post, but on the Moon, the mass of the spacesuits would be the same as on Earth (ie very massive). Not to mention that the suits are bulky and rigid, the fact that the gravity is one-sixth of Earth's doesn't change that it was not easy to walk on the Moon with them; they had to bounce rather than walk with them.

    10. Re:Hmmm by sumdumass · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm not sure it would be as much of a problem as it seems. We already have decontamination proceedures set up and in place for dealing with hazmat responce. The airlock could contain a forcful shower that recycle the water being used and basicaly hose the dust wich become mud off. Also chemicals could be added to disolve anything that the water would miss. Then a positive force air/gas flow could be applied to filter anyhting remaining out(if there would be). This would basicaly be a self contained system and could easily be modified from somethign already in existance.

      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.

    11. Re:Hmmm by hypnagogue · · Score: 5, Funny

      Come on NASA, how hard could it be?

      - 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!

      --
      Liberty you never use is liberty you lose.
    12. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      couldnt they just apply some kind of lunar dust filter to the pattern buffer and beam the stuff off me?

    13. Re:Hmmm by citog · · Score: 1

      There's a book you should read on this, might help put the parent's comments into context.

    14. Re:Hmmm by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 1

      MIC will want to.

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    15. Re:Hmmm by ZSpade · · Score: 1

      "Don't think they have to worry about it getting into their lungs unless they plan on removing their breathing apparatus."

      If they remove their breathing apparatus, I think moon dust will be the least of their worries.

      --
      Go ahead and call me unreliable; reliable is just a synonym for predictable.
    16. Re:Hmmm by orthogonal · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "It won't happen again."

      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 about to pass a law allowing college professors to be sued for offending Fundamentalist students by ignoring Creationism.

      A Republican Congressman, Sennsenbrenner wants to enact criminal penalties -- that is, jail time -- for broadcasters who violate his idea of "decency", and Republican Senator Ted Stevens, wants to expand existing decency laws to cover cable and satellite broadcasts that people can't even see without subscribing.

      Your President wants to outlaw medical research because he considers a two-day-old, 16-cell, unimplanted embryo a human life. His executive agencies are quizzing scientists about who they voted for as part of the hiring process, and suppressing research that his corporate backers don't want to see.

      Wake up! Science in America is under siege -- not only are we not going back to the Moon, we're headed straight for the Dark Ages.

    17. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not enough hard-working, decent and honest Mexicans on the moon to clean-up after lazy, filthy Americans.
      Besides, they would pimp-out that loonar low-rider-lander and make it jump 6 times as high.

    18. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the audience doesn't laugh, it's a problem with the comedian, not with the audience.

    19. Re:Hmmm by MemoryAid · · Score: 1

      He meant he wouldn't read an article again. But your point is worth making. Well, I haven't read it yet, but I will, and it will be worth it.

      --
      Language students: Don't try to learn English here. This ain't it.
    20. Re:Hmmm by Flendon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      For protecting the lenses they could use tear-away windshield film.

      --
      chown -R us ./base
    21. Re:Hmmm by TWX · · Score: 1

      On a serious note, how about building a large domed or enclosed environment that gets some serious weathering and erosive treatments before humans enter it while suited, let alone suitless. Once this environment is created, for entry and egress to untreated areas use some kind of severe service clean room system that uses liquids, pressurized gases, and suits designed to flow electrical current to disengage the particles, and treat everything with level four biohazard style methods.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    22. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      crap, I really feel your pain man... this country is headed for a major upset... the asians are buying our debt as fast as we can produce it... not that it's the asian's fault or anything... the system is corrupt.. and goddamnit I wish I had followed thru with my threats a year ago to move to canada if bush won again... but I am a lazy guy... a lazy guy who needs a damned job btw ;-)
      kmobrien81@yahoo.com

    23. Re:Hmmm by The_Wilschon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What, exactly, does TV censoring have to do with scientific research, pray tell?

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    24. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      the free flow of ideas has everything to do with science

    25. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Your President wants to outlaw medical research because he considers a two-day-old, 16-cell, unimplanted embryo a human life."

      Um... no... he just doesn't want government funding to go to it... Whatever... adult stem cells seem much more effective anyway. I don't think that the govt should be funding much of anything anyway. Given how evil they seem to be by your post I think the govt (whether a Bush govt or a Kerry govt) should just stay out of everything.

    26. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't ever spell response like that again....

    27. Re:Hmmm by mboverload · · Score: 1

      The problem is when they take off their suits. We had the same problem with the guy in the ISS. THe rocket spewed toxic material which didn't bother the suit, but when they brought it in it wouldn't be so trivial.

    28. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Censorship (of TV or anything else) and disdain for the rigours and value of scientific research are the hallmarks of barbarians. Look at the world around you - these two things are part and parcel of fundamentalist doctrine from the Taliban to the current Christian right in the U.S.

    29. Re:Hmmm by grozzie2 · · Score: 4, Funny
      Sorry, I accidently RTFA.

      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...

    30. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Apollo astronauts couldn't help but get covered in
      >the stuff as they struggled to stay upright on
      >the moon's surface

      Provided the moon landings were real...

    31. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "What, exactly, does TV censoring have to do with scientific research, pray tell?"

      The people that want to get offended on my behalf because Janet Jackson has boobs, are the same people that want to teach our children that the earth is flat. And they're the same people that want to halt any scientific research that might produce results contrary to their mythology.

      This urge to control the information you're exposed to doesn't exist in a vacuum, whether you're talking about space, embryos, or TV.

    32. Re:Hmmm by huge+colin · · Score: 1

      I guess you haven't noticed, but the moon is not rich with resources. It costs a fortune to go there, and it's got nothing worth bringing back. There is no reason for NASA to return, and I think they know this.

      Also, we are not heading for the "Dark Ages". Things get better gradually, and religion is slowly losing ground.

    33. Re:Hmmm by Yanray · · Score: 1

      Sorry you lost your federal grant money to prove that God does not exist. However you have to realize that government funding of research is something new and raising taxpayer interest in research is hard to do.

      Currently the Federal Government has alot of problems getting the average tax payer to want to spend money on research of any kind. It isn't interesting and most people equate it to spending $115.00 a hammer or research into the medicinal properties of Timber Owl pellets.

      Manned Space Exploration in the early years of NASA and the Soft Science of the Apollo Missions was seen as exciting and worth the expense. Support is seriously lagging for any science experiment that doesn't provide great video captions or pictures for the newspaper. Unless you support Soft Science on a Large Scale it is eventually going to be impossible to get money for anything but a better bullet or bomb.

      To use a business analogy "You have to spend money to make money." Big Science can only make money by providing a supporting role and then living on the coat tails of Soft Science.

      That said Bush is solely show boating the Manned Space Exploration in order to appease Joe Taxpayer's apprehension on spending any money on science. Truth be told unless it means immediate return of investment I doubt 10% of the administration (or the U.S. government) desires to spend money on "Big Science." They spend enough to keep the academics and educated placated.

      It is my belief that in that 10% of government who actually care about science research someone decided that the best way to get more research funding in the long run is to get the polarized public interested in space exploration through the Moon, Mars and Beyond program. Without it they understood that thier budget would continue to shrink as the government invested more in the care of aging baby boomers.

      I made a joke a while back about Haliburton being blamed by liberals for all the evils of today's world. I though it was a joke.

      --
      --"Sorry for the inconvience." Gods Last Words to his Creation
      DNA, So Long and Thanks for all the Fish
    34. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wake up America! Your birthright is being sold to Halliburton. blah blah blah

      I can just see the spittle flying from your mouth as you screech this. Do you turn every conversation into a temper tantrum about America?

      Besides, he was promising not to RTFA anymore, not go to the moon.

    35. Re:Hmmm by dr_dank · · Score: 1

      Man, I wish I had an explanation that good when I'd try to hide my late-night Cinemax viewing from my parents as a kid.

      --
      Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
    36. Re:Hmmm by Alan+Partridge · · Score: 0

      ESPECIALLY other countries.

      --
      That was classic intercourse!
    37. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude - you are retarded and your cry-baby attitude is old. Why can't you Kerry supporters get on with it - he lost cause he sucks.
      The whole Demo-rat party sucks - come on, Ted Kenendy and the Clintons are their heros!!

    38. Re:Hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      soon Pronunciation Key (sn)
      adv. sooner, soonest

      1. In the near future; shortly.
      2. Without hesitation; promptly: came as soon as possible.
      3. Before the usual or appointed time; early.
      4. With willingness; readily: I'd as soon leave right now.
      5. Obsolete. Immediately.

      Idioms:
      no sooner than

      As soon as: No sooner was the frost off the ground than the work began.

      sooner or later

      At some time; eventually: Sooner or later you will have to face the facts.

      [Middle English sone, from Old English sna, immediately, soon.]

      Usage Note: No sooner, as a comparative adverb, should be followed by than not when, as in these typical examples: No sooner had she come than the maid knocked. I had no sooner left than she called.

    39. Re:Hmmm by cdrguru · · Score: 1
      The movement of all manufacturing to third-world areas, including China, is certainly a problem.

      But I'm a lot more worried about folks that want me to exercise my "right to die". Perhaps before I'm good and ready to go. I'm a lot more worried about that than someone passing a law against saying "F..K" on the radio.

      As far as medical research is concerned, I think there is a equally a fear that if you can get $100 for your embryo that people will do this for the money. Just for the money. Just like people sell their blood today. Haven't heard about that? Well, listen up! Yes, if it is legal, people will make people (or potential people) just for money.

      One of the concerns of stem-cell researchers is about supply. If they come up with a technique that really, really works, where are they going to get a steady supply of nice fresh cells? If you had cancer and could be cured, but it would require someone to have an abortion to get the cells, would you do it?

    40. Re:Hmmm by operagost · · Score: 1
      Wow, your post is basically a long collection of every misleading leftist rant collected on Slashdot in the last two years.

      "Outlaw medical research?" He authorized limited funding for that research. Feel free to create your own new fetal stem cell lines if you wish. I hear that there may actually be means of funding other than handouts from the government -- say, corporations or individuals.

      Senesennbrenner would have a hard time enforcing "his" policies, being as whatever lousy legislation he might push through would only empower the FCC to do so.

      Hallibruton? Geez, that's just a buzzword now that doesn't need explaining, does it?

      Creationism? Listen to how looney you sound, protesting that views you don't like might actually be mentioned in a classroom. The first amendment doesn't just apply to left-wingers, you buffoon. We talk about disproved theories like "aether" in science classes, along with yet-unproved theories like black holes. As long as students are encouraged to think (a tall order, I know) instead of dumbly accepting everything they're told, we'll be better off.

      How sad that the other tinfoil-hat wearers thought your post was insightful.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    41. Re:Hmmm by operagost · · Score: 1
      The people that want to get offended on my behalf because Janet Jackson has boobs, are the same people that want to teach our children that the earth is flat.
      You're just utterly retarded. This is the most absurd straw man today.
      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    42. Re:Hmmm by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      heh. I'm just as surprised as you that my quick quip is modded up so high. I believe the appeal is that everyone has their own definition of soon when talking about the space program. Saying things like "within our lifetime" instead of "soon" is much more appropriate. Or in the case of going back to the moon "within the next 30 years". Which I think is a fair amount of time to wait. After all, we've waited 30 years already.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
  3. lawsuits by timmarhy · · Score: 1, Insightful

    look out here we go...

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    1. Re:lawsuits by HungSoLow · · Score: 2, Funny

      Damnit. All I've ever wanted to do was send all the lawyers to the moon .. but now it seems they'll serve a purpose there... looks like the sun is our only option!

    2. Re:lawsuits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and even though the defense can show that researched proved how harmful it was all the way back in 2005, the whiney fuckers will still win.

    3. Re:lawsuits by smchris · · Score: 2, Funny

      The Chinese have OSHA?

    4. Re:lawsuits by Secret+Agent+99 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Nah, that kind of suit is way too porous for this kind of dust.

  4. Yet by bigattichouse · · Score: 1

    No one seems to have publically noticed this effect until now.. funny. Say, I heard Christopher Columbus met this crazy bunch of people called the Caribs!

    --
    meh
    1. Re:Yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They were Indians, you insensitive clod!

    2. Re:Yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Say, I heard Christopher Columbus met this crazy bunch of people called the Caribs!

      Later on, the Carbs were killed by the genocidal Dr. Atkinson.

  5. thanks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank you Wired, for taking away my dreams of leaving Earth and finding someplace else that's good.

  6. So what it means is by krisp · · Score: 3, Funny

    that biodomes will be clean. All the sci-fi movies had moon cities in a giant biodome! Anyone who goes outside and interacts with the dust gets cleaned on the way back in

    1. Re:So what it means is by sTalking_Goat · · Score: 2, Interesting
      How?

      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.

      --

      My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...

    2. Re:So what it means is by jd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Chemical wash, probably. The moon is mostly silicates, using something that reacts readily with silicon would seem to be a likely candidate. It also has to be something that doesn't react with space suits, which might pose a problem.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    3. Re:So what it means is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Chemical wash, probably. The moon is mostly silicates, using something that reacts readily with silicon would seem to be a likely candidate.

      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.

    4. Re:So what it means is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what's wrong with washing it off? the problem with
      the dust is it's abbrasive, velcro like qualities. Water can be used to round the edges of the dust, just add ultra sonic frequencies, or temperature and motion variation.

    5. Re:So what it means is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bouncing mud? are you thinking about zero-G? This is the moon... there will be mud, but it will end up on the floor just like it does here on earth, just won't accellerate as quickly while doing it.

    6. Re:So what it means is by Mariukenas · · Score: 1

      Hydrofluoric acid ?

      No problem - just wax your space suit before moon-walking.

      (Hydrofluoric acid was stored in paraffin bottles before teflon was comercially available)

    7. Re:So what it means is by fireboy1919 · · Score: 1

      How about a water?

      Deionized/distilled water+ionizing airfilter in the air, maybe? Probably good enough to do the trick, and you don't have to pay for anything special.

      Remember, water is the ultimate solute (even when you don't have access to things that actually dissolve in water, some still does).

      --
      Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
    8. Re:So what it means is by utexaspunk · · Score: 1

      vacuum? they could have mr. "i just think things should work properly" dyson design a vacuum cleaning airlock... heck, it might even be spherical!

    9. Re:So what it means is by sTalking_Goat · · Score: 2, Funny

      lol. I could just see that. Spinning the occupant at 300 times the force of gravity. That'll get the dust off, and the suit, and his internal organs...

      --

      My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...

    10. Re:So what it means is by utexaspunk · · Score: 2, Funny

      no, silly- no need to spin the astronaut, just the air- the astronaut could enter the "dyson sphere" and it could just suck the dust off of with a hose connected to a giant yellow (or purple) plastic vacuum cleaner.

    11. Re:So what it means is by NaDrew · · Score: 1
      the astronaut could enter the "dyson sphere" and it could just suck the dust off of with a hose connected to a giant yellow (or purple) plastic vacuum cleaner.
      Damn, wish I hadn't used up my points yesterday! +1 Funny :)
      --
      Vista:XPSP2::ME:98SE
    12. Re:So what it means is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Silicon != silicate, and while we are at it, != silicone either

      Silicon is the element -- think of it like pure iron. It rarely, if ever, occurs naturally. It has to be chemically reduced from other materials, which is tricky to do and one of the reasons it is so expensive in bulk.

      Silicate is an oxide of the element silicon: i.e. SiO2. The most common minerals on the surface of the Earth and the Moon are silicates. Silicates can consist of pure silica (SiO2) or have various other atoms included in their crystal structure too (e.g., K, Mg, Na, Fe, Ca, OH, et cetera). Quartz sand, clays, feldspar, and many other minerals are silicates. Silicate is to silicon as rust (iron oxide) is to iron. Most common types of glasses consist mainly of silicates (though glass can be made from almost anything -- it has to do with the arrangement of the atoms rather than composition. It just turns out that glass for windows, CRT tubes, bottles, etc. is usually mainly silicate glass).

      For the sake of completeness, silicone is artificial. It is a polymer (repeated molecular units) with an Si-O-Si-O-Si-O backbone. By varying the side-chains, all sorts of properties are possible (everything from liquids to solids).

      Soooo, no, something that reacts with silicon is unlikely to be relevant, because Moon dust isn't silicon. If you meant to dissolve silicates, good luck. The Si-O bonds are very strong. About the only low-temperature option is HF (hydrofluoric acid), which will react with almost anything and is quite toxic (goodbye space suit).

      However, on Earth, the abundance of silicates in the surface environment means they have been dealt with here for as long as humans have existed. There are many traditions for dealing with it, but modern technology has also developed solutions at an industrial scale. In the industrialized world, most people therefore deal with excessive coatings of silicates by putting their dirty laundry into a washing machine with soap. Though water may be at a premium on the Moon, there are also well-known "dry" cleaning options.

      Not everything to do with space travel is an exotic and strange new problem. The only real challenge here is doing it efficiently and effectively with minimal weight, and the fact that the particles on the Moon's surface do include alot of sharp glassy materials (at microscopic scale) that will abrade more than your average Earthly dirt. Material like that does exist on Earth. It would behave much like volcanic ash, which is also pretty abrasive stuff. Visiting locations that commonly have to deal with ash fallout would probably yield some good cleaning ideas. Testing spacesuit wear in those areas would also make sense.

    13. Re:So what it means is by krisp · · Score: 1

      sounds like a teflon coated suit would resist it then :)

    14. Re:So what it means is by utexaspunk · · Score: 1

      I'm glad someone got it...

  7. asbestos by Internet_Communist · · Score: 4, Interesting

    sounds like moon dust has similar properties to asbestos. So small that it gets stuck in lungs and such...I have no idea if it's as resilient as asbestos is though...any clues?

    --

    If you don't want someone to copy something, don't give it to anyone.
    1. Re:asbestos by srleffler · · Score: 1

      It's rock. Silica is pretty resilient.

    2. Re:asbestos by PornMaster · · Score: 1

      Resilient?

      Well, if it hooks in like Velcro(tm), it's not going to just go away when you cough.

    3. Re:asbestos by soft_guy · · Score: 1

      Yeah, just try to set it on fire.

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
  8. Lung disease in vaccum? by Staplerh · · Score: 3, Funny

    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.

    I wonder if breathing a vaccum without 'dust' in the air would cause a lung disease too?

    --
    "There's no success like failure, and failure's no success at all."
    - Bob Dylan
    1. Re:Lung disease in vaccum? by haydon4 · · Score: 2, Informative

      To speak practiclly, it becomes a problem when the dust gets in the building. Unless, you want to walk around and work with a mask or filter over your face.

    2. Re:Lung disease in vaccum? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about using your brain for two seconds before making a stupid comment? Would that be fatal?

    3. Re:Lung disease in vaccum? by CausticPuppy · · Score: 3, Funny

      I wonder if breathing a vaccum without 'dust' in the air would cause a lung disease too?

      1) Space suit covered with dust
      2) Walk into airlock, pressurize
      3) Dust now suspended in air
      4) Remove helmet
      5) ?????
      6) Silicosis!

      --
      -CausticPuppy "Of all the people I know, you're certainly one of them." -Somebody I don't know
    4. Re:Lung disease in vaccum? by Lord+Pillage · · 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.

      --
      try { Signature mysig = new CleverAttempt(); } catch(NonCleverSignatureException e) { postanyway(); }
    5. Re:Lung disease in vaccum? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3.5 Turn on
      a) filtered fans
      b) shower
      c) low level electrical field (think 'ionic breeze'
      to remove dust.

    6. Re:Lung disease in vaccum? by Canadian_Daemon · · Score: 1

      I think he was being satirical.

      --
      This sig is definitive. Reality is frequently inaccurate.
    7. Re:Lung disease in vaccum? by Staplerh · · Score: 1

      This is this the most humorless poster I've read today.

      Yes, the misspelling is intentional.

      --
      "There's no success like failure, and failure's no success at all."
      - Bob Dylan
    8. Re:Lung disease in vaccum? by cranos · · Score: 2, Informative

      Move step 4 to step five and replace with 4) Run through standard De-contanimation procedures. Sheesh its not that hard.

    9. Re:Lung disease in vaccum? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Look! Up in the sky! It's a bird! It's a plane! It's the joke flying over your head!

    10. Re:Lung disease in vaccum? by Eminence · · Score: 1

      Where is the most important part of the scenario (profit!!!)?

    11. Re:Lung disease in vaccum? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps he is too busy breathing in a vacuum and his brain is suffering from oxygen deprivation...

    12. Re:Lung disease in vaccum? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      7) Profit!!

    13. Re:Lung disease in vaccum? by Johnny5000 · · Score: 1

      Move step 4 to step five and replace with 4) Run through standard De-contanimation procedures. Sheesh its not that hard.

      I think that's the equivalent of the ??????? step.

      1. get dusty
      2. ??????
      3. be clean!

      --
      The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
    14. Re:Lung disease in vaccum? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would these de-contamination procedures be like star trek enterprise which involves rubbing lotion on the skin of sexy vulcans?

  9. Lung Disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    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.

    1. Re:Lung Disease by Skapare · · 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.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    2. Re:Lung Disease by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 5, Informative
      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.

      Lunar dust is reported to smell like exploded firecrackers, according to a 2002 interview with John Hirasaki, an Apollo recovery technician:
      JIM [interviewer]: Did you have to go into isolation prior to the splashdown? If so how long beforehand? Was this done to minimize your exposure to viruses and germs that might have caused alarm if you and/or others in isolation became ill?

      JOHN: Dr. Bill Carpentier and I were placed into isolation within the MQF about the same time as the launch of Apollo 11. The reason for our biological isolation was for the reason that you indicated... At the LRL, on our side of the biological barrier, I recall that the Public Affairs Officer joined the five of us to assist in post-flight debriefings and interviews with the news media. Also during our stay in the LRL, we had two laboratory technicians join us at different intervals because of accidental breeches of biological isolation while they were handling lunar samples on their side of the LRL. The LRL itself is a fascinating story that deserves to be told.

      JIM: You personally retrieved the Apollo 11 lunar sample containers from Columbia shortly after the Command Module was brought on board the Hornet. Do you have specific memories of entering the spacecraft? Did the boxes look "dusty" or smudged?

      JOHN: The first unusual item that I noticed upon entering the Apollo 11 Command Module was a unique scent that reminded me of smell of exploded firecrackers or the scent that you notice when you strike flint together. I had not noticed this scent when I opened other Command Modules following their flights.

      The lunar sample return containers were slightly smudged with dust from the surface of the moon but this dust was especially prevalent on the surface of the suits worn by Armstrong and Aldrin. These suits were stored in the Command Module below the crew couches. Traces of the dust appeared on many surfaces since the fine powder like nature of the moon dust inadvertently allowed it to be transferred to other surfaces.

      I cannot say that the aroma was a direct result of the "moon dust" being present in the cabin even though that was what I surmised. There could be other explanations for the aroma that are not related to the presence of the dust. After reviewing the post-flight notes from the Apollo 11 mission, there was a comment made during crew debriefing that a "strong odor of burnt material" was noticed following the S-IVB stage separation when the crew opened the CSM tunnel.

      Google cache here.
    3. Re:Lung Disease by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Odd, that's exactly what volcanic ash smells like. Anyone in the vicinity of Mt. St. Helens during the 1981 eruption wanna join a class-action lawsuit? God has lots of assets.

    4. Re:Lung Disease by floodo1 · · Score: 0

      perhaps john shouldnt try to assert that lunar dust smells like burnt firecrackers, only to followup with the firecracker smell being there prior to landing on the moon.

      --
      I KUT J00 M4NG!!!
    5. Re:Lung Disease by DerekLyons · · Score: 4, Interesting
      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.

      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.

      Every one of the Apollo lunar mission crewman have been exposed to this dust, without having unprotected acess to the lunar surface - the dust was carried into the cabin with them on the surface of their suits.

      For example see this picture of Gene Cernan after a lunar EVA.

    6. Re:Lung Disease by Inebrius · · Score: 1

      I was thinking nearly the same thing - use a vacuum cleaner. With a strong vacuum, whatever sticks to the suit sticks to it. Remove suit in entry area per preocedures which lower the chance of knocking dust off. Have a heavy duty hepa filter pulling air from the ship to the entry area to limit spread.

      It'd be kinda like taking off the shoes in the entry way. It may not be 100% effective, but how much needs to be done to be safe in a practical manner.

    7. Re:Lung Disease by Skapare · · Score: 1

      Still, the dust can do damage in that entry way. Redundant entries will be needed, as well as ways to repair or even replace them.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    8. Re:Lung Disease by Knight2K · · Score: 1

      An interesting factoid, but the quote you selected actually states that the lunar dust MAY smell like exploded fireworks. Mr. Hirasaki notes that the lunar dust may not be the only explanation. The crew mentioned that they smelt "a 'strong odor of burnt material' was noticed following the S-IVB stage separation when the crew opened the CSM tunnel".

      Do to the way the human nose works, it is possible that the smell from separation never went away, the astronauts just got use to it and ceased to smell it anymore. It is a sealed space, however, so someone who entered after the flight may have noticed the smell again.

      It probably was the dust, but the article you quoted doesn't say this definitively.

      --
      ======
      In X-Windows the client serves YOU!
  10. Dictionary entry for lunar dust... by FIT_Entry1 · · Score: 5, Funny


    Lunar dust (loo-near duhst)n.
    Highly abrasive and difficult to remove.
    see Republicans

    1. Re:Dictionary entry for lunar dust... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My hat is off to you.

    2. Re:Dictionary entry for lunar dust... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you forgot the pronunciation:

      see Republicans (loo-ny dicks)

    3. Re:Dictionary entry for lunar dust... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Noononono... Those are body thetans.
      Body thetans? Get 'em off! Get 'em off!!!! *aieee*

      Xenu wants YOU... To give all of your money to the moon dust, which is the remnant of a gazillion ballion people being detonated on Hawaii with an H-bomb. That's the only way to get 'em off!

    4. Re:Dictionary entry for lunar dust... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you mean mommy's undocumented worker housekeeper will clean it up.

    5. Re:Dictionary entry for lunar dust... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly, the last thing this guy said also applies to republicans. If only we could round them up and put 'em in a volcano...

    6. Re:Dictionary entry for lunar dust... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I guess we can add comparisons to Republicans or Democrats to the comparisons to Nazis that will automatically make you lose. It was funny a few years ago, but now it just sounds shrill.

      I'd say at least you were brave enough to post with your "name", except that on /. bashing Republicans isn't really brave, it's more like lemmings running over the cliff.

      Me? I always post anonymously so that I don't have to read the inane replies that guys like you send back.

      BTW, don't judge my politics from my posts.

    7. Re:Dictionary entry for lunar dust... by Moofie · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      So where does that leave the conservative slashdot fanboys with their heads up their asses?

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
  11. Wow, what a trivial concern by QuantumG · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Just leave your space suit in the airlock, thank you.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
    1. Re:Wow, what a trivial concern by aismail3 · · Score: 1

      While you could certainly minimize the effects by doing something like leaving your space suit in the airlock, there's going to still be dust contamination. Over time, I think that the dust buildup inside the rest of the spaceship would cause problems. You could always replenish the supply of air, which is going to be necessary anyways, but msot of the dust would still be floating around, as the replacement of dirty air with fresh air would be gradual.

    2. Re:Wow, what a trivial concern by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Just filter it.. this is basic cleanroom technology that has been perfected already.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    3. Re:Wow, what a trivial concern by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      Just filter it.. this is basic cleanroom technology that has been perfected

      All cleanroom systems rely on an overabundance of outside air to do their work. They are designed to be at a consistently higher air pressure than their surroundings, so that when breaches occur, material only blows outwards, not in. They also contaminate and "waste" a tremendous amount of air (and/or water) cleaning off visitors as they are about to enter.

      The more critical goal of conserving the very limited supply of moonbase air is opposed by the less important (and less obvious) goal of preventing dust buildup inside the living/plant areas.

    4. Re:Wow, what a trivial concern by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      No, a more sane approach is to extract moonbase air from frozen ice or the regolith.. not truck it up from earth and be stingy with it.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    5. Re:Wow, what a trivial concern by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      a more sane approach is to extract moonbase air from frozen ice or the regolith

      Even if that is possible (a long shot), you'd still need to be stingy. Extracting gas from regolith is hard.

    6. Re:Wow, what a trivial concern by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      bah.. it's 19th century technology.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
  12. dust in lungs by Skapare · · Score: 2
    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 scientists worry that the human body may not be able to expel them efficiently if inhaled.

    Sounds like the makings of a "dirty bomb".

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    1. Re:dust in lungs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like the makings of a "dirty bomb".

      So, the terrorist plan for profit would be:

      1) Build rocket and lunar lander
      2) Fly to the moon
      3) Collect lunar dust
      4) Fly back to earth
      5) Build dirty bomb with lunar dust
      6) PROFIT!!!

    2. Re:dust in lungs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least that would rule out Islamic terrorists. They'd spend all day figuring out which way Mecca was as they hurtled through space.

  13. Lungs? by templest · · Score: 1
    Some of the particles are only microns across which means once they get into your lungs, they stay there.
    I doubt people will be walking on the surface, taking long, deep breaths of fresh air.
    Dunno, just a thought.
    --
    I'm a signature virus. Please copy me to your signature so I can replicate.
    1. Re:Lungs? by jobin · · Score: 1

      I doubt people will be walking on the surface, taking long, deep breaths of fresh air.

      Likewise, I doubt that any cleaning procedure will be able to keep every bit of dust from getting into areas where people will be taking those nice, deep, contaminated breaths.

    2. Re:Lungs? by templest · · Score: 1
      Likewise, I doubt that any cleaning procedure will be able to keep every bit of dust from getting into areas where people will be taking those nice, deep, contaminated breaths.
      If you leave your suit in a safe place, and hose it down before taking it off, I doubt you'll have much dust floating around for you to breathe in. On top of that, It's not like the little dust that would be in the air is any worse than all the shit we already inhale here on Earth. Contamination.
      --
      I'm a signature virus. Please copy me to your signature so I can replicate.
    3. Re:Lungs? by kevcol · · Score: 1

      On top of that, It's not like the little dust that would be in the air is any worse than all the shit we already inhale here on Earth.

      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 scientists worry that the human body may not be able to expel them efficiently if inhaled.

      "They have sharp angles, with arms that stick out and little hooks," said David McKay, chief scientist for astrobiology at NASA's Johnson Space Center. "It's like Velcro."

    4. Re:Lungs? by Mahou · · Score: 1

      did it say if the particles are fragile? how much wind, i.e. pressurized air for cleaning, is needed to erode them into Earth-style dust? no i didn't read the article either

      --
      if i'm not immortal, what's the point of living?
      ...te?
  14. At least by AvatarofVirgo · · Score: 0

    they will not have to worry about redundant articles submitted to slashdot.

    Or is this a case of dajavoo (or how ever you spell it).

  15. Lunar Dust or mesothelioma litigation & lawsui by infonography · · Score: 3, Funny

    We can help. If you have been injured by dust not of this earth we can help. Call Dewey, Keetum and Howe 999.000.04~4 Now, time is slipping away you could lose your chance to get money for your injuries.

    --
    Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
  16. Oh well. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damn, I just packed my bags too.

  17. oh no... by erroneus · · Score: 1, Funny

    ...that poor cow. Do you think it suffered?

  18. Space suit by mschaffer · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Yet another reason to keep your helmet on while out on the moon.

    1. Re:Space suit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point is that you track the dust back with your suit and inhale it later.

      Or did that not occur to you?

    2. Re:Space suit by DarkHelmet · · Score: 1

      I, DarkHelmet, keep my helmet on while browsing Slashdot. Keeping it on while browsing the moon should be no problem.

      --
      /^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
  19. Get in line by Aggrav8d · · Score: 5, Funny

    So if the radiation, metorites, temperature, subversive crewmembers, psychotic computers, lack of air, fuel, or water doesn't get you... the dirt will.

    ...I'd still go. (strip soft/first post?)

    1. Re:Get in line by HardCase · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Don't forget aliens with acid for blood!

    2. Re:Get in line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Insightful... Taco, give us back our humor karma so we can stop this nonsese!

  20. Call me stupid, but... by scovetta · · Score: 0, Redundant

    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."

    Since when are people walking around on the moon breathing in the lack-of-oxygen?

    Or are we talking post-"Total-Recall" terraforming?

    --
    Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. --Nietzsche
  21. Fark by kgayer · · Score: 4, Funny

    Slashdot beaten by Fark (this was posted days ago).. A sad sad day for /.

    --
    2 + 2 = 5. Big Brother's watching you. bonglord.com
    1. Re:Fark by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 3, Funny

      Your dog wants a HEPA filter. /submitted with a much funnier headline

    2. Re:Fark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This happens all the time.

    3. Re:Fark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot beaten by Fark (this was posted days ago).. A sad sad day for /.

      What's really sad is they did it while being up and down more times than the shuttle.

    4. Re:Fark by mark0 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      You're joking, right? /. is regularly scooped by memepool. Its not a sad day, its a sad existence.

    5. Re:Fark by FuturePastNow · · Score: 2, Funny

      All your base are belong to dust /No voting- I didn't make it up

      --
      Give a man fire, and you warm him for the night. Set a man on fire, and you warm him for the rest of his life.
    6. Re:Fark by TGK · · Score: 1

      That phrase -=used=- to mean something.

      --
      Killfile(TGK)
      No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
    7. Re:Fark by sharky611aol.com · · Score: 1

      Ok, seriously. I get a little tired of hearing how "suchandsuch.com posted this X days ago". I don't think anybody here reads /. for up-to-the-minute news. It is, however, still a place where one can find (relatively) intelligent discourse on the topics - as opposed to, say, Fark.

    8. Re:Fark by w00d · · Score: 2, Funny

      What's really sad is that people actually read Fark.

    9. Re:Fark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, yeah, relative compared to Fark, but that isn't saying too much.

      The level of intelligence in the discourse here isn't all that high. Linux = good, Microsoft = bad. Democrats = good, Republicans = bad. World = good, US = bad.

      It's just a bunch of really odd people who desperately want the world to be black and white and just can't adjust to shades of gray. Oh, and almost everybody has the solution to whatever problem is discussed - it's just a shame that nobody asked them...it's so simple! And if they were running things, this world would be a better place: everybody would have broadband Internet and Linux, those nasty Republicans would be banished and the United Nations would be running the show.

      The rest of the posters are enraged that I didn't use "==" instead of "=".

      Sigh...

    10. Re:Fark by Wwolmack · · Score: 1

      A sad sad day for /.

      Oh, you mean Tuesday?

    11. Re:Fark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The level of intelligence in the discourse here isn't all that high. Linux = good, Microsoft = bad. Democrats = good, Republicans = bad. World = good, US = bad.

      Get in line, fool. From now on it's Apple = infallable, Linux = prejudice, and Steve's Ass = lick it, ho.

      Microsoft remains bad (because it has been nasty towards Steve sometimes).

    12. Re:Fark by m50d · · Score: 1

      That's no moon, it's a twap!

      --
      I am trolling
  22. Re:Lunar Dust or mesothelioma litigation & law by infonography · · Score: 1

    I just hope Google gets the joke and doesn't accuse /. of slamming the mesothelioma links. [Has reported and a different article earlier this week.]

    --
    Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
  23. So what? by rm999 · · Score: 1

    If there is no wind on the moon, and people are living indoors, this dust does not seem like a huge deal.

    The only potential problem would be during outdoor activities and construction, but I am sure simple solutions can be found.

  24. Let's send OSHA! by Ikester8 · · Score: 0, Troll

    ...and get 'em off this planet!

    --
    That's the last time I run code posted in somebody's sig...
  25. the (moon)dust ... corroded seals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What were seals doing on the moon - chasing a lost ball? And exactly what part of them corrodes?

  26. Indoors, silly by PornMaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

    When you go back into the shuttle/station/building, you trek dust in with you.

    1. Re:Indoors, silly by QuantumG · · Score: 2, Informative

      And he would have known that if he had RTFA. And the person who modded him up would have known that he didn't RTFA if he had RTFA.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:Indoors, silly by dhakbar · · Score: 1

      But the rest of us who don't know what anyone is talking about wouldn't have known anyway, because none of us RTFA.

    3. Re:Indoors, silly by Famanoran · · Score: 1

      Waht about adding a de-contamination process to the airlock? Like on reentry you get bathed in some sort of liquid or gel that washes away or grabs the dust, before you're allowed to take the suit off?

    4. Re:Indoors, silly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And he would have known that if he had RTFA. And the person who modded him up would have known that he didn't RTFA if he had RTFA.

      You're new around here aren't you?

    5. Re:Indoors, silly by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      heh, no. If we all seriously humiliate people who don't read the article then maybe they'll start (or at least piss off).

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
  27. Re:Lunar Dust Photos and Explanation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks for this article

  28. Re:Lunar Dust Photos and Explanation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Don't mod this guy up. He is a whore for his site. Just look at his history, all he does is post worthless articles that are semi-ontopic that link to his site.

  29. Okay by mattmentecky · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If the turnover rate of information is 40+ years (From the moon landing till now) I think we might have a slight latency gap of informaiton flow.

    Also, with these particles getting caught in the lungs, isnt the whole "lack of oxygen on the moon" probably, a bigger breathing threat?

    1. Re:Okay by WankersRevenge · · Score: 2, Informative

      Also, with these particles getting caught in the lungs, isnt the whole "lack of oxygen on the moon" probably, a bigger breathing threat?

      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 ... you are fine in the water, but you are still going to get wet when you get out of your gear.

    2. Re:Okay by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      If the turnover rate of information is 40+ years (From the moon landing till now) I think we might have a slight latency gap of informaiton flow.
      Nah. This is a well known problem among those who study the lunar missions. Wired is just a little late in getting the word.
      Also, with these particles getting caught in the lungs, isnt the whole "lack of oxygen on the moon" probably, a bigger breathing threat?
      Every one of the Apollo lunar mission crewman have been exposed to this dust, without having unprotected acess to the lunar surface - the dust was carried into the cabin with them on the surface of their suits.

      For example see this picture of Gene Cernan after a lunar EVA.
  30. Regardless by AtariAmarok · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Regardless, it is good to learn now that even when I migrate to a moon colony, I can go outside and club baby seals to death for fun and profit.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  31. the real reason.... by 808paulson · · Score: 0, Troll

    The moon landings were FAKED

    1. Re:the real reason.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's right. The sharp dust would have torn open suits, punctured the tires of the lunar rover, and ripped that flag to shreds!

      It's all a big government conspiracy, I tell you. They just want us to THINK we landed on the moon! They want to keep our hopes and dreams alive when there is really no hope for anything, and we are all destined to live in this totalitarian government under an iron fist, hidden by ignorance and control of the media!

      Go back to bed, America. Nothing to see here. Go back to bed.

      (it's a joke..
      OR IS IT???)

    2. Re:the real reason.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So are all your girlfriends orgasms.

    3. Re:the real reason.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So are all your girlfriends orgasms.

      Why would NASA want to fake those?

      "Houston, we've got a -- oh God, yes, yes, YES!!"

    4. Re:the real reason.... by jd · · Score: 2, Funny

      The landings were quite real. They had a full 48-bit mantissa and 16-bit exponent.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  32. Genetic engineering will fix that right up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A bit of tweaking the human genome, and you'll be able to smoke asbestos-filtered cigarettes in a room filled with moondust without a problem.

  33. That's no small space station. That's a moon! by AtariAmarok · · Score: 1
    "Yet another reason to keep your helmet on while out on the moon."

    You are just saying that since you are so looking forward to being able to wear your Darth Vader helmet and costume SOMEWHERE without everyone laughing at you. Even if you have to go to the moon to do it.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
    1. Re:That's no small space station. That's a moon! by Tongo · · Score: 1

      Nah man, the Mooninites would bitch slap his ass for being a giant dork.

  34. Re:Lunar Dust Photos and Explanation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah but his site is pretty informative. Much more so that /. articles

  35. I knew the Apollo program was a plot!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course astronauts have never been on the moon so this dust is just another theory.

  36. Screw the dust! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whoever tries to breathe on the moon will be in for a big shock when they realize there's no oxygen.

  37. No. 1 problem? by Kelerain · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Dust is the No. 1 environmental problem on the moon,"

    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.

    1. Re:No. 1 problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the number one problem on the moon is that none of its inhabitants can spell.

    2. Re:No. 1 problem? by wylf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In a few decade's time, I reckon we will be the #1 environmental problem on the moon...

    3. Re:No. 1 problem? by arose · · Score: 4, Funny

      Save the moondust!

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    4. Re:No. 1 problem? by nicvsor · · Score: 1

      Dude, you definitely need a sig :-P

    5. Re:No. 1 problem? by grozzie2 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      A few decades ago, when I watched the first human moon landing, I would have agreed. July 1969 was the peak of achievments for the american empire, and it's been downhill from there. In the 60's, americans had the will, and determination to go to the moon. Today, they go to Iraq. The humorous part, even after accounting for inflation, the moon was a cheaper trip, and a lot of good actually came out of that program.

      You have to put a little more perspective on it all. In the 60's, when vaccuum tubes were 'modern electronics', they started with _nothing_, designed, built, and executed a lunar landing program in 9 years. Today, even something as simple as a feasability study for a return trip will take more than 9 years, and the grand master bush plan has it taking 20+ years just to get back. The real proof of the pudding, is when you go visit the space center in florida, and after taking a couple of the tours, you realize, its not a showcase of modern technology, it's a museum. the whole place is basking in the glory of half a century ago, the good old days, when nasa actually did something, and the space program was something to be proud of.

      I really dont think anybody reading /. today has anything to worry about in terms of health problems from breathing moon dust. Most of you will die of old age before america returns to the moon.

    6. Re:No. 1 problem? by grazzy · · Score: 1

      I'm not even american, but I find this comment very sad.

    7. Re:No. 1 problem? by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      Most of you will die of old age before america returns to the moon.

      No, because China will go to the moon at some stage in the not so distant future. That is why America *will* be back on the moon at some stage (unless the country goes down the tubes and they really *can't* afford to do it).

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    8. Re:No. 1 problem? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      You have to put a little more perspective on it all. In the 60's, when vaccuum tubes were 'modern electronics', they started with _nothing_, designed, built, and executed a lunar landing program in 9 years. Today, even something as simple as a feasability study for a return trip will take more than 9 years,
      Now, match the two programs to the two statements below:
      • Program A: A virtually blank check and vast public support.
      • Program B: Very little public support and a strictly limited budget.
      When you understand the difference, then you will have perspective.
    9. Re:No. 1 problem? by grozzie2 · · Score: 1
      The country already has gone down the tubes, and they cant afford it. They spent the farm, and the kids future, blowing up a piece of desert.

      The only americans heading to the moon during our lifetime, will be those buying passage on vehicles from another country, sorta like how they go into orbit today, on russian vehicles.

  38. Easy Solution: by infinite9 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Just tell the astronauts to hold their breath when they go outside.

    --
    Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
    1. Re:Easy Solution: by St.+Arbirix · · Score: 5, Funny

      Just tell the astronauts to hold their breath when they go outside.

      obligatory

      --
      Direct away from face when opening.
    2. Re:Easy Solution: by nognsoutie · · Score: 1

      Indeed. The air on the moon is not fit to breathe anyway.

  39. Simple solution.. by StikyPad · · Score: 1

    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.

    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.

    1. Re:Simple solution.. by mathmathrevolution · · Score: 2, Insightful

      you can't create an atmosphere on the moon; at least not one like ours on Earth. The primary gasses we have on the Earth's atmosphere would, over time, all achieve escape velocity and fly away. maybe in theory if you used heavy enough fluids...

    2. Re:Simple solution.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Nice try, but the moon doesn't have the gravitational pull to maintain an atmosphere. Water would just boil away in the low pressure. Unless you built a giant dome... AROUND THE WHOLE MOON! YEAH! I'm gonna wanna get me one of them.

    3. Re:Simple solution.. by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      What if you were to use heavy molecular gasses like propane, mixed with heavy inert gasses like Xenon and Argon?

      Heck...if you were satisfied with a low enough atmospheric pressure, you could use substances that would normally be liquid, or even solid, at STP. Transport them up there in solid or liquid form, set them outside, and let them sublime.

  40. Moon dust? Bah! Try Black Rock Desert Dust by SuperSanta · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Finally an environment I was BUILT to survive in. Having gone to the desert at the end of August for the last 4 years, I know DUST. I know the feeling of contact lenses gritty with it, zippers of tents being destroyed after only one week exposure to it, taking a shower feeling dry and fresh for all of maybe 5 seconds before your skin has that fine gritty coating on it again. Bring on the moon!

    1. Re:Moon dust? Bah! Try Black Rock Desert Dust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would that by any chance have been Burning Man?

    2. Re:Moon dust? Bah! Try Black Rock Desert Dust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention the sand inside your foreskin....

    3. Re:Moon dust? Bah! Try Black Rock Desert Dust by SuperSanta · · Score: 1

      It would indeed. I use all my measly 3 weeks vacation every year to do the trip including a week to relax in a national park somewhere on my way back. It's also a shining example of creativity and resourcefulness of artists and technofreaks. Plus blowing stuff up is way fun!

    4. Re:Moon dust? Bah! Try Black Rock Desert Dust by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      Moon dust? Bah! Try Black Rock Desert Dust. Finally an environment I was BUILT to survive in. Having gone to the desert at the end of August for the last 4 years, I know DUST.

      One week a year for four years? Bah! You have only met dust briefly. I spent 20+ weeks choking on Saudi Arabian "sand" (it's dust, actually) back in 90-91 with the 101st Airborne, and I bet there are guys in the 101st now who make me look like a dilletante.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    5. Re:Moon dust? Bah! Try Black Rock Desert Dust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Advice from one who doesn't dwell in the desert.

      Don't wear contacts, Einstein..

  41. Silicosis? Pfft... by ResidntGeek · · Score: 1

    Call it pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis. It makes you sound smarter.

    --
    ResidntGeek
    1. Re:Silicosis? Pfft... by pdbogen · · Score: 2, Funny

      Do volcanos even have lungs?

    2. Re:Silicosis? Pfft... by scourfish · · Score: 1
      Did you know that that is only second longest word. If you add a -ly suffix to the end of it, you get an even longer adverb.

      See spot run. See spot inhale fine sillicates pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosisly .

    3. Re:Silicosis? Pfft... by ResidntGeek · · Score: 1

      If you're trying to lengthen words to sound smarter, you might want to do it properly. You add -ly to adjectives, not nouns.

      --
      ResidntGeek
    4. Re:Silicosis? Pfft... by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 1

      Can't be entirely sure (as CNB changes with every playing), but that sounds suspiciously like one of the intro words flashed by Chocolate Niblet Beans. You may have to play it 20 or 30 times to get the really long word to come up...

    5. Re:Silicosis? Pfft... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes, that word does pop up after MACADAMIA (saw it on second viewing - then quit as the sound quality
      could have been so much better..too hissy!)

  42. Re: Effects of the colonial era on human diversity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    European colonization of the world resulted in the demise of many savage communities.

  43. Praise Allah by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    Sounds like the makings of a "dirty bomb".

    Yeah, that would work great. Put kitty litter in a bomb, blow it up, and hope people inhale it. Gee Muhammed, we could blow them up or cause minor respiratory distress. That'll teach those Yankee infidels!

    1. Re:Praise Allah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't think you're funny. Last Friday, ESA's Smart-1 photographed Bin Laden in a cave on the Moon, a half-filled bucket and a shovel also clearly visible.

      NASA is going to send another Lunar Prospector to investigage further.

  44. Missing the Point by HadesInjustice · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "As the astronauts who walked on the moon found out, the dust scratched lenses and corroded seals within hours." I don't think the problem is with the dust getting into your lung, even thought that could be a serious one; however, I doubt ppl actually take deep breathe out in the open, and the air lock should be able to remove the dust with a strong air filter. I believe the real problem is with the structure of the house ON the moon surface. It said that it scratched lenses and corroded seals within hours which mean that any windows and air lock seals will be damage. The cost of the constant repair for the damage might be the cost issue here. I am not sure if I am getting it all right, but that is the problem as I see. What do you ppl think?

    1. Re:Missing the Point by grumbel · · Score: 4, Funny

      ### What do you ppl think?

      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.

    2. Re:Missing the Point by Somegeek · · Score: 4, Funny

      I think that the problem is clearly with taking seals to the moon. I mean, like, aint they endangered species or sumpthen? Of course they are going to corrode up on the moon, they were designed for an ocean environment and there just isn't enough water in the vacumn for them!

      ---------------
      Save the Seals from NASA!

      --
      And as you tread the halls of sanity, You feel so glad to be, Unable to go beyond. I have a message, From another time..
    3. Re:Missing the Point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A vacum cleaner works like a charm in vacum...

    4. Re:Missing the Point by jred · · Score: 1

      Thanks, I just snorted banana pudding out my nose.

      --

      jred
      I'm not a mechanic but I play one in my garage...
    5. Re:Missing the Point by Moofie · · Score: 5, Funny

      Uh huh. How do you run a vacuum cleaner in a vacuum?

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    6. Re:Missing the Point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure about this, but maybe you could somehow charge the dust with electricity, static electricity for example, and put some electro-magnetic field around the walls. The EM field would keep the dust away.

      It wouldn't have to be very strong, as the dust particles are small.

      You may want to set up special cleaners around the airlocks to ensure that no dust gets inside.

    7. Re:Missing the Point by bgarcia · · Score: 1
      Uh huh. How do you run a vacuum cleaner in a vacuum?
      That's easy!
      On the moon, a "broom" becomes a "vacuum cleaner"!

      :-D
      --
      I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
    8. Re:Missing the Point by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Touche!

      (ow.)

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    9. Re:Missing the Point by real+gumby · · Score: 3, Funny

      What, is that a trick question? You plug it in first dummy!
      --
      (Not a rocket scientist, but an electrical engineer).

    10. Re:Missing the Point by RhettLivingston · · Score: 1

      Really, I can't imagine that we'd put any moon settlement "ON the moon surface". If the dust doesn't get you, the bombardment that created all that dust will. For radiation shielding and other reasons, the bulk of the facility should be under the surface and trips to the surface would likely be limited. More than research on the dust, we probably need research on the structural, mechanical, thermal, and other characteristics of the bedrock material a few meters below the surface. As far as the dust goes, what would be cool probably is a way to just clear the whole site down to the bedrock and then keep it clear.

    11. Re:Missing the Point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course instead of a vacuum cleaner, which won't work at all as someone already pointed out, just let out some gas and blast the dust away (I know there's a joke here somewhere). But seriously, it wouldn't take much gas to blow away all the smaller particles, and the larger ones don't matter. With no atmosphere to slow it down, the gas will persist as a jet but eventually, as it collides with solid objects will dissipate into the vacuum. Particles which are no longer suspended in the jet will follow a trajectory determined by their velocity and fall quickly back to the surface (remember there's no atmosphere to keep them suspended). I think the smallest particles will be moving the fastest and thus travel the farthest distance, but I could be mistaken. Using water or steam might make for even more interesting physics. The water could boil then freeze then sublimate, and the steam would ???? hmmm, I'm not sure....

    12. Re:Missing the Point by Davoid · · Score: 1

      I was thinking along similar lines...

      One could even build a "bubble" over the area that was to be cleared and pressurize it with a cheap gas. Then just plug a vacuum hose into the wall of the bubble on the inside. Start vacuuming.

      Steam would behave just like a gas (it IS a gas).

      -DU-...etc...

      --
      "Don't sweat the technique."
    13. Re:Missing the Point by Dirtside · · Score: 1
      What, is that a trick question? You plug it in first dummy!
      --
      (Not a rocket scientist, but an electrical engineer).
      Oh, of course the electrical engineer thinks electricity can solve all our problems!
      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
  45. Conspiracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The moon dust issue is just a vast conspiracy like the Apollo program that supposedly went there!!! We all know that...

  46. Pressurized... by KillerBob · · Score: 1, Informative

    Keeping a survivable environment on the moon is a difficult task, but I don't think I'm too worried about the dust getting in my lungs as the description suggests. Any habitat on the moon will be pressurized. I should hope so, at least.

    Anyway, I'm not too worried about that dust getting in my lungs if I ever go to the moon, because of the very same force that keeps an airplane's door closed, and maintains the security of a level 5 biohazard area: air pressure. The pressure in a biohazard area is kept negative, relative to the outside pressure. That way, if there's ever a breach, the outside air will be gushing in, so the viruses won't be able to escape. Likewise, an airplane's door is held closed by the force of the higher air pressure inside the cabin.

    The same laws of physics apply on the moon. If I'm wearing a space suit that develops a micro-hole because of this abrasion, I'm not going to be sucking vacuum as it won't be a big enough hole to depressurize the suit. I'm also not going to be worrying about any of this dust getting in the suit, because of the pressure from the air escaping the suit. The same goes for a habitat that's breached. And if the hole is big enough to depressurize the suit, I've got bigger worries than dust in my lungs. :)

    As for the initial problem of the abrasiveness, I can think of a possible solution that may or may not work... If there's an outer shell of some kind of flowing liquid held to the structure with electrostatic or magnetic force, would you be all that worried about abrasion? Or if you could generate that electrostatic force in the first place, couldn't you use that to repel the dust?

    --
    If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
    1. Re:Pressurized... by HadesInjustice · · Score: 1

      I think it really depend on the volcity of the dust for the liquid to flow, and you still need to constantly refill the liquid cuz each dust will strike a tiny bit of it off, but it could be a viable solution. However, on the idea of electrostatic force...make sure you use AC cuz DC will just get you a bunch of toasted repairmen. (just kidding)

    2. Re:Pressurized... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      electrostatic force... AC... they really don't mix. Think of static cling: it's just the whole thing with a little bit of charge on it. Reverse the charge and in theory the sticky stuff is repelled. I will, however, use a different kind of AC to avoid getting labeled flamebait. And another kind to keep myself cool on those hot lunar days. Oh yeah.

    3. Re:Pressurized... by Keeper · · Score: 1

      [...] I don't think I'm too worried about the dust getting in my lungs as the description suggests. Any habitat on the moon will be pressurized. I should hope so, at least.

      If you ever have an EVA outside of the habitat (which I'm sure would occur), you're going to track the dust back inside with you.

    4. Re:Pressurized... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      sorry to post AC but I'm not a /. regular yet I would think the main problem would be particle infiltration during construction prior to pressurization...clearing the stuff out afterwards would surely be troublesome

    5. Re:Pressurized... by daVinci1980 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yay. Another +5 Insightful that didn't RTFA. :-\

      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.

      --
      I currently have no clever signature witicism to add here.
    6. Re:Pressurized... by QuantumG · · Score: 1

      Wow, how small do you think this habitate is going to be? Personally I'd be going for the cap-a-crater-and-shovel-in-top-soil approach myself.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    7. Re:Pressurized... by DreamWheezer · · Score: 1

      sorry for the repost of an idea... the question I raise is how to clean out the particle debris induced from and embedded into construction prior to pressurization...

    8. Re:Pressurized... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The parent post actually mentions that the pressure is higher inside an airplane. The reason that the doors are held closed by this pressure is that they open to the inside!

    9. Re:Pressurized... by slacktide · · Score: 1

      You appear not to know how airplane doors work. They open to the inside, so that the higher pressure inside the cabin forces the door closed against the doorframe. The pressure differential is more like 7 PSI. The aircraft is not flying in a vacuum with a sea level cabin altitude.

    10. Re:Pressurized... by Keeper · · Score: 1

      Initially, habitats WILL be small. We aren't going to magically build a large structure overnight. And as the people living in those habitats will likely be spending their days constructing a larger habitat (in the "dusty" environment), this problem is non-trivial.

    11. Re:Pressurized... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      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.

      That's why the next moon mission will have a woman and a vacuum cleaner on board.

    12. Re:Pressurized... by boots@work · · Score: 1

      I think he understood the pressures, he just wrote unclearly.

    13. Re:Pressurized... by daVinci1980 · · Score: 1

      That's sort of funny. Every airplane I've ridden on opens outwards, not inwards. The emergency exits do in fact open inward. But cabin doors open outwards. The hinges are on the front of the door panel, however, which causes the wind to keep the door shut in flight.

      Some reference.

      --
      I currently have no clever signature witicism to add here.
    14. Re:Pressurized... by KillerBob · · Score: 1

      You appear to have never watched a stewardess opening a door on a large airliner.... It does depend on the plane design, but a lot of them actually have a double hinge that opens inwards but allows the door to be put outside so that it isn't in the way during disembarking.

      On some planes, it also depends whether you're using the fore, mid, or aft door.

      You also appear to have missed the part of the original post where the author worried about breathing in the dust....

      --
      If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
    15. Re:Pressurized... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd suggest "selonaut" to describe a moon explorer. But I could be wrong - it's all greek to me.

  47. Toner Research by purduephotog · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Toner cartridges carry a distribution of particle sizes that are considered 'safe' for you to inhale because they can't stick in your lungs.

    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.... ;P

    1. Re:Toner Research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Maybe installation of those 'ion-breeze' units from SharperImage will fix it.... ;P
      Not likely.
    2. Re:Toner Research by mrchaotica · · Score: 1
      save going underwater in an ultrasonic scrubber
      Well, why don't they do that then? Anybody going outside is wearing a space suit to begin with, so it's not as if they'd drown...
      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    3. Re:Toner Research by Detritus · · Score: 1

      The space suit may not be designed to get wet. The Apollo suits had a fabric covering of beta cloth, which is made from teflon and glass fibers. Water can cause corrosion to metal parts and there is also the problem of drying the suit before it becomes a breeding ground for various microorganisms.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    4. Re:Toner Research by CodeBuster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That may have been true with the Apollo suits; however the space suits currently in use by NASA do not appear to have this problem. In fact, astronaut training sessions are frequently conducted submerged in large pools of water, this being the most cost effective method of simulating near weightless conditions within the confines of Earth's gravity. The astronauts are submerged in these pools while wearing their space suits, often for several hours, while practicing procedures that may be needed during a mission. It is therefore reasonable to suppose that an ultrasonic water bath could indeed be employed in a moon base situation for the purpose of dust removal from space suits and equipment, before they reenter the sealed environment, without ill effect.

    5. Re:Toner Research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      there is also the problem of drying the suit before it becomes a breeding ground for various microorganisms.

      vacuum

    6. Re:Toner Research by schnikies79 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well for one, they don't use their actual space suits; they are special suits that look/work identical to actual suits made especially for the neutral buoyancy tank.

      --
      Gone!
    7. Re:Toner Research by ColaMan · · Score: 1

      Apart from the fact that may have trouble getting various parts wet , it sounds like the easiest way is to :

      Enter room with suit on
      Fill with water
      Swish around a bit
      empty water
      dump atmosphere back to vacuum
      water the water boil off your suit - insta-dry!
      proceed to normal airlock

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
    8. Re:Toner Research by orasio · · Score: 1


      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.



      You could make a suit design which didn't need to share the same atmosphere between the inside/outside.

      That could be accomplished by building a two-phase room with a divided wall in the middle. You could have something like a front "zipper" in the outfit, that could attach to the opening wall, and _then_ open itself. That would leave the outside of the suit in the "dirty" part of the room, and the inside, including the person inside, in the "clean" part of the room, not sharing air at all.
      Of course, that's not how spacesuits work right now, and it's not that easy from an engineering standpoint, but I don't see why I couldn't be done.

    9. Re:Toner Research by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, the space suits of thirty years ago had this limitation, and that means no space suit will ever be designed that can get wet?

    10. Re:Toner Research by sagekoala06 · · Score: 1

      how would one keep the water IN the ultrasonic water bath in conditions of such low gravity?

    11. Re:Toner Research by Lotana · · Score: 1

      I can see it now...

      Astronaut 0: "Hey, where can I stick this suit, so that it will dry?"

      Astronaut 1:"Stick it outside, the vacuum will dry it!"

      -------- Time Passes --------

      Astronaut 0: "Oh crap! The suit is is covered in dust *again*! Better wash it..."

  48. We already have the solution... by cy_a253 · · Score: 1

    Simple.

    Just equip every airlock with that marvel of 1980s technology...

    1. Re:We already have the solution... by grozzie2 · · Score: 1

      Actually, they came up with a far more effective solution, dont go there...

  49. Re: Effects of the colonial era on human diversity by jd · · Score: 1

    Well, maybe, but it replaced them with far more savage ones.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  50. Boot Room is Needed by pipingguy · · Score: 1


    Just mix with water and the complaints will only be about tracking mud all through the station.

  51. So.... by Ragnarr · · Score: 0

    How many people are going to be walking around breathing the fresh lunar air? Oh that's right, it's a near-vacuum. Lunar dust... honestly! We'll be living in tents/buildings and you will need to replace the lenses on your suit with wear. Not a huge deal. Get this, firefighters have to replace their gear every once in awhile. Did I mention that they sometimes breath smoke and have lung damage?

    1. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem isn't breathing the "fresh lunar air;" the problem is breathing the air inside after you take your suit off and shake the dust off it.

    2. Re:So.... by antispam_ben · · Score: 1

      The problem isn't breathing the "fresh lunar air;" the problem is breathing the air inside after you take your suit off and shake the dust off it.

      ISTR (quite vaguely, though I was a teenager at the time and of course could not possibly be wrong) that the Apollo astronauts (perhaps after 11, as they didn't have many clues before the first actual Moon mission) would vacuum their suits after coming in and pressurizing the Lunar Module after Moonwalks, to remove the dust from their suits and especially the bottoms of their shoes, so they wouldn't track the dust in and breathe it.

      Something future missions will surely have, especially permanent Lunar stations, is airlocks that will suck/blow/wash away Lunar dust before the Lunarnauts open their suits and open the inner airlock door.

      --
      Tag lost or not installed.
  52. New Lung Disease, New Name by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 4, Funny

    This could cause a lung disease similar to silicosis.

    Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicolunarosis!!!

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    1. Re:New Lung Disease, New Name by robolemon · · Score: 0
      --

      I design user interfaces for a free network management application,

    2. Re:New Lung Disease, New Name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's posts like yours which make me wish there was a mod category of "-1 does not get the joke."

    3. Re:New Lung Disease, New Name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicolunarosis"

      Even though the sound of it is something quite atrocious?

    4. Re:New Lung Disease, New Name by the_weasel · · Score: 1

      Oh god. I WASTED my mod points of trivialities, and this post was SO much more deserving. Bravo.

      --
      - sarcasm is just one more service we offer -
    5. Re:New Lung Disease, New Name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The sound of that is simply quite atrocious.

    6. Re:New Lung Disease, New Name by robolemon · · Score: 1

      Eeek! Point taken. Went right under my radar.

      --

      I design user interfaces for a free network management application,

  53. Re:Lunar Dust Photos and Explanation by Total_Wimp · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I read down the page and

    "Scientists design 'bionic eye' that could someday help the visually disabled"

    And

    "Pope's death to boost sales of Brown's book"

    All of a sudden became:

    "Scietists design bionic Pope..."

    Damn, it's gone now. Oh well. If It was only my personal vision of the great sci-fi future, so be it.

    TW

  54. Oh, okay.. by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 3, Funny

    I wont take any deep breaths while I'm on the moon. Thanks for the heads up!

    --
    -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
  55. New form of space suit?? by Grommet+-+Space+Cade · · Score: 0

    Bubbleboy has now found somewhere he fits in....

    Moon inhabitants will be know as The Moops

    *sorry obligatory Seinfeld reference

    On a more serious side of things......

    I dont see this as much of a problem......the moon has no atmosphere therefore if we A terraform it and create an atmosphere then the problem is removed moderately quickly by wind,moisture etc....

    If we dont terraform and go along the lines of moon bases and eco-domes etc. then we need to put a layer of dust over the top of it. it's not like we need the sunlight to create food we would just ship it from earth one way or another....the moons not really that far away in comparison to say mars etc so the food issue is negated.

    as for equipment being damaged.....who says its going to be on the moon..with no gravity you can place equipment in matching orbit.....

    the reason things got scratch and damaged on the first moon landing is because we didn't know about the harshness of the dust....now we know about it we dont have a problem just something to cater for.....

    --
    WTF - Speak in acronyms already, i can't figure out what you mean otherwise boss
    1. Re:New form of space suit?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry to burst your bubble, but the moon doesn't have the gravity to be terraformed. Just won't hold on to that atmosphere. And any water would boil off under the low pressure.

      And how do you propose to get in and out of these eco-domes with a layer of dust over them? Remember that one of the things affected by the lunar dust is seals. Not the furry kind but the rubber/plastic/whatever kind that are used in such things as airlocks.

    2. Re:New form of space suit?? by Mahou · · Score: 1

      furry seals?? what kind of zoo have you been to?!

      --
      if i'm not immortal, what's the point of living?
      ...te?
    3. Re:New form of space suit?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I hope you are joking? (Psst, seals do have fur. You know, that whole PETA/seal clubber thing?)

      If you are joking, then I don't get it (same reason as above: seals do have fur)

  56. Easy Solution! by nmb3000 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Just take some dust-slaying Nano-shurikens of Doom with you (TG is owned by OSTG, the parent company of Slashdot, so activate all conspiracy theories now). They'll take care of it, whoop-ass style.

    While you're there, you can also look into the new iPod accessory iCopulate which allows intimacy between mp3 players never before fantasized. And for the suit that has everything, Executve Pong. There's also Alarm Pills that help you wake up and fall asleep and a new USB-powered Fundue set available.

    --
    "What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
    /)
    1. Re:Easy Solution! by ICA · · Score: 1

      Yes, we all saw the fucking thinkgeek post on April Fool's day. You weren't the only one.

  57. So... by jd · · Score: 4, Funny

    You are arguing the Republicans are mooning us...?

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reverend Moon -ing us.

  58. Re:Lunar Dust or mesothelioma litigation & law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is Dewey, CHEATEM and Howe, not Dewey, Keetum and Howe. The latter makes no sense. /loyal Car Talk listener

  59. Not only that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    He's a plagarist.

    Google sentences from his "articles" and see for yourself.

  60. Re:Mega Maid by Freaky+Spook · · Score: 2, Funny

    Just hire the spaceballs & their Mega Maid. Operation Vacu-suck seemed to work on Druidia

  61. Re:Lunar Dust Photos and Explanation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wouldn't say its just your personal vision... The next pope!

  62. easy choice by icepick72 · · Score: 1

    Well then, it sounds like I'll be picking a nice little spot in the middle of the Gobi dessert while other people struggle to survive on the moon.

  63. I not going to the moon.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was thinking that the moon would be awesome, but this fucking moon dust ruined the moon!

  64. Solution? by tetrahedrassface · · Score: 1
    Just build some super-duper-space-suit cleaners out of the wonder material I lovingly call asbestos

    Actually we handle asbestos on Earth quite well, I rather doubt the dust on the moon will be an issue. Its really low on the scale of things to do.

    The funding might be the biggest obstacle to ever living on the moon, although I hear Scaled has a 5 year plan. hehe

    D

  65. Lung Cancer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I imagine this could cause lung cancer as well?

  66. playa dust by capilot · · Score: 3, Informative

    We should have a betting pool on how many people point out that you're not supposed to breathe outside on the moon. Thanks folks, I never knew that. Seriously, the stuff sounds like playa dust to me, and anybody who's ever been out on the playa knows that you track that stuff in with you all the time. If lunar dust is half as pervasive as playa dust, it's going to take serious decontamination to keep it outside.

    1. Re:playa dust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't hate the playa, hate the moon.

    2. Re:playa dust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My bet is more posters point this out than the number of posters who RTFA. Ironically on an initial scan of your post, I thought you said:

      We should have a betting pool on how many people don't know that you're not supposed to breathe outside on the moon.

      I guess I saw too many idiots posts.

    3. Re:playa dust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If lunar dust is half as pervasive as playa dust, it's going to take serious decontamination to keep it outside.
      Getting rid of playa dust is easy; just douse yourself with a bottle of Pimp Juice. Don't hate the luna, hate the game!
  67. Re:Lunar Dust or mesothelioma litigation & law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least get it right when quoting the stooges. Dewey, Cheetum and how (AKA do we cheat em... and how!)

  68. Silicosis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This could cause a lung disease similar to silicosis.
    1. Name of new disorder: Ultramicroscopicolunaconiosis
  69. This thread is USELESS with PICS! by Eric_Cartman_South_P · · Score: 1

    This thread is USELESS with PICS! Fap fap fap.

  70. So... by kakashiryo · · Score: 0

    how much is homeowner's insurance on the Moon gonna rise now because of this? Sheesh :P

  71. even worse for moon travelers by deft · · Score: 2, Funny

    If you are returning to a space port in the US, we noe require a passport. If not, you may be required to stay on the moon and die, or even worse, go to Canada.

    --

    There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
  72. He's also posting the Slashdot Mysterious Future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's bad

  73. Nuke the moon! by Peldor · · Score: 0

    Can't we just fuse it all into glass with a few thousands well placed nukes? Or maybe giant laser beams mounted on intergalatic sharks. Not only would the moon dust be safer, the moon could be much shinier for nocturnal activities here on Eart. The only drawback is Microsoft would probably be the corporate sponsor and Bill would be leering down on us for the next billion years.

    1. Re:Nuke the moon! by antispam_ben · · Score: 2, Funny

      Can't we just fuse it all into glass with a few thousands well placed nukes?

      No, that would blow it flat out of orbit, resulting in some really bad sci-fi. PLEASE don't do that.

      --
      Tag lost or not installed.
    2. Re:Nuke the moon! by Mahou · · Score: 1

      not if they were well placed, ya know, like he said, so the net acceleration would be 0

      --
      if i'm not immortal, what's the point of living?
      ...te?
    3. Re:Nuke the moon! by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1
      I am too lazy to do any math, but I seriously doubt all the nukes available would make a dent (no pun intended) in glassing over the surface area of the moon.

      Currently there is even some concern (hope?) that the nukes we have wouldn't even go off, if called upon, or at least not produce an explosion as large as intended.

      --
      This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
  74. fascinating by Rabid_Llama · · Score: 0

    astro-asbestous

  75. You need to go to milliondollarlungs.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  76. Scratched Lenses by greysky · · Score: 0, Troll

    Oh great, doesn't this give more credibility to the lunatics (no pun intended) that insist that the lunar landing never happened? I mean, if the lunar dust is so corrosive to lenses, then how did all those lunar landing photos come out so perfectly? As an amateur photog, I can attest to how difficult it is to get a photo to look as good as those the lunar landing team took did.

    1. Re:Scratched Lenses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Well, lets see. For one, there is no wind on the moon, so particles aren't being blown around. Any particles rubbed on lenses and therefore scratching them would be done accidentally by the person handling the equipment.

      So in short, no, this does not lend credibility to the idea the moon landings were faked. That idea is still as idiotic as ever, and the people who believe it still don't know anything about physics.

    2. Re:Scratched Lenses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      >>As an amateur photog, I can attest to how difficult it is to get a photo to look as good as those the lunar landing team took did.

      I guess you have never used 70mm film format Hasselblad cameras (with Zeiss lenses no less) in a vacuum! :-)

      There is lots of resolution redundancy in that combination!

      If you have seen the Kipp Teague, et al, ALSJ scans (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html/ - go to the Image Library) - the high resolution images have been very well done and far surpass any printed equivalent I have ever seen.

    3. Re:Scratched Lenses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only that, they also took a lot of pictures to choose from.

  77. I need gel baths from T'Pol and Hoshi by potus98 · · Score: 1

    I'd like to volunteer as a test subject for external-dermotological moon dust tests. As long as I get hands-on gel baths from T'Pol and Hoshi, I should manage to get by okay.

    --
    This one gang kept wanting me to join cause I'm pretty good with a bo staff.
  78. Mmmm.... flypaper by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 4, Funny
    Coat paper with the stuff and sell it to furniture makers. Selene Silicaceous Sandpaper, for that Moonlight Finish!

    Sorry, being lunar today.

    --
    Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    1. Re:Mmmm.... flypaper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      " Coat paper with the stuff and sell it to furniture makers. Selene Silicaceous Sandpaper, for that Moonlight Finish!"

      ...3) Profit!

    2. Re:Mmmm.... flypaper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hahaha! first laugh of the day, thanks :-D

    3. Re:Mmmm.... flypaper by mwood · · Score: 1

      Or just coat the whole bloody moon to lay the dust. There's no biosphere to mess up, and once we're there to stay it won't be a pristine high-vacuum-worthless-desert-wasteland anymore. If we got a wee bit of atmosphere going we could just keep it wet. We'll need lots of water anyway. Maybe water vapor could *be* the wee bit of atmosphere.

      Incidentally, am I the only one who, upon seeing the title of this article, thought immediately of _A Fall of Moondust_?

  79. Trivial by ltbarcly · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is such a stupid concern. As for breathing it, do the same thing moms have done for 2000 years, don't let people wear dirty stuff inside.

    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.

    1. Re:Trivial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You've never tried to keep beach sand out of a hotel or beach house, have you? No matter where you disrobe or wash down, some still makes it in. It is the same here but worse because of the velcro nature of the dust. You don't just dust yourself off and take it off and you're done.

      By the way, you should see the stuff they get in the filters in clean rooms. Insects and even a chipmunk turned up in one I've been in.

    2. Re:Trivial by ltbarcly · · Score: 1

      That is what I am saying. If there are regular trips out of the dome or whatever, build the suits to dock with the dome. Then there is no way sand can get in, since the suit itself is never inside.

      I made this clear.

    3. Re:Trivial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I will give you a call the next we need a seamstress for the Lunar Station.

    4. Re:Trivial by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      but hey, wired is running out of article ideas.

      the whole article ITSELF proves itself useless piece of garbage. basically it's just a small hurdle even if a bit expensive one.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    5. Re:Trivial by Dirtside · · Score: 1
      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.
      This sounds like it would be a lot more expensive (and less reliable) than a simple decontamination chamber that can admit suits of any shape or size, not to mention other things you might want to bring into the habitat (cargo, tool boxes, whatever).
      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    6. Re:Trivial by ltbarcly · · Score: 1

      Yea,

      besides, the technology has to be there already.

      As far as contamination, just do whatever they do at nuclear power plants. Assuming that that works I mean.

    7. Re:Trivial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      even if that is possible you will still get some leakage of dust when the docking system is opened.

  80. No worries, mates! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's just cheese after all.

  81. Re:Thanks for that information by mark_osmd · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So suppose the dust is dangerous, which it may be, why are we assuming the people on the moon would ever have to breath it? What you do is design your space suits like the Russians do, they have a hatch built into the back. So when you need to come in from outside, you don't go in an airlock with your dusty suit and then come in the space habitat getting dust all over the inside-- you go in an external room and dock the hatch to the habitat and climb out of the suit. This way the dust can't get in. Mark

  82. Re: Effects of the colonial era on human diversity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
    So? Before the Europeans arrived, savage communities resulted in the demise of many savage communities. Yeah, they fought wars and also wiped each other out.

    You got to get your Rousseau Noble Savage/Disney history out of your head and pick up some history books.

  83. A hypothesis by ockegheim · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I remember that NASA was concerned that the lunar module would sink into the layer of dust, but it didn't.

    At the time scientists only had experience with terriestrial dust. Could the surprising supportiveness of the moon dust be at least partially related to the sharper structure of its particles?

    --
    I’m old enough to remember 16K of memory being described as “whopping”
    1. Re:A hypothesis by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1
      Umm,no. At that time, it was feared that the lunar dust was REALLY DEEP. As in "A Fall of Moondust" by Arthur C. Clarke.

      Turns out it was only a few centimeters deep. And the lunar module did, in fact, sink those few centimeters.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
  84. Ionic Breeze scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    You know that 'ionic breeze' thing is a piece of crap, don't you? Consumer Reports did a nice series of tests on it and found it no more effective at removing dust, etc. than a television left on to attract dust on its screen.

    Needless to say, Sharper Image was pissed and sued them. They lost big time. In fact, Sharper Image has to pay the Consumer Union $525,000 for their court costs.

    Check out here and here.

  85. Re:Lunar Dust or mesothelioma litigation & law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would propose a spelling of Cheatham as it's more common. Not to say your spelling is wrong.

  86. Re:Lunar Dust Photos and Explanation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank God I saw your post! I closed the tab before his page finished loading. Whew.

  87. Re: Effects of the colonial era on human diversity by TGK · · Score: 2, Informative

    To be fair, the Caribs were (at the time of Colombian Contact) engaged in a genocidal war against the Arawaks.

    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 canibals as a primary food source, the Carib religous thoughts about the consumption of an enemy and the rights of war weren't well received by the Europeans, who set about dispatching them with some urgency.

    --
    Killfile(TGK)
    No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
  88. Simple solution: orbital settlements by Baldrson · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Why put people on the lunar or any planetary surface?

    See Mike Combs' space settlement FAQ which says:

    What advantages would orbital settlements have over a colony built on another planet?
    1. Access to 24-hour-a-day sunlight. This makes solar power a consistent, economical energy source. Photovoltaic panels can convert sunlight into electrical current, and solar mirrors can concentrate it for process heat in industrial operations (such as the smelting of ore). A space-based solar concentrator the size of a football field (which could still weigh less than a car) could provide process heat equivalent to the burning of 1 million barrels of oil over 30 years.

      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.

    2. Access to zero gravity. This may have a number of industrial and entertainment possibilities. Structures (such as the above-mentioned solar mirrors) could be built many times larger and flimsier in space than on a planet.

      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).

    3. Location near the top of Earth's gravity well. We here on Earth are the "gravitationally disadvantaged". We are at the bottom of a pit 6,400 km (4,000 miles) deep. This is what makes space launches from the surface so difficult and expensive. Settlers near the top of the gravity well would be ideally situated for departures to points beyond.

    4. Control of the environment. The weather and other aspects of the surroundings would be those of the inhabitants' choosing. Agriculture in space will benefit from weather control (fresh fruits and vegetables year-round!) and the absence of pests.

    5. Mobile territories. Although the first generation of space habitats will doubtless reside in High Earth Orbit, there's no reason why space settlers couldn't attach engines to their habitats, and over the course of months or years gradually change their orbit to whatever solar system location they found preferable.

    6. Long-term expansion of the land area available to the human race. Let's be optimistic and assume that Mars could be made totally Earth-like in the near-term. This would basically double the land area available to humanity, meaning problem solved...until the population doubles again. Right now, that is happening roughly every 40 years. By contrast, if we were to conservatively limit ourselves to using only the resources of the asteroid belt, we could build, in the form of space habitats, 3,000 times the livable surface area of the Earth. This makes space settlement a long-term solution.
  89. Re:Hmmm... could be a movie by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 1
    Perhaps you've seen this.

    It could be worse.

    --
    You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
  90. Who cares? by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 3, Funny

    A moon tourist has spent millions getting there. Surely stumping up for a few worn camera lenses is just going to be hiss...

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
  91. Insurance by Legodude522 · · Score: 0

    Moon dust isn't covered by my insurance policy.

    --
    Because I have low karma, I need pills.
  92. But you do have to get out of your suit ... by complete+loony · · Score: 1

    And that means disrobing within an airlock. Then the dust caught on your suit or that has fallen into the airlock will be free to enter your lungs and abrade other sensitive equipment.

    --
    09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
    1. Re:But you do have to get out of your suit ... by NaDrew · · Score: 1
      And that means disrobing within an airlock.
      And that means a co-ed decontam scene. With grease.
      --
      Vista:XPSP2::ME:98SE
  93. So, we use EVA suits that DOCK rather than enter. by ankhank · · 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.

  94. Re:Lunar Dust Photos and Explanation by jcuffe · · Score: 1

    Can somebody please tell me why the practice of linking random words in a sentence is so prevalent?

  95. Considering there's no atmosphere.... by frogblender · · Score: 1

    ...and little gravity, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it, I won't be visiting any time soon...

  96. OK, then going to the moon sounds risky... by Jugalator · · Score: 1

    ... so let's go to Mars!

    NASA recently found undeniable evidence that there's plenty of water on Mars too!

    And for some reason, Slashdot, in all its April Fool craze, missed to post that one! Grrr!

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  97. Mars? by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I wonder how this compares to Mars dust. Does the wind there grind off the micro-spikes?

    1. Re:Mars? by Eminence · · Score: 3, Informative
      • I wonder how this compares to Mars dust.

      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.

    2. Re:Mars? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      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

      But there are enough similarities, and mooning around is cheaper and safer than marsing around due to the distance.

      Further, the Mars dust storms may require similar cleaning techniques. Even though Mars dust may be less of a health problem, it may be wind-blasted into nooks and crannies of structures such that tight measures need to be developed to keep stuff clean.

    3. Re:Mars? by khallow · · Score: 1
      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.

      I don't know about "makes no sense" here. After all, setting up a lunar base would be a decent demonstration that we could do something similar on Mars even if the environments differ. But we have to grant that the Moon is going to be a more valuable object for the foreseable future. It is after all a mere light second away from the most valuable real estate in the Solar System while Mars is not. So it makes sense to start any development projects on the Moon rather than on Mars.

  98. We went to the moon? by bardothodal · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I can't believe people still believe this. C'mon people , a week after NASA failed to keep a monkey alive for more than 9 days in Earth orbit , Apollo 11 launched for the Moon. I know astronauts are brave but no one is that brave. "Bonny, a pigtailed macaque, flew on Biosatellite 3, a mission which lasted from 29 June to 8 July, 1969. This was the first multi-day monkey flight - but came after longer human spaceflights were common. He died within a day of landing."

    --
    No matter where you go , there you are.
  99. Lunar dust may be a health threat? by Bongo+Bill · · Score: 3, Funny

    Thanks! I'll remember that next time I'm on the moon.

    --
    ...but is it art?
  100. The bigger problem by ikegami · · Score: 1

    Not only does not having an atmosphere leaves dust very sharp, it also makes it very hard to breathe!

  101. hmm by thatgun · · Score: 1

    Thinking about it, I don't think moon dust is going to be that much of a problem because I just don't foresee people going out on the moon that often. Where are they going to go?

    Maybe the first few missions they will, but later on, I'll bet that they stay inside of their "houses" while machines do all the work.

  102. Silicosis? by hunterx11 · · Score: 1

    I hope silicosis isn't at all like pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis. If only I actually knew what that meant...

    --
    English is easier said than done.
  103. Yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But they don't have a word for "saftey" so the translate it as "sucker."

  104. Solution: NANO PLAGUE!!! by NZheretic · · Score: 1
    Google returns about 5,960 for moon nano plague. (0.27 seconds).

    Serously, infect the moon with nano machines that assemble copies of themselves from the snipped off rough bits of anything it comes in contact with. You would have the surface of moon as smooth as billard ball within a decade!.

    When the nano virus can not find any more rough surfaces, it disassembles itself into a graphite like lubricant.

    Then all you have to do is post an article to slashdot complaining about the slippery surface of the moon.

  105. Lawsuits coming... by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 2, Funny
    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.

    As soon as they pass legislation to make all the asbestos lawsuits go away, there will be wave after wave of moon dust lawsuits. Betcha they'll claim the stuff just falls out of the sky, and the lawsuits will allege that God is liable.

  106. DESIGN by jeisc · · Score: 1

    The human organism as it is today is suited for life on earth and if we want to go into space, we must create another life form capable of holding our intelligence or more and also able to support the new environment's conditions. Genetic studies are not at this point yet but maybe someday will be; I imagine their must be some secret lab working on this already. What would the organic form that would naturally survive on the moon or Mars? Already just imagining the life form is not that easy but remember nothing is impossible given the means and the time.

    --
    This is a test!
    1. Re:DESIGN by Qrlx · · Score: 1

      They already invented that, Dr. Who calls them Daleks.

  107. no erosive capabilities? by krunk4ever · · Score: 1

    Unlike Earth, the Moon has no erosive capabilities to smooth the edges of rocks or dust.

    what does that mean? in other words, what makes Earth have this ability and the moon not? is it water? different atmospheric pressure? atomospheric gases? different in gravitational pull?

    1. Re:no erosive capabilities? by PigleT · · Score: 1

      Probably all of the above.
      Erosion is the result of friction during fluid flow. If you don't have much gravity to speak of, you won't have much of an atmosphere, so you won't have much mass of particles being picked-up and flung around the scenery, so it won't erode as much.

      --
      ~Tim
      --
      .|` Clouds cross the black moonlight,
      Rushing on down to the circle of the turn
  108. Re:Simple solution: orbital settlements by Teancum · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While all of these are good reasons to establish independent space colonies, here is the #1 reason for landing on a planetary body:

    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.

  109. Where is Hillary Clinton when we need her? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nationalized healthcare! We need nationalized healthcare to stop siliconistisiasis-whatever-it-is. No moon visitor should have to live with this! And Christopher Reeve would have been alive today if we had just had Nationalized Healthcare!

  110. Happens on Earth, Too by Flwyd · · Score: 1

    I'm still cleaning off dust from Burning Man.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une signature.
  111. Re:Lunar Dust Photos and Explanation by kaens · · Score: 1

    Adequacy.org?

  112. that's a far cry.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    when there is hardly any oxygen on moon, why would be breathing in dust? we would be using oxygen cylinders filled with pure dust-less, oxygen. maybe, a higher quality oxygen will be imported from the earth's surface and sold at a premium on moon. for those who cannot afford a cylinder of oxygen on the moon, here is a suggestion - don't leave earth.

  113. use diamond! by UlfGabe · · Score: 1

    we all know that the diamond industry artificially inflates the prices on diamonds, so either using those "surplus" diamonds, or through thin film diamond manufaturation (which btw is better in low/no gravity)... ... COAT the suits and lenses! problem solved!

    sure you have to wash off the dust, but it wont be rubbing anyone the wrong way after that.

    --
    Check journal for info on Anti-TextBook, an idea by me.
  114. Red Mars by Arjuna · · Score: 1

    Kin Stanley Robinson's "Red Mars" spends a few pages on the 'fines' of Mars, as we might expect similar problems there. It doesn't get expanded on much as an implication to martian colonists however, it just gives them red eyes when exposed to it.

    One might expect the problem to be lesser on a planet like Mars, with more atmosphere and significant dust storms. However there is no liquid surface water to bind tiny particles up into more manageable sizes. Also the wind probably plays an active role in making the dust fine, perhaps finer than that found on Luna.

  115. I'm not worried by St.+Vitus · · Score: 1

    "This could cause a lung disease similar to silicosis"

    I'm not worried. It's pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis that really
    scares me.

  116. Look at me, I'm a panic artist in tinfoil! by Cappy+Red · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I can mention "Chinese," "Walmart," "Halliburton," and "Fundamentalists" too.

    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, 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.

    --
    This is my sig. It's prescription, I swear. I need it for reading things... on the other side of things
  117. How Funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I say the same thing, I get nailed by several assholes. You get marked up (rightly) informative and insightful. How pathetic.

  118. Use Nukes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just use a few nuclear bombs to blast large areas of dust into smooth glass.
    It will use up the stockpile of bombs and make safe areas for astronauts. (Though perhaps a little radioactive)

  119. Well by fozzmeister · · Score: 1

    When your suffocating from the lack of oxygen (if you don't blow up ala movies), getting lung cancer would not really be on the top of my list of priorities

  120. Lungs? by Udo+Schmitz · · Score: 1

    If I inhale dust on the moon I might have a bigger problem to worry about ...

  121. Pamela to the rescue! by elgatozorbas · · Score: 2, Funny
    This could cause a lung disease similar to silicosis.

    Silicosis: the decrease in lung capacity as a result of excessive pressure due to silicone implants.

    1. Re:Pamela to the rescue! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sillycosis: interference with breathing ability as a result of breathtakingly silly jokes.

  122. Yes it has! by Viol8 · · Score: 2, Informative

    What do you think the astronauts were breathing in their capsule? Sure , it might not have had the exact mix of gases of earths atmosphere but it mixed with O2 which is the most reactive gas in our atmosphere and if it doesn't react with that I don't think anyone will be losing too much sleep over what happens if you mix it with nitrogen or argon. As for it not being in contact with the lungs , well how do you think the astronauts smelt it without beathing in? Perhaps you should read the article first hmm?

  123. Drivel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This counts as insightful? Lordy lordy save me now!

    I don't care what a senator wants... they still have to inact legislation that passes a constitutional stink test. So what if a senator wants to be able to sue someone for being rude... it just ain't gonna happen.

    Wake up! Have a coffee! Try and put a few braincells together! The sky is not falling.

    1. Re:Drivel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The sky is not falling.

      Hummm. Sadly, under W. we are getting rising debts and falling rockets, when it should be the other way around. So, yes, the sky is falling

  124. May I be the first to say... by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

    "Another one bites the dust!"

    (ducks)

    1. Re:May I be the first to say... by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

      I like to smoke marijuana!

      --
    2. Re:May I be the first to say... by praedictus · · Score: 1

      Actually played backwards its:
      It's fun to smoke marijuana

      Here's to my sweet Satan

      --
      Watashi wa chikyubutsurigakusha desu.
  125. Re:So, we use EVA suits that DOCK rather than ente by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't remember who said it, but in the course of discussing the colonization of space, he asked:

    "Once you've climbed up out of a gravity well, why would you ever climb back down into one? Everything you need to build a civilization is floating around free for the taking without expending all that energy."

    As cool as a moon base sounds, an L5 colony is a better long-term strategy.

  126. Simple solutions ... by WoodieR · · Score: 1

    how about laying down a bed of ... say, concrete ?, and or melting the walls with high powered lasers, and setting up a simple decontam ( hazmat style ) should be cost-effective ...

    --
    Question Authority before IT questions You ...
  127. Fact checking is important... by MXK · · Score: 0

    As the astronauts who walked on the moon found out

    There were astronauts on the moon? That's news to me... Last I checked they were in earth's orbit a few hours before the "landing".

  128. What??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some of the particles are only microns across which means once they get into your lungs, they stay there.

    Because breathing on the moon is so common...

  129. Century 21 by NotFamous · · Score: 1

    I knew I shouldn't have listened to that agent...

    --
    Some settling may occur during posting.
  130. handy advice IF... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1) You happen to live on the moon.

    2) You are in the habit of breathing outdoors on the moon.

    Were I to attempt to live on the moon, I would make a point of wearing a spacesuit. I recommend you do the same, should the occasion arise..

    1. Re:handy advice IF... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dust gets on your suit, suit comes into the station, dust is now in the air of the station.
      duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

  131. Re:Simple solution: orbital settlements by Grim+Leaper · · Score: 1


    4. Control of the environment.

    That's not a bug, it's a feature!

  132. No! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So when I go out tanning and breath vacuum, I'll be inhaling in harmful particles?

    Fuck!

  133. Re:So, we use EVA suits that DOCK rather than ente by Nyrath+the+nearly+wi · · Score: 1

    Such a space suit is depicted in the online comic strip Freefall. (use the "previous" and "next" buttons to see more details.

  134. Moon? Dont make me larf by jiminiyriddle · · Score: 1

    As if we'll ever get to the stage of people living on the Moon. Dear, dear me. I think the more pressing concern is the fact that we're about to skid down the wrong end of Hubbert's Curve wearing margarine trousers. In the decades to come, getting a hot meal will be the priority for most people.

  135. Even Easier Solution by spun · · Score: 1

    Just use that giant vacuum cleaner spaceship from the movie 'Spaceballs' and vacuum the whole moon clean.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    1. Re:Even Easier Solution by operagost · · Score: 1

      Just make sure it doesn't go from 'suck' to 'blow'.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  136. Re:Lunar Dust Photos and Explanation by freeweed · · Score: 0

    So he's Roland? :)

    --
    Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
  137. fundamentalists dont rtfa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know that the parent posted that as a joke. But the fact is, there are a great number of /.'s that DONT RTFA and comment their viewpoints.

    If slashdotters as the nerd community and a proponent for logical and scientific reasoning often cannot muster the will to be informed before making opinions and judgments, how are we to expect the fundamentalists who decry evolution to do so.

    the fact is we can't. but it's something to think about that we as /.'s can be every bit as bad and uninformed.

  138. lunardust.slashdot.org ? by multi+io · · Score: 1

    IT: Mabir.A Virus Targets Symbian Phones

    Science: The End of Mathematical Proofs by Humans?

    Hardware: Homemade Mecha Walks in Japan

    Hardware: Finally ... RoboShark!

    Lunar Dust: A Major Worry for Moon Visitors

    So "Lunar Dust" will soon be a new /. category. I certainly appreciate that.

  139. Re:Lunar Dust or mesothelioma litigation & law by CyberKnet · · Score: 1

    You are hereby being served for infringing on US Patent #123789321987: "Method For Recovery of Capital used for Investment In Extra-Planar Activities".

    Sincerely,

    The Law Offices of Greasum, Fleecem and Phly.

    --
    Video meliora proboque deteriora sequor - Ovidius
  140. Containment by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 1

    How about coating space suits with a layer of grease? The grease would trap the particles and keep them from penetrating into seals as quickly. When you go back to the base, the suit can go into a cleaner which would dissolve the grease and wash everything away.

    Another idea would be a high-pressure shower and filtering and recycling the water.

    --
    You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
  141. Very Clever Idea! by purduephotog · · Score: 1

    I like that idea- solves alot of issues, and with some refinement it might be able to address issues of seal penetration on that seam.

    You've touched the cornerstone tho- every single seal will eventually become contaminated with time...

    Maybe fluid seals are the way to go.

    1. Re:Very Clever Idea! by orasio · · Score: 1

      Well, the "seal" problem could be solved by multi-layer seams with removable layers.

      The contamination problem wouldn't be solved completely, but I believe it could do much to reduce the problem.

      On the other hand, I see lots of places where this would be useful, and isn't used, like biological suits, radiation suits, and stuff. One thing is an idea, and another is a good implementation.

  142. Firecracker smell makes sense by Medievalist · · Score: 3, 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.

  143. NASA Conspiracy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You insensitive clod! We have never visited the moon.

    Capricorn One
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077294/

    NASA - Response To FOXTV's 'Moon Conspiracy'
    http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2001/f eb/m16-007.sh

    Did Apollo astronauts really visit the Moon
    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23feb_2 .htm

  144. Splat! by SEWilco · · Score: 1

    Before establishing a lunar colony, we'll have to go prospecting in the asteroids and find some with carbonaceous material. This material has various resemblances to kerogen, which under heat deep underground on Earth is converted to oil. Hit a colony site with such an asteroid. I believe the description in song is "put up a parking lot".

  145. Possible way to reduce the problem source by RhettLivingston · · Score: 1

    Prior to setting the majority of your equipment down, set a robotic facility down that clears the dust from several acres. I'd imagine that you could create an electrostatic vacuum system that accelerates the dust enough to just fire it into neighboring areas. With no atmosphere to slow it, you might even be able to fire it all into a nice pile a mile away or so.

  146. Re:Simple solution: orbital settlements by mjolnir_ · · Score: 1

    A stable, terrestrial (lunestrial?) location still poses several advantages over orbital facilities:

    - Ability to build a much more stable, accurate instrument platform for telescopes operating in the shorter wavelengths (ie not just radio). Spacecraft docking, astronauts on EVA, and minute disturbances in gravitational fields from other celestial bodies all cause motion which would ultimately diminish the instrument's sensitivity.

    - Ability to utilize the lunar surface for minerals and materials. Iron ores, etc. Orbital platforms have to be built with materials shipped at a very high energy cost (payloads).

    - Protection from solar radiation. Tunnel down and get some decent mass to stop those pesky particles from randomizing your DNA in unhelpful ways.

    And when it comes down to it, after a few vehicle ascents and descents around the settled area, the force of the vehicle's exhaust will both clear away large portions of dust as well as create an artifical eroding force.

    The dust remains a problem? Orbit a relecting parabolic mirror and reheat the surface to a nice, creamy, smooth finish.

    -mj

  147. Platform lunar base by Shotgun · · Score: 1

    Just build the exterior portions of the base on a platform. There's no air on the moon to raise the dust, so just stay out of it. A single tunnels leads underground to the main habitat. Design landing docs so that the rocket exhaust blows the dust away (again, there's no air so there won't be a problem with vortices bringing the air back to you).

    --
    Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
    Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    1. Re:Platform lunar base by ccherlin · · Score: 1

      But, but, but, that idea makes sense!

      Who gave you a Slashdot account!?

      Guards!

  148. Moon Dust - As Seen On Simpsons by Striikerr · · Score: 1

    This is nothing new. We all learned of the perils of lunar/space dust on the Simsons' Halloween special " "Treehouse of Horror: Hungry are the Damned.". Kang and Kodos had their feelings hurt because the cook book "How to Cook For Forty Humans" was covered with the highly sticky dust resulting in the book title reading "How to Cook Humans". If only this article was available back then to Lisa Simpson, she and her family could have lived their lives in luxury on Nigel-4 instead, the insulted Kang and Kodos returned the Simpson family back to toil here on earth.

  149. Finally an easy one! by TheRealStubot · · Score: 1
    Come on guys, this is a simple solution problem. In the short term:

    1. Hang the astronauts upside down ( feet up )

    2. Beat them with a broom

    In the long term: It's obvious that we need to get proactive and develop some process for eroding the lunar dust. WAIT, I KNOW! We can erode the dust by BREATHING IT! I recommend that we send a group of Windows/Linux zealots to the moon for a study. We could find lots of candidates here on /. Then we could film it and and call it "LUNAR SURVIVOR." I'd watch.

    Being a smoker, I'm only moderately offended by the callous statements being made here about smokers and astronauts.

    --
    "I'd rather win in an ugly car than lose in a pretty car" - Jari Lahdenpera
  150. Re:Well, that's better than... by kiddailey · · Score: 1

    Well I'm neither. The joke was that *both* sides suck -- and since I'm neither, it's equally fun to poke at both sides.

    Aparently, the moderators aren't smart enough to understand that :/

  151. Re:Simple solution: orbital settlements by sexylicious · · Score: 1

    Okay...

    And one of the number one problems on spacecraft is thermal management. You have a hard time radiating all that extra heat away if you sit in direct sunlight all the time. ;)

  152. Re:Simple solution: orbital settlements by randall_burns · · Score: 1
    Simply put, you need to have "stuff" in order to build anything, and planets like Mars and the Moon have lots of that stuff.


    So does the asteroid belt-and its already broken up for you and in an evironment where energy is accessible. Which elements are you thinking are available on planetary surfaces that aren't available in the belt?


    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.


    Why wouldn't this be done robotically?



    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.


    Again, why wouldn't this be done robotically?
    It also isn't clear to what extent you can't get these elements from the belt as necessary.

  153. Re: Effects of the colonial era on human diversity by Daetrin · · Score: 1

    Somehow i'm failing to find the significant moral highground in "You can't just go around eating those people! We want to enslave them!"

    --
    This Space Intentionally Left Blank
  154. Re: Effects of the colonial era on human diversity by TGK · · Score: 1

    I'm just pointing out that, as always, it's a little more complex than it looks on the surface... though you seem to have encapsulated it fairly susinctly.

    --
    Killfile(TGK)
    No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
  155. Less complicated idea...(maybe) by clarabellabo · · Score: 1
    Maybe this is stupid but it seems simple enough...

    Dip the astronauts in water (I'm thinking a toilet U-Bend shape). The dust stays in the water and the astronaut comes out clean. The water could be filtered and reused.

    You get water filtered vacuum cleaners and apparently they're 100% effective and all the allergy groups approve of them.

  156. "Freefall" - both suits and "keep clean" covers! by ankhank · · Score: 1

    That's a wonderful comic -- I had to start at the beginning and read the whole story, and when I got back to this suit design I see not only the dockable suit, but even the "keep clean" cover is described there.
    http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff1000/fv00988.gif/

    I hope NASA reads this stuff. The design is attributed to the Russian space program.

  157. for the mass by khallow · · Score: 1
    "Once you've climbed up out of a gravity well, why would you ever climb back down into one? Everything you need to build a civilization is floating around free for the taking without expending all that energy."

    There's not that much mass available at L5 for the taking. You need to get mass to L5 first. One obvious place to get mass is the Moon, which as I understand it has comparable delta V to near Earth asteroids to near Earth asteriods.

  158. Re:Simple solution: orbital settlements by khallow · · Score: 1
    As pointed out here (which appears to be a reply to your post), "settlement" on the Moon or Mars doesn't mean people actually have to live there. Plus, if you're looking for organic compounds or volatiles, comets not planetary surfaces are the best places to go in the inner Solar System. And if you're looking for any element heavier than helium, the best places are the asteroid belt.

    As far as your projections 500-1000 years into the future go, we'll probably have inside of ten years rapid prototype machines (with human operators) capable of replicating themselves. It's not a particularly large jump from that point to building a space-based infrastructure from a small investment of self-replicating factories. Certainly not 500-1000 years worth which is a vast amount of time for such things.

    I'm not sure what your point was about mobile homes. Mass production will always be an option. Even if we suppose that every space station has to be made by hand and was intended to stay in L5, we can move these stations literally anywhere given enough time. We either just accelerate below the tolerances of the station or we can strap down the station (or break it up into more manageable pieces) and accelerate faster. Where's the difficulty?

    After all, homes made on site on Earth are moved all the time even homes that are a century or older and extremely fragile. It just requires more care, slower speeds, and more time. I see no real difference with moving space stations around. Beside each space station will need station keeping and hence will handle a usable amount of acceleration anyway. The effort required to move a station around the solar system just isn't that great. IMHO, it's harder to make the station in the first place.

  159. Re:Simple solution: orbital settlements by Teancum · · Score: 1

    I know this is a late reply to your comment, but I want to tackle this comment and put in some replies before it gets archived.

    RE: older homes and moving them. You will never see a home that is more than a century old, particularly one that was "stick built" or with masonry be brought down a super highway (autobahn or interstate) at 90 mph. Instead, it will be on special trucks, often "built" on site under the home, and rarely will it even get above about 5 mph... usually less. It is more than just speed and time. The point I was trying to make is that if you are going to be moving homes around all over the place, they have to be built to do that, and that includes a "space station".

    While the ISS might eventually be brought up to a geo-sync orbit (or L-5 as a museum piece), the process of doing that would be the space equivalent of moving a lighthouse down the road a couple of miles. If it weren't so big most people involved with it would simply prefer to let it deorbit and crash into the ocean (as happened to Mir and Skylab). The difficulty involved (to answer your question here) is that while low acceleration may be possible to move something from L-5, unless it was built to be moved it would take an incredibly large amount of time to move, and require specialized labor of a magnitude that doing so wouldn't be worth it unless it was a historic artifact worthy in its own right and essentially priceless. This is while older homes are moved at all, and is an incredibly expensive process.

    As far as projections into the future, I don't see any fancy machines being built in the next 10 years that are substantially different than anything currently being built. Indeed, space is a frontier, which means that the big concern is that the technology base is actually going to be lower than where people are coming from. If you are going to somewhere else in the solar system, you will find that very low-tech approaches will have to be found to get a colony established. Things like horses will be common as they can self-replicate, and with a technology base that was common 1000 years ago. The problem here is that people will have to relearn how to establish industries that are taken for granted now due to mass scale industrialization, like how to sheer wool and spin it into thread. You will see bizzare things like a horse carriage with a GPS reciever, but that will be the nature of going into new worlds. And a common theme for most good SF authors.

    There is no way that you can plop down everything to Mars needed to re-create a 21st century 1st world city in one single shot. The problem with the L-5 colony groups is that they assume that a Manhattan or Apollo scale project can be mounted to help build the space station, and unfortunately there just isn't a national will to spend the economic resources necessary to put something like that together (unless you have some sort of SF type doomsday issue like a black hole swallowing up the sun).

  160. Re:Simple solution: orbital settlements by Teancum · · Score: 1

    I've been having a hard time even knowing where to begin with this post.

    Robots are not the answer, and the necessary artificial intelligence to get robots to do all of the cool things you are suggesting is going to be several centuries away. Sure, there have been some rather spectacular robotic missions to the outer planets (like Cassini or Voyager), but keep in mind these all had huge teams of people on the Earth working usually 24/7 trying to keep these going and had incredible costs associated with them... usually on the order of $1 billion or more for each mission. This is simply out of the question for realistic and practical robotic mineral extraction from asteroids.

    Also, when you get to a production environment (as opposed to exploration missions) there are other factors that come into play where you simply are going to have to have a flesh and blood person on hand to get "dirty" and pound on stuff to get it to work correctly. On site human judgement, together with being able to send instructions without having to come up with the computer programming necessary to accomplish a totally new task never thought of before, are going to make having real people on the ground where the dirt is being pushed around. And that means you also have to have all of the related facilities necessary to keep people alive.

    In addition, I feel like we need to have HUMAN colonization of space, not robotic. There is something twisted and wrong to assume that people are no longer needed as life moves into space. There are some individuals that seem to hate humanity as a whole, and would prefer mass genocide of most of the peoples of this Earth (excepting themselves and close family members or friends that think the way they do). I disagree completely and feel there needs to be a place for humanity among the rest of the stars of this galaxy. The first step is simply getting up there and going to places like the Moon or Mars.

    Importantly, you can go to the Moon with a relatively small group of people (5-20 or so to start with) to make a completely self-sufficient community. That is the critical factor, and something that simply can't be done with an O'Neil colony. Yes, you can get minerals from asteroids, but you have to get to the asteroids in the first place. That is not as easy as it seems, and the Moon is considerably easier to get to.

    If the Earth had a moon the size of Phobos, it would be a different story. BTW, Mars has a moon the size of Phobos, where you can extract minerals effeciently without having to worry (too much) about getting out of the gravity well. Of course, if you are going all the way to Mars to get those resources, why not also put some people down on that planet to do some poking around. And with a group already pounding the dirt down there they will have to be self-sufficient as well.

    We aren't "gods" with the ability to manipulate orbits of planetary objects and put them where convient. I think the task that you have glossed over is substantially more difficult than you can possibly imagine in terms of mineral extraction, and will require an incredible amount of human labor in order to get the stuff done. Most of the current space program that has existed so far has been done relatively hidden from view where only a few astronauts who are hyper specialists (most with PhD's) represent teams of thousands not seen. In the future what you are going to see is rather than this huge group of people staying on the Earth to keep operations going in space, that army of people necessary to keep space exploration going will have to move up into space as well. That is the real challenge, and is going to fundimentally change the way living in space is going to be perceived.

    I know I am coming from an American perspective on this, in part because this is mostly how the area that I live in right now was built and created, through exactly this sort of colonization process. I am only a few generations from the very first inhabitants to this area I'