Slashdot Mirror


Toxic Moondust Bounces Like A Cannonball

Jotii writes "A new NASA article says that moondust fetched to Earth by Apollo 17 is now being studied. From the article: 'Zen-like, he studies the a single mote of dust suspended inside a basketball-sized vacuum chamber for as long as 10 to 12 days.' Moondust is apparently very static, and bounces like cannonballs. Another article from NASA emphasizes the dust's toxicity: 'In some ways, lunar dust resembles the silica dust on Earth that causes silicosis, a serious disease.'"

156 comments

  1. I for one, by SauroNlord · · Score: 3, Funny

    I for one welcome our statically bouncing moondust neighbours.

    1. Re:I for one, by shrewd · · Score: 1

      " I for one welcome our statically bouncing moondust neighbours."

      what, they aren't going to try and tyranically rule us?

    2. Re:I for one, by bad+jerkface · · Score: 0

      Roger that! Un-fscking-believable!

      --
      It's a hand twinkler, you dumbass! And I got a bag of whoopass for you!
    3. Re:I for one, by Xyrus · · Score: 2, Funny

      Silicosis? Is that related to pneumonoultramicroscopicsiliconvolcanoconiosis?

      I finally got to use that word. :)

      ~X~

      --
      ~X~
    4. Re:I for one, by Dictator+For+Life · · Score: 1
      --

      DFL

      Never send a human to do a machine's job.

    5. Re:I for one, by NateTech · · Score: 1

      The overlords felt it was time to try out some of their new marketing materials. "Neighbors" sounds so homey, they went with it.

      --
      +++OK ATH
  2. flubber by know1 · · Score: 4, Funny

    whee, it's flubber! i bet those scientists had lots of fun. that is a long time for somehing to bounce, but i would imagine in a vacuum with no air resistance any bouncy ball would go on for a long time

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

      Not really the stored energy of the rubber still falls afoul of gravity.

    2. Re:flubber by fossa · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not really; with perfectly elastic collisions is would bounce forever. The energy dissapates as heat and sound from friction against the surface, internal plastic deformation, and friction with the air. Similarly, an ideal pendulum will swing forever.

  3. Previous Information? by lachlan76 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Have any of the astronauts who were on the moon missions suffered from damage because of this? No doubt they would be exposed to it at some point during the mission...

    1. Re:Previous Information? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Seeing as you need to inhale rather large amounts of it to do any harm.
      So yes, the astronauts had high exposure while walking around the moon's surface without any breathing apparti.

    2. Re:Previous Information? by ciroknight · · Score: 1, Funny

      Yeah I'm totally sure the Apollo astronauts opened up their visors and took a deep breath of Luna's magnificent, polution free atmosphere, only to find they later have suffered from Silicosis and Lung Cancer worse than asbestos could have ever caused...

      or maybe they died from the extreme cold, lack of oxygen and mass radiation exposure.. I can't remember the details.

      --
      "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
    3. Re:Previous Information? by jcr · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm totally sure the Apollo astronauts opened up their visors

      They did once they got back into the LEM. There certainly was an issue with moon dust inside the spacecraft.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    4. Re:Previous Information? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not only the silicosis issue, but the Moon is also unshielded from UV (and higher frequency) radiation. This tends to break up molecules on the surface of the dust and makes them very reactive.

      One of the worries on a Mars mission (similar UV situation to the Moon) is that if a persons skin comes in contact with rocks they will be burned (chemically). This is also the reason why it is extremely unlikely that life is observable in the first couple of millimeters of Martian soil. I would imagine that Moon dust has the same hazards.

      Of course if you are trying to breathe Moon dust you are either inside your capsule or have much greater worries that the chemical reactivity of the dust.

    5. Re:Previous Information? by ciroknight · · Score: 2, Interesting

      TFA says the moondust is extremely statically charged, which if you've ever just combed your hair, you realize how much can stick to a comb with emmense strength.

      Now think about a particle 1/20th the size of most earthbound stuff with a much stronger static charge. It's going to stick very, very tightly to whatever its on.

      Besides, what's caught to the body of the suit isn't as much a deal as what was on the shoes, and they had covers, IIRC. Not to mention everyone was in quaranteen and extreme medical supervision after being returned to earth. I'd be more worried about living next to Dow chemical or drinking the Ohio river water than getting exposed to a little moon dust for a few days over twenty years ago.

      --
      "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
    6. Re:Previous Information? by lachlan76 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      1. Space-suits can carry the dust on them
      2. Astronauts don't wear the suits from launch to landing
    7. Re:Previous Information? by andreMA · · Score: 4, Informative
      As I recall, either Armstrong or Aldrin noted a smell "like burnt gunpowder" in the LEM following the EVAs. This was attributed to the dust.

      As to health issues, isn't silicosis the result of chronic exposure? I doubt the dozen (18 if you count the guy in the CSM being exposed on the way home) folks with the most exposure were exposed to enough, for long enough, to have any impact.

      If/when we have a long-term presence on the moon, this may be an issue. I suspect one easily solved by taking a quick shower in the airlock on your way back in. Obviously you'd recycle the water, distilling it if need be to leave behind the dust. Though I suspect that in the presence of water and being allowed to sit a while, it might form a sludge that settles. Failing that, I'm sure there's something that could be added to bind it into a harmless solid.

      Filtering the air, electrostatic precipitation, etc. would also likely be a good idea.

    8. Re:Previous Information? by andreMA · · Score: 1
      D'oh

      The shower would be while suited (no doubt requiring a lot of testing of new suits for water resistance). Maintaining a high relative humidity inside would probably be helpful as well.

    9. Re:Previous Information? by vought · · Score: 1

      Another article from NASA emphasizes the dust's toxicity: 'In some ways, lunar dust resembles the silica dust on Earth that causes silicosis, a serious disease.'"

      Yeah, it's a good thing they had those breathers, or they'd have been looking at some serious OSHA violations.

      No doubt they would be exposed to it at some point during the mission...

      Seriously, the samples were placed into sealed containers to avoid contamination of the moon material with earth material. The moon material was quarantined, then samples were studied in sealed chambers (in Houston, I believe).

    10. Re:Previous Information? by ozmanjusri · · Score: 4, Informative

      As to health issues, isn't silicosis the result of chronic exposure?

      Silicosis is the result of chronic exposure to crystalline silica, and it was believed that the illness was caused by mechanical irritation and subsequent scarring (plaques) of the lung tissues. Amorphous silica was considered to be safe since its rounded aspect meant it could be removed by the body's macrophages relatively easily.

      We do know now though, there is a form of acute silicosis which is caused by inflammation of the lung tissues in contact with large amounts of silica (chemical toxicity). The onset is much more rapid (weeks or months instead of years) but it is likely it will be a treatable illness where chronic silicosis is not.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    11. Re:Previous Information? by jcr · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Now think about a particle 1/20th the size of most earthbound stuff with a much stronger static charge. It's going to stick very, very tightly to whatever its on.

      Until it gets into the spacecraft, where the humidity will tend to dissipate the charge, allowing the dust to become airborne, as evidenced by the fact that the astronauts could smell it.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    12. Re:Previous Information? by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      Their suits wouldn't have been protected though.

    13. Re:Previous Information? by Xaositecte · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Underwater tests are already conducted, seeing as working underwater is the closest terrestrial condition to weightlessness possible...

    14. Re:Previous Information? by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 1

      You mean life as we know it. We have no idea how life would evolve on other worlds.

      --
      Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
    15. Re:Previous Information? by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 1
      If/when we have a long-term presence on the moon, this may be an issue. I suspect one easily solved by taking a quick shower in the airlock on your way back in.

      I've also seen a suit design where you climb into your suit through a small airlock, so that the "outside" of the suit is never exposed on the inside of your living environment.

    16. Re:Previous Information? by mikael · · Score: 1

      There was a science article about the properties of moondust (Wired?). Apparently, the moondust particles have lots of jagged edges, if not barbs as well, which provide plenty of sharp pointy bits to emit static charge, and allow it stick to anything and each other. This has the advantage that microwaving the particles will cause them to clump together.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    17. Re:Previous Information? by goldenorfe · · Score: 2, Informative

      Apollo 17 lunar module pilot Harrison Schmitt suffered hay fever due to all the moon dust floating around in the lunar module.

    18. Re:Previous Information? by goldenorfe · · Score: 1

      Oops. My parent post linked to TFA...

    19. Re:Previous Information? by ZeroZen · · Score: 1

      water resistance? we're talking about space suits, right?

      the kind of suits designed to not explode in a vacuum while walking around (and falling over) on the moon? and to handle the extreme temperatures (hot and cold) of outer space?

    20. Re:Previous Information? by Alderin1 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      or maybe they died from the extreme cold, lack of oxygen and mass radiation exposure..

      It would have most likely been the extreme HEAT, at 107 C to 123 C daytime lunar surface temperatures, that combined with the lack of air pressure, all body fluids would boil quite quickly.

      --
      No conformist ever made history.
    21. Re:Previous Information? by poopdeville · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah, the very same space suits that have velcro fasteners and are known to vent gas. Yup, the very same.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    22. Re:Previous Information? by ZeroZen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I checked out your comment on google and found no information regarding leaking space suits with velcro fasteners.

      I can see using velcro to hold down lips and pieces of a suit, but to actually seal a space suit with velcro?

      Can you support your statement with some evidence?

    23. Re:Previous Information? by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      The suits don't "leak." They're designed to vent gas. If you don't vent gas, you can't have a flow of gas at a constant pressure. http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.g ov/19730064704_1973064704.pdf

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    24. Re:Previous Information? by ZeroZen · · Score: 1

      So you're implying vents meant to release air that is being pumped into a spacesuit will allow dust to enter the suit? It sounds pretty far fetched, considering the vacuum outside the suit, and the pressure inside. I can't see it letting anything in.

    25. Re:Previous Information? by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      Nevermind -- my mistake. I misread your first post and thus began a crusade to prove that spacesuits aren't impermeable to water.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    26. Re:Previous Information? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      You mean life as we know it. We have no idea how life would evolve on other worlds.

      Even life *on* Earth has adapted to specific conditions that would kill humans, such as acidic lakes. Human injuries are a poor guide to how well microbes can thrive.

  4. Lol. by MrAnnoyanceToYou · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Silica poisoning is something people who work with ceramics extensively occasionally get..... If you're working with the stuff while it's dry on a regular basis, you should probably wear a dust mask.

    Don't know if we've ever brought back enough dust to actually cause anyone harm.

    1. Re:Lol. by andreMA · · Score: 1
      Is that strictly considered "poisoning" or is it more "mechanical injury" on a small scale? The article summary was wrong on this, I think... not "toxic", but dangerous.

      --
      Lead is toxic, but the mechanical injury of being shot is the more immediate concern...

    2. Re:Lol. by RockModeNick · · Score: 3, Informative

      Silicosis is caused by buildup of microscarring in the lungs from internally processing and removing microshards of essentially a silicate solid. Some glassworkers used to get it from grinding glass dry, too, so if you ever drill glass, keep the drill tip and growing hole in the glass wet.

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

      Smash all the CD's what?

  5. If you find yourself breathing moondust... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... you have way bigger problems than silicosis, Bub.

    1. Re:If you find yourself breathing moondust... by KingSkippus · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah.

      Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicolunarconiosis.

    2. Re:If you find yourself breathing moondust... by Chmarr · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wow... the sound of that is something quite atrocious.

  6. Watch out NBA by NitsujTPU · · Score: 3, Funny

    If this dust bounces like canonballs, then the NBA will be ALL OVER toxic moondust basketballs.

    1. Re:Watch out NBA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      i'm confused as i do not have cannonballs and therefore have never bounced one. is it saying that the dust does not bounce, and therefore bounces like a cannonball, which does not bounce; or do cannonball's actually bounce fairly well and the dust bounces well also??????

    2. Re:Watch out NBA by Detritus · · Score: 4, Informative

      Cannonballs bounce nicely when fired from a cannon. I've read descriptions of American Civil War battles that noted how cannonballs gracefully bounced across the battlefield. Although fascinating to watch, they were still extremely dangerous to anyone in their path.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    3. Re:Watch out NBA by RockModeNick · · Score: 2

      Cannonballs bounce nicely when fired very horizontally, but if dropped vertically they bounce little or not.

    4. Re:Watch out NBA by sweetnjguy29 · · Score: 5, Informative
      If everyone would RTFA, the actual quote is Eventually, the repulsive charges become so strong that grains are launched off the surface "like cannonballs" not "Moondust bounces like cannonballs" as the slashdot summary states.

      However, as the previous poster mentioned, cannonballs do in fact bounce. However, I doubt that it would be possible to actually see the bouncing cannon ball itself, as it is probably moving at least 300 m/s or so. (I imagine that most of the collisions were highly elastic...allowing a bounce) especially since archeologically recovered canonballs dont have too much damage to them. However, you could probably see the dust rising from where the canon ball is skipping...as well as the effect on any troops in the way. I remember watching a show on the Military Channel where they filmed different types of cannon shot...in slow motion...so you could see how the ball skipped/bounced and lost energy.

    5. Re:Watch out NBA by shokk · · Score: 1

      Yes, but I wouldn't want to be one of the fans in the stands with all that dust flying all over the stadium. What a deadly game.

      --
      "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
    6. Re:Watch out NBA by Perf · · Score: 5, Interesting
      I think you are assuming too much...

      Personal accounts by a Civil War era soldier (my great grandfather) say that the cannon balls looked like softballs bouncing across the field. He said that you would think you could put your foot out and stop it, but if you did, you'd lose your leg.

      Also, when the light is right, I've seen 22 bullets in flight. (22 Long Rifle) I was a doubter until someone showed me.

    7. Re:Watch out NBA by sweetnjguy29 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Personal accounts by a Civil War era soldier (my great grandfather) say that the cannon balls looked like softballs bouncing across the field. He said that you would think you could put your foot out and stop it, but if you did, you'd lose your leg.

      Of course, you know that a personal anecdote is bad logic, and thus bad science, since it is a well-known logical fallacy.

      However, I think your great-grandfather's story is very compelling and really cool...and matches what I saw on that tv show...although I didn't see the ball itself though...just the dust hitting the ground...and it roughly looked like a softball bouncing across the field. Perhaps someone with better eyes could have seen it.

      I also remember that the canon balls do slow down at the limit of their range...so, at that point, you could see it, if it was going slow enough! Or bouncing near you! I still think it would be a big blur though. At least to me.

      Also, when the light is right, I've seen 22 bullets in flight. (22 Long Rifle) I was a doubter until someone showed me.

      I've also heard that trained marksmen can see bullets in flight. Makes sense to me...that over a long distance, right behind a projectile, you might be able to see it in flight. I know that I have thought I have seen a projectile after shooting a rifle, but I chalk that up to my imagination.

      The nice thing about science is that we do know for a fact that cannon balls bounce...we don't have to rely on our intuition or personal stories...we can go out and test the theory for ourselves.

    8. Re:Watch out NBA by StealthAssasin · · Score: 1

      I know this is going a while back but: "I've also heard that trained marksmen can see bullets in flight. Makes sense to me...that over a long distance, right behind a projectile, you might be able to see it in flight. I know that I have thought I have seen a projectile after shooting a rifle, but I chalk that up to my imagination" Having spent 3 years on my counties shooting team, .22, 5.56mm and 7.62mm, I can say that yes it is possible to see the path of the bullet having fired, be this from dust swirls cause by the vacuum behind it, or a heat trail, you see a nice swirl behind it. Then again at 1 mile range theoretically depending on the round of ammunition used it could be possible to see the bullet itself, take for instance a large subsonic round.

    9. Re:Watch out NBA by Perf · · Score: 1

      As I recall, we were plinking with 22's across a small creek. We were above our target at a range of about 10 yards. It was evening with the sun at our back. We would see a quick streak of gold or yellow. We tried to isolate it from other possibilities. I don't think it was a dust trail or heat trail, but the sun reflecting off the bullet. I'm not sre if the color was from the bullet (brass plated) or from the sun.

    10. Re:Watch out NBA by Perf · · Score: 1
      "Of course, you know that a personal anecdote is bad logic, and thus bad science, since it is a well-known logical fallacy." "...matches what I saw on that tv show..."

      Your statements have several errors.

      1. Your statement "personal anecdotes are illogical" is a logical fallacy because many personal accounts are true. Perhaps you should have said, "personal accounts are fallible." Courts accept personal accounts as evidence to establish truth. (In fact, courts actively seek personal accounts.) Scientific journals routinely publish personal accounts - almost all scietific papers are an interpretation of experimental evidence. Personal accounts are NOT logical fallacies.

      2. Only idiots insists on rejecting ALL personal accounts without scientific verification. Scientists routinely accept the personal accounts of scientists in other fields. i.e. Physicists routinely accept the work of Biologist without scietific verification.

      3. Truth and logic are not limited to repeatable phenomenon. Strictly speaking, science is limited to repeatable phenomenon. (Science assumes 1 - Cause and effect and 2 - repeatability. Drop these two and the scientific method breaks down.) Until science invents a time machine, we cannot go back to verify historical events. (Even so, a time machine introduces the possibility of changing history - the Uncertainty Principle again.) Scientifically, you can't prove WW2 happened because it is not repeatable. (Think about this in regard to the Evolution v.s. Intelligent Design debate. Too bad we can't go back in time to see when Darwin created the universe.) Courts use science where they can, but must rely on personal accounts.

      4. Your assertion that "personal anecdotes are bad logic" is inconsistent with the rest of your posting. You cite personal anecdotes e.g. "I've also heard that trained marksmen ..."

      5. You cite a TV show in critique of my great-grandfather's account. TV shows are well known for manipulating truth (or maybe superman really can fly.) Also, the eye operates in real time. TV records at 25 or 30 frames per second or 0.033 seconds per frame. Guinness World records lists Bob Munden as drawing and shooting a pistol in 0.02 seconds. http://www.bob-munden.com/guinness1.htm (That's between TV frames.)

      Having said all this, I will readily acknowledge that my great-grandfather's story could be false or embellished. (My sources on this one are pretty good. Some of my relatives like to embellish stories to make them more interesting. Others bore us with ALL the factual details.) Unfortunately, I can't test his story.

      If I remember correctly, Ambrose Bierce made similar remarks. (Sorry, I can't remember which story.)

      As for 22 bullets in flight - check it out before you discount it.

    11. Re:Watch out NBA by sweetnjguy29 · · Score: 1
      For the record, I believe that personal stories about wars are extremely important. I do not doubt your great-grandfather's account at all. I am 99% positive that he percieved the cannon balls bouncing across the battlefield. My point was that I did not think it was likely that he could have seen the ball itself...merely the effects of the ball...heat trails...distortion...bodies...dust from the bounce.

      Now onto debunk the rest of your post by making more Argumentum ad Logicams! (i.e. saying that your argument isn't logical and thus can not be logical...is in itself a fallacy. doesnt logic suck? haha. Wait, without fallacies, we wouldn't have Slashdot!)

      Your statement "personal anecdotes are illogical" is a logical fallacy because many personal accounts are true

      My understanding of the use of anecdotes in both social and physical sciences are that personal stories alone are not conclusive evidence. Anecdotes are used to illustrate a thesis, not to prove it.

      Of course, I never said that "personal anecdotes are illogical". What I said was using "personal anecdote(s) is bad logic." I was trying to suggest that using a story to explain a scientific phenomenon is not science.

      What really took me off guard from your post was point #2:

      Scientists routinely accept the personal accounts of scientists in other fields. i.e. Physicists routinely accept the work of Biologist without scietific verification.

      Woah! Nothing could be further from the truth. "The work" of a scientist is not a personal anecdote! A scientific paper is the product of the scientific method, subject to peer review, and falisification by other scientists. That being said, you are correct in implying that scientists routinely accept other scientists peer reviewed papers and conclusions. Is this bad? Sometimes. Which is why I'll agree with you on point #5 that relying on a TV show is stupid. However, they did use the scientific method to come to conclusions...

      Scientifically, you can't prove WW2 happened because it is not repeatable.

      This is somewhat true. However, a non-repeatable event/phenomenon can be verified by corroborating evidence. I cannot devise an experiment in a lab to recreate WW2. However, I can unearth hundreds of thousands of pages of maps, planning documents, field orders, death certificates, soldiers diaries, personal accounts and archaelogical evidence that something happened on the magnitude of a World War. What is repeatable here is that one type of documentary evidence leads to hard physical evidence. Document A says that we are going to invade Normandy here. Going to Normandy yeilds a huge cemetary and unexploded bombs.

      In science, trying to prove that the big bang or evolution happened is similar. We can observe evolution happening in the fossil record...and we can observe evolution happening in front of us too by tinkering with plants and animals genetics. We can observe that our galaxy is moving away from other galaxies. And yes, we can actually LOOK BACK IN TIME, by looking through a telescope, and see the beginnings of the origins of the universe, contrary to your assertion that "Too bad we can't go back in time to see [the creation of] the universe."

      Of course, our whole argument in this thread revolves around what is it that we are trying to prove. If we are to prove that science exists to show what is true...then, of course...we can have a philosophical debate for days. (I don't think that either science or logic are absolute laws which govern the universe and explain or predict everything...they are merely helpful and accurate tools).

      Interestingly, you stated in your previous post that Courts accept...evidence to establish truth. I disagree. Courts exist not only to find truth, but to provide finality, provide compensation to victims, prevent blood feuds, and to make our government work efficiently. That is why courts will not hear cases if they don't have jurisdiction or if th

    12. Re:Watch out NBA by StealthAssasin · · Score: 1

      It very well could be, though all .22 that I've ever fired where black tipped. So I wouldn't quite have that advantage. But I can think of an instance where yes I probably have seen reflection of light over longer distances. More so when we where doing night shoots on the ranges.

    13. Re:Watch out NBA by budgenator · · Score: 1

      I've frequently seen 81mm mortor rounds in flight, generaly as they approach and pass their maximum ordinate (peak of flight), rifle bullets are extremely dificualt to see unless you are looking through binoculars or a spotting scope.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    14. Re:Watch out NBA by Forbman · · Score: 1

      Same with watching a tire broken loose from a race car in an accident. They look like they're not going very fast, but they are, and they have a lot of KE in them from the speed they might be spinning at, and they're not light in the first place, so if it hits a human, it's not pretty. Now, add in the occaisional pieces of suspension and brake that can sometimes stay attached to them, also whirling at Cuisinart speeds...

    15. Re:Watch out NBA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the hell is so amazing about seeing a dark head sized object moving at 300 m/s? Ever played paintball? From the side they're very hard to see, but if you're at a small angle to their trajectory they appear to move slowly. When there's action about, things appear to happen slower so a second is a very long time.

  7. Suggestion... by KingSkippus · · Score: 4, Funny

    I think that if this study proves that moondust can be dangerous, any astronauts stationed to a moonbase should probably just stay inside. Or at least, cover their mouths while they're roaming around outside. No sense in risking your health by walking around outside on the moon without any kind of protection for your lungs.

    1. Re:Suggestion... by jacksonj04 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Joking aside, it does show that a thorough showering (Air shower probably) facility should be placed in an intermediate airlock to stop as much dust as possible from getting into a station.

      --
      How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
    2. Re:Suggestion... by kellar · · Score: 1
      this affliction might be the same as the commonly-recognised (i.e. non-technical e.g. not from organic chemistry) longest word in English - Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis

      (if there are volcanoes on the moon, maybe.)

      i, for one, welcome our new linguistic overlords.

      --
      k e l l a r
    3. Re:Suggestion... by balloonpup · · Score: 1

      ...except, as the Wikipedia article goes on to explain, it's not really a word at all, the proper one being pneumoconiosis. Woo for long made-up words!

      --
      I sing the doggie electric!
    4. Re:Suggestion... by Haydn+Fenton · · Score: 1

      You insensitive clod!
      I have hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia... ARRRRGGHHHHHHHH!!1!!"%/(*&$£8£[NO CARRIER]

    5. Re:Suggestion... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      And it also proves that we'll spend $2.4 Billion dollars coming up with a solution instead of just sending along a pair of Roombas.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    6. Re:Suggestion... by Seumas · · Score: 2, Funny

      Not to mention, such an investment would pay off in spades down the road when we start returning from trips to uranus.

  8. Bouncing like a cannonball by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    sadly enough i haven't got the slightest clue how bouncy that would be. what is a cannonball in this context and how bouncy is it? and who thinks up these idiotic comparisons?

    1. Re:Bouncing like a cannonball by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      That reminds me of one of my favorite Douglas Adams quotes:

      "The ships hung in the sky in much the same way that bricks don't."

    2. Re:Bouncing like a cannonball by Mahou · · Score: 2, Informative

      the article said that moondust becomes so repulsive from being statically charged that it gets launched like cannonballs into the air(possibly). how that translates to 'bouncing' to the submitter i have no idea...

      --
      if i'm not immortal, what's the point of living?
      ...te?
    3. Re:Bouncing like a cannonball by phatslug · · Score: 1

      Cannonballs bounced quite far after being fired across the battlefield. It was this bouncing low to the ground that made them so effective (deadly), especially againts solidiers in column.

    4. Re:Bouncing like a cannonball by Pranadevil2k · · Score: 1

      Cannonballs bounce when they've been fired. Once they hit the ground, they tend to be moving so fast that they can still fly off in a near random direction, causing even more damage. So.. yeah.. Bricks don't hang in the sky, but cannonballs definitely bounce.

  9. What a wierd post by Datamonstar · · Score: 2, Funny

    Who the hell wants a big bouncing ball of toxic dust for X-mas?

    I'd be torn. Cool space dust... or the Xbox 360 that I asked for. Descisions, descisions!

    --
    The eternal struggle of good vs. evil begins within one's self.
    1. Re:What a wierd post by ciroknight · · Score: 1

      Definitely go with the moon dust. At least it'll be a hundred times more valuable and something cool to show/threaten your friends with. Whereas the Xbox 360 will just overheat and die and can't be appreciated nicely without a grand being spent on a new TV.

      --
      "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
  10. Fight static with static. by Mr.+Freeman · · Score: 2, Funny

    Why not just use static to get the dust off too?
    You could simply use static emitters in the lunar module to trap dust, just like a 5 billion duster.

    Cheaper alternative, stick a sign on the door that says: "Please remove your shoes before entering lunar lander."

    --
    -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
  11. Bounces like cannonballs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What does that mean???

  12. I'm confused by presidentbeef · · Score: 3, Funny

    Don't cannonballs bounce similarly to how lead balloons fly...?

    --
    Everything I need to know about copyrights I learned from Slashdot.
    1. Re:I'm confused by Potato+Battery · · Score: 4, Funny

      They tested it by firing it at a model of the USS Constitution carved out of a grain of rice. The moondust cannonballs were found to be much more effective at doing damage to the hulls of an armada of less-well crafted microscopic ships of war.

      I think the "cannonball" reference indicates the powers that be have let slip a little too much:

      • there is life on the moon
      • it has attained a level of technology roughly that of 16th century through 18th century Europe
      • they are very little
      • we are planning to fight them on their terms
    2. Re:I'm confused by Eric604 · · Score: 1

      I don't think they refer to it's mass (heavy balls don't bounce up because of mass&gravity) but to their (supposely similar) elasticity. Hard metal spheres when they collide in a pendulum style arrangement will carry on 'clicking' for a long time.

    3. Re:I'm confused by PatrickThomson · · Score: 2, Informative

      a ball of steel will actually bounce higher than a ball of rubber, as long as the surface it hits doesn't move or deform. This doesn't describe your average road ("boing" versuse "crunch") but with a giant slab of steel, the cannonball will bounce higher than the rubber.

      --
      I am one of many. My idea is not unique, nor do I expect my voice alone to sway you. I speak in a chorus of opinion.
    4. Re:I'm confused by Eric604 · · Score: 1
      Maybe... but is this also the case when:
      1.The balls have same sizes (and thus the rubber ball less mass)
      2.They bounce 'up' countering 1G of gravity. ?

      That's why I said (between parenthesis) that weight reduces the bouncing effect of a cannonball compared to a rubber ball.

    5. Re:I'm confused by PatrickThomson · · Score: 1

      tssk tssk tssk... you're like the greeks. (Simplistically) a bounce has a single parameter, efficiency. This is the proportion of kinetic energy lost in a bounce. a 50% efficient collision with a 1 gram rubber ball against the ground and a 1 ton steel ball against the ground will result in them going back up to the same height, ignoring air resistance.

      --
      I am one of many. My idea is not unique, nor do I expect my voice alone to sway you. I speak in a chorus of opinion.
    6. Re:I'm confused by Eric604 · · Score: 1

      You know, we used to do lots of Newton excersises and it's depressing to find out that I've forgotten most of it; Well, it was fun while it lasted.

    7. Re:I'm confused by PatrickThomson · · Score: 1

      It's understandable; the reality, while intuitive, seems non-newtonian. Drop a cannonball on a table, it'll end up downstairs.

      --
      I am one of many. My idea is not unique, nor do I expect my voice alone to sway you. I speak in a chorus of opinion.
    8. Re:I'm confused by I(rispee_I(reme · · Score: 1

      I don't believe that steel and rubber bounce with the same efficiency, though. ;)
      Imagine a rubber cannonball.
      Now that's bounce.

    9. Re:I'm confused by PatrickThomson · · Score: 1

      Steel is better than rubber, surprisingly.

      --
      I am one of many. My idea is not unique, nor do I expect my voice alone to sway you. I speak in a chorus of opinion.
    10. Re:I'm confused by CthulhuDreamer · · Score: 1

      Steel cannonballs also often have a large horizontal velocity vector applied to them, making the experiments much more exciting.

  13. Go with the moon dust by KingSkippus · · Score: 2, Funny

    Go with the moon dust. After the PS3 and Revolution come out, the moon dust will still be cool. ;-)

  14. Toxic Moondust Bounces Like A Cannonball... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... "And in St. Petersburg, we're freezing our butts off. Is that close enough for government work?"

  15. bounces like cannonballs? by OBeardedOne · · Score: 4, Funny

    Last time I tried to bounce a cannonball I was thrown off the team.

    1. Re:bounces like cannonballs? by smithmc · · Score: 1


      Remember the 5 D's of cannon dodgeball - dodge, duck, dive, dip, and... dodge!

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
  16. Chemical makeup and toxicity by Wilson_6500 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Um... Does anyone know the chemical composition of this dust? How different is it from the stuff you'd find on Earth, chemically speaking? I don't care what it does, I care what makes it up.

    On a different note now, silica dust seems to me like it'd be basically glass or ceramic powder, and it makes intuitive sense that powdered glass would be very bad for the lungs. But couldn't any finely divided dust of materials with similar properties to silica be expected to cause a similar condition if inhaled over time? I'm thinking steel dust or granite powder, or something like that. It's not like asbestos, where the "toxicity" is really "carcinogenicity."

    In fact, calling the dust "toxic" makes it out to be a poison, when it's really more of a severe and persistent irritant. To call this or asbestos toxic seems a bit misleading and sensational--not to understate the dangers, but you want people to understand why things are dangerous, and in what way. Dimethyl mercury is toxic by contact; phosgene is toxic by inhalation; I think that both do more than just irritate.

    1. Re:Chemical makeup and toxicity by KingSkippus · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes, TFA mentioned it specifically as quartz.

      "You could eat it and not get sick," [Russell Kerschmann, NASA pathologist] continues. "But when quartz is freshly ground into dust particles smaller than 10 microns (for comparison, a human hair is 50+ microns wide) and breathed into the lungs, they can embed themselves deeply into the tiny alveolar sacs and ducts where oxygen and carbon dioxide gases are exchanged." There, the lungs cannot clear out the dust by mucous or coughing. Moreover, the immune system's white blood cells commit suicide when they try to engulf the sharp-edged particles to carry them away in the bloodstream. In the acute form of silicosis, the lungs can fill with proteins from the blood, "and it's as if the victim slowly suffocates" from a pneumonia-like condition.

      Ew.

      The thing that makes moondust more bothersome that earth quartz dust is that the moondust is charged by UV rays, which causes it to be a lot more sticky than quartz dust is here. Also, the cannonball reference was to the dust flying up off the surface of the moon, which means that the astronauts' spacesuits (and moonbase, once we build one) will be covered from above and below in the stuff. It'll be hard to keep the stuff out if the astronauts come and go often, and once in, it can wreak havoc on their health over the relatively short period of time of a few months.

    2. Re:Chemical makeup and toxicity by kronocide · · Score: 1

      On a different note now, silica dust seems to me like it'd be basically glass or ceramic powder, and it makes intuitive sense that powdered glass would be very bad for the lungs.

      Spinoza thought so!

    3. Re:Chemical makeup and toxicity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moon dust is very sharply textured due to the fact that there is no weathering from wind or water.
      On the earth, rock breaks down into smoother particles.

      Moon dust would be more like asbestos, which can get lodged in the lungs and cause problems.

    4. Re:Chemical makeup and toxicity by Wilson_6500 · · Score: 1

      Wow, I totally missed that article.

      OK, so, from the article:

      Lunar dust, being a compound of silicon as is quartz, is (to our current knowledge) also not poisonous.

      So it _has_ silicon in it, and it's probably chemically similar to quartz. After a little google work, I turned up This presentation that outlines the stuff a little. It appears to be mostly silicon monoxide--similar in composition to silica, but not chemically the same. But, hell, just looking at those particles, they look "sharp edged," and it's not really a chemical effect in the lungs anyhow--that's why it's not "toxic," there's no chemical action in the lungs, just a physical one.

  17. Zen-like, he studies the a single mote of dust... by Shanep · · Score: 3, Funny

    Are all our moondust belong to them?

    --
    War crimes, torture, lies, illegal spying... Would someone give Bush a blowjob, already, so he can be impeached?
  18. Take your time guys! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    "A new NASA article says that moondust fetched to Earth by Apollo 17 is now being studied. [...]"

    Well, all I can say is, it's about time!

    1. Re:Take your time guys! by Gryle · · Score: 1

      You've never been to a TX DPS office have you?

      --
      Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not entirely sure about the universe - Einstein
  19. Earth vs Moon: At least we have editors by Umuri · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    From the article: 'Zen-like, he studies the a single mote of dust suspended inside a basketball-sized vacuum chamber for as long as 10 to 12 days.'
    Correct me if i'm wrong but aren't editors supposed to check little things like that, especially when they are glaringly obvious?
    Welcome to slashdot!

    --
    You never realize how much manually made unmanaged "linked" lists suck, till you have src.link.link.link.link...
    1. Re:Earth vs Moon: At least we have editors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      No. Perhaps the whole quote from TFA will make it more clear:

      "Mian Abbas did not find that the b single mote of dust or the c single mote of dust were very interesting. But the a single mote of dust, that one was fascinating. Zen-like, he studies the a single mote of dust suspended inside a basketball-sized vacuum chamber for as long as 10 to 12 days."

    2. Re:Earth vs Moon: At least we have editors by Zenmonkeycat · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      But am not it obvious, the am an winner? What for am an he and editor? Of cause there an edit to am making the a single mote of dust.

      --

      *****
      Dear Mary,
      I yearn for you tragically,
      A.T. Tappman, Chaplain, U.S. Army.

    3. Re:Earth vs Moon: At least we have editors by GIL_Dude · · Score: 1

      Obviously the moondust is detrimental to the IQ as well as the lungs.

  20. WTF? by antikarma · · Score: 1

    WTF is this article about? Do they bounce or not? I think "bounce like cannonballs" was just a very poor attempt at sarcasm by the scientist. I don't think there's any story here at all really. But I guess that's why I read it first on Slashdot...

    1. Re:WTF? by alienmole · · Score: 1

      Y'know, it probably would have taken you less time to click on the article link and read the first six paragraphs, which would answer your question, than post it here. But I guess that's why we're seeing your comment on Slashdot...

  21. About time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're just studying it now? After 30 or so years?

    1. Re:About time? by GIL_Dude · · Score: 1

      Can you just imagine how long they stared at the CONTAINER zen-like before opening it? Must have been a LOT longer than 10 days, huh?

  22. Indubitably by baadger · · Score: 1

    Of course, you can say it backwards, which is sisoinocranulociliscipocsorcimartluonomuenp, but that's going a bit too far, don't you think?

  23. layman-speak by circletimessquare · · Score: 2, Funny

    close your eyes and imagine a speck of dust bouncing like a cannonball...

    i understand the instinct that drives scientists to say things like it "bounces like cannonballs" for the sake of us average joes who don't talk in kilocuries and attonewtons and femtofarads

    however i would respectfully request that scientists attempting to talk in layman terms update their terminology to something after the civil war, as i don't think many of us average joes have seen any cannonballs bouncing around anywhere lately

    i mean what is "bounces like cannonballs" supposed to mean? the best mental image i can come up with is a bouncing bowling ball... which doesn't really bounce- is that the point? then why not just say "it doesn't bounce"

    does it make sense to say "the car drove off the highway at 80 mph and bounced off the tree like a cannonball" unless you're trying to write colorful fiction?

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:layman-speak by KingSkippus · · Score: 3, Informative
      however i would respectfully request that scientists attempting to talk in layman terms update their terminology to something after the civil war

      God, that's funny.

      In NASA's defense, "bounces like a cannonball" was the submitter's phrase, not the article's. The article says:

      Eventually, the repulsive charges become so strong that grains are launched off the surface "like cannonballs," says Abbas, arcing kilometers above the moon until gravity makes them fall back again to the ground.

      This simile, while still perhaps antiquated, makes a lot more sense.

      /still imagining "bouncing" cannonballs...

    2. Re:layman-speak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      /still imagining bouncing "melons"...

  24. statically bouncing by xfletch · · Score: 5, Funny
    I for one welcome our statically bouncing moondust neighbours

    I think the poster has grasped the less than clear point that 'bouncing like cannonballs' means not bouncing at all. Perhaps 'bounces like watermelons' would have been better, but then again 'melons' and 'bouncing' in the same sentence may have distracted some of our younger readers...

    1. Re:statically bouncing by 1u3hr · · Score: 3, Informative
      I think the poster has grasped the less than clear point that 'bouncing like cannonballs' means not bouncing at all.

      Actually, the submitter seems to have mashed up the analogies in TFA to somethng unintellible.

      It says "In the lunar daytime, intense ultraviolet (UV) light from the sun knocks electrons out of the powdery grit. Dust grains on the moon's daylit surface thus become positively charged. Eventually, the repulsive charges become so strong that grains are launched off the surface 'like cannonballs,' says Abbas, arcing kilometers above the moon until gravity makes them fall back again to the ground."

      Note that the word "bouncing" does not appear anywhere.

  25. moondust and then some by pedicabo · · Score: 0

    The dust is ' very static '. That means it hardly moves. It also bounces like cannonballs. It's toxic, it's like silicon. Silicon is almost entirely inert.It must be one of the least toxic substances in existence. It is dangerous, not toxic. Moondust, yeah, well you got that right.

  26. Moondust is toxic by brainwash · · Score: 4, Interesting

    On the same NASA site, there's an article about the toxicity of moondust. It appears that because of its small particle size (10 microns), the moondust gets embedded into lungs, just like quartz used to do in the old mining days, causing silicosis.
    The astronauts did inhale some of the moondust, with effects similar to a hay fever.
    Not only that, but the dust is statically charged because of the Sun and lack of humidity, so it will stick to just about anything, causing abrasion.
    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/22apr_dont inhale.htm
    There are plans to build a "microwave lunar lawn mower" that will melt the dust into something useful and stop it from bouncing.
    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/09nov_lawn mower.htm

    1. Re:Moondust is toxic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The astronauts did inhale some of the moondust, with effects similar to a hay fever.

      So, they opened their spacesuits to breathe the air on the moon, did they?

  27. Toxic? Nonsense! by YuppieScum · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Saying that moon-dust is toxic because it could cause silicosis is like saying water is toxic becuase you can drown in it.

    --
    This sig left unintentionally blank.
    1. Re:Toxic? Nonsense! by roman_mir · · Score: 2, Informative

      I actually read both articles in question and nowhere does it say that moondust is toxic. It does however say that Martian dust can be toxic in the second article. Here are the relevant quotes:

      Quartz, the main cause of silicosis, is not chemically poisonous: "You could eat it and not get sick ...
      Lunar dust, being a compound of silicon as is quartz, is (to our current knowledge) also not poisonous. ...
      Martian dust could be even worse. It's not only a mechanical irritant but also perhaps a chemical poison. Mars is red because its surface is largely composed of iron oxide (rust) and oxides of other minerals. Some scientists suspect that the dusty soil on Mars may be such a strong oxidizer that it burns any organic compound such as plastics, rubber or human skin as viciously as undiluted lye or laundry bleach.

      "If you get Martian soil on your skin, it will leave burn marks," believes University of Colorado engineering professor Stein Sture, who studies granular materials like Moon- and Mars-dirt for NASA. Because no soil samples have ever been returned from Mars, "we don't know for sure how strong it is, but it could be pretty vicious."

      Moreover, according to data from the Pathfinder mission, Martian dust may also contain trace amounts of toxic metals, including arsenic and hexavalent chromium--a carcinogenic toxic waste featured in the docudrama movie Erin Brockovich (Universal Studios, 2000). That was a surprising finding of a 2002 National Research Council report called Safe on Mars: Precursor Measurements Necessary to Support Human Operations on the Martian Surface.

    2. Re:Toxic? Nonsense! by Jeremy.DeGroot · · Score: 1
      aying that moon-dust is toxic because it could cause silicosis is like saying water is toxic becuase you can drown in it.

      Funny you should say that. Have you been informed of all the dangers of water?
      Dihydrogen Monoxide

    3. Re:Toxic? Nonsense! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, never before on Slashdot!

    4. Re:Toxic? Nonsense! by Forbman · · Score: 1

      Some scientists suspect that the dusty soil on Mars may be such a strong oxidizer that it burns any organic compound such as plastics, rubber or human skin as viciously as undiluted lye or laundry bleach.

      The dust itself won't do much oxidizing unless it gets wet.

      Undiluted lye is FAR FAR WORSE than laundry bleach...

      If it doesn't get much warmer than -20 deg F at the equator, and the air is about as thin as on Mt Everest, don't you think that people will be in some form of bunnysuit out there anyways?

      Don't you think this incredibly chemically corrosive dust would have been eating at the two little 6-wheeled autonomous slugs by now?

  28. returning to their ship with dust on their suits by Vandil+X · · Score: 2, Informative

    The Apollo astronauts said that they did get exposed to the dust that was on their suits. Once they hopped bck into the ascent stage of the lunar lander, the dust floated everywhere. Once they reconnected with the command module, some of the dust blew in. They breathed the dust throughout the trip home.

    --
    Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, START
  29. Incidently... by Skiron · · Score: 3, Informative

    The Apollo 17 landing film is truly great to watch; the excitement in the astronauts voices shows what it really means for man to land on the moon:

    Landing at Taurus-Littrow

  30. Re:Zen-like, he studies the a single mote of dust. by lxs · · Score: 5, Funny

    Moondust bounces high
    Suspended in emptiness
    A scientist coughs

  31. They're just getting around to it now? by jimcooncat · · Score: 1

    "individual dust grains returned by Apollo 17 astronauts in 1972 and the Russian Luna-24 sample-return spacecraft that landed on the Moon in 1976"

    Another government program that doesn't understand the concept of turnaround time. Demand efficiency, or farm it out to the free market!

    (Ha ha, only serious.)

  32. Origin Of The Toxic Moondust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Theres probably a ridiculously obvious answer to this that I'm just not seeing, but...

    Where does moondust come from? Rocks are rocks, on the Earth they are weathered or milled down to dust or particles. There are no weathering actions (Solar wind? Extreme expansion and contraction due to heat?) on the moon, and milling facilities would appear to be limited at best.

    So, given that moondust is a pretty extensive feature of the lunar landscape, where the hell does it come from?

    1. Re:Origin Of The Toxic Moondust by Bambi+Dee · · Score: 1

      The impacts of all the meteorites and otherstuff that's hitting that atmospherically unshielded rockball all the time, I think.

    2. Re:Origin Of The Toxic Moondust by Hakubi_Washu · · Score: 1

      I'm no astrophysics buff, but AFAIK the moon's spherical nature holds the key: Most such objects are giant clouds of dust and rocks that collided into a single body at their center of gravity (google for "accretion disc/k"). There can be enough heat (impacts, etc.) involved to melt that ball of dust'n'rubble, if cooled again, they become rather uniform (many (?) Planets). The Moon is a bit of an exception, since it hasn't formed from stellar dust, but after a big impact to earth. Still there was enough dust involved to cover the moon up to a rather spherical shape :-)
      In short: rocks are rocks, but on the moon they're rare, because the dust wasn't melted into them.

    3. Re:Origin Of The Toxic Moondust by imsabbel · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, this is quite some bullshit you are telling :)

      If there were enough dust to shape the moon round, the apollo lander would have just sunk in ...

      The layer of dust has NOTHING to do with the creation process of the moon but rather with the fact that the lack of athmosphere combined with billions of years of pulverisation of the surface through impacts has created it, plus the lack of the magnetic field has implaneted ions from the solar wind.

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    4. Re:Origin Of The Toxic Moondust by Hakubi_Washu · · Score: 1

      As I said, I may be wrong, but sinking into dust is bullshit as well :) It would be highly compressed under it's own weight, so you can't sink in, just like you don't sink in the desert, you'll need quicksand for that.

    5. Re:Origin Of The Toxic Moondust by xtieburn · · Score: 1, Interesting

      No one actually knows how the moon formed, the whole huge impact theory is still only a best guess.

      If it was that theory that formed it then the moon will have been fairly molten at the time which is how it will have shaped itself in to a sphere as all large fluid masses do.

      As for the dust. Lots of impacts + Total lack of water + No wind to even clear the dust in to dunes = Nice layer of dust across the whole surface. The actual layer of dust though is only a few centimeters deep and not really enough to highly compress it.

  33. Thanks Slashdot! by hmccabe · · Score: 2, Funny

    I don't know what this story is about, but I know the next song I write is bound to have the line "Toxic Moondust Bounces Like A Cannonball." Thanks, and pass the bong, taco.

  34. Just, Die. by DrYak · · Score: 1
    - Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicolunarconiosis.
    - Wow... the sound of that is something quite atrocious.
    - Of course, you can say it backwards, which is sisoinocranulociliscipocsorcimartluonomuenp, but that's going a bit too far, don't you think?


    Yeah, and by the time you finish trying to pronounce those long words, if you aren't dead yet because of the inhaled silica dust, you'll be surely asphyxiated to death, trying to say it without stopping to catch breath.
    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  35. Re:returning to their ship with dust on their suit by ajpr · · Score: 3, Interesting

    actually, the dust got in through their boots aswell. Apparently the dust is so fine it can get through "air tight" spaces.

  36. Re:returning to their ship with dust on their suit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The dust is finer than O2, N2, CO2 etc?

  37. Nominated for worst Slashdot headline 2005 by kronocide · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As has been pointed out in a previous post, "calling moondust toxic because it can cause silicosis is like calling water toxic because you can drown in it." Moondust, it seems clear, also does not "bounce like a cannonball." Nothing bounces like a cannonball, just like nothing "oscillates like a cloud," or "crows like a football." In the light of these observations, I'm not quite convinced that it really is dust, or that it comes from the moon. Anyway, I'd like to nominate this for the Worst Headline 2005 Award.

  38. That makes me feel better by xs650 · · Score: 2, Funny
    "A new NASA article says that moondust fetched to Earth by Apollo 17 is now being studied."

    Now I don't feel so bad about how long it takes me to get around to finishing projects.

    1. Re:That makes me feel better by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe it was their plan to let this stuff sit on a shelf for 30 years before even considering studying it. Recall: Nasa the astronauts in quarantine for at least a week after they returned from the moon.

  39. Re:Zen-like, he studies the a single mote of dust. by anonamussone · · Score: 0

    Moondust bounces high
    Suspended in emptiness
    A scientist coughs

    i cant believe no one commented on this....its great!

  40. Slashdot title by RKenshin1 · · Score: 0

    I think the key to the odd headline is perhaps the time of the slashdot submission...

  41. Toxic Ass Gas by air · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    My toxic ass gas is bouncy. Please, god, stop bouncing my ass gas.

  42. What's that again? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

    Toxic Moondust Bounces Like A Cannonball

    Cannonballs bounce?

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  43. Someone warn Krusty! by GeoffP · · Score: 1

    "... freebasing ground-up moon rocks. And that just gets me to normal!"

  44. Metal balls bounce better than rubber ones by catmistake · · Score: 2, Insightful

    All things being equal, a metal ball will bounce higher than a rubber one because the compression snap ends up being of greater energy... er... after dented when the bounce is initiated, the metal ball returns to its original shape faster, propelling it higher than a similar rubber ball. I figured the same would apply to cannon balls since they are metal (aren't they?)... I just don't get it... is it because cannon balls are so heavy that it appears all /.ers are in agreement that they don't bounce? Why don't they bounce?

    1. Re:Metal balls bounce better than rubber ones by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Cannonballs tend to permanently deform the floor they are dropped onto so the common association with them is not exactly "bouncy".

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  45. Duh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    This has the advantage that microwaving the particles will cause them to clump together.

    ...wouldn't microwaving the particles also involve microwaving whatever, or whoever, they're sticking to at the time?

    1. Re:Duh... by mikael · · Score: 1

      There was a previous slashdot article on the problem, where NASA had proposed microwaving the surface area of the Moon for a future space colony, in order to
      prevent the dust from getting everywhere.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  46. Anecdotal evidence fallacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Of course, you know that a personal anecdote is bad logic, and thus bad science, since it is a well-known logical fallacy.

    Where did you hear that? Did someone tell it to you in an anecdote?

  47. Re:Zen-like, he studies the a single mote of dust. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about:

    Moondust bounces high
    Suspended in emptiness
    An astronaut coughs

    Gives it the right number of syllables and makes it a little more accurate. :)

  48. I felt a great disturbance in the Force . . . by Yeechang+Lee · · Score: 1
    Another article from NASA emphasizes the dust's toxicity: 'In some ways, lunar dust resembles the silica dust on Earth that causes silicosis, a serious disease.'
    . . . It was as if millions of personal-injury lawyers suddenly cried out in ecstasy and were suddenly enriched.
  49. Re:Zen-like, he studies the a single mote of dust. by idonthack · · Score: 1

    Slashdot needs a "+1, Haiku" mod.
    ---
    PS - This is what part of the alphabet would look like if Q and R were eliminated.
    Generated by SlashdotRndSig via GreaseMonkey

    --
    Why is it that when you believe something it's an opinion, but when I believe something it's a manifesto?
  50. Re:Zen-like, he studies the a single mote of dust. by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

    Slashdot needs a "+1, Haiku" mod.

    "Mod the Parent up
    It is a plus one, haiku
    CommanderTaco"

  51. I don't know if you can understand that by eremitic · · Score: 1

    but our vertical leap is beyond all measurement.

    --
    Warning: Could be fatal if taken seriously
  52. In Mother Russia... by Abuzar · · Score: 0

    it is the earth that bounces off the canon ball.

  53. Oops by Jotii · · Score: 1

    Sorry, looks like I forgot to actually read the preview before I submitted it.

    --
    [sig]