Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Lunar Dustbusters

Posted by kdawson on from the wipe-your-feet dept.

Maggie McKee writes "Moon dust could be a source of oxygen and metals. But moon dust could also lodge in astronauts' lungs, possibly triggering long-term health effects. During the relatively short Apollo Moon landing missions nearly 40 years ago, astronauts reported difficulty breathing. So now, before astronauts return to the moon in 2020, NASA is working on a number of ways to reduce the amount of lunar dust astronauts are exposed to — from simple grates on the floor to magnetic wands and giant lint rollers."

129 comments

  1. Lunar Dust by Pyrroc · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Why is Lunar dust so different than "normal" dust and/or sand that we breathe and/or eat every day?

    --
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."
    1. Re:Lunar Dust by Harmonious+Botch · · Score: 2, Informative

      RTFA - it's often smaller particles, and there is a lot more of it.

    2. Re:Lunar Dust by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Informative

      Why is Lunar dust so different than "normal" dust and/or sand that we breathe and/or eat every day?

      Because it has not been smoothed down by water and wind. Only hits of meteorites scatter stuff there, and that is not enough to smooth away edges on grains of silica and other rough rocks.

      Anyhow, the solution is simple: Have the astronauts take up smoking so that they have practice :-)

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    3. Re:Lunar Dust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is probably similar to asbestos.

      Perhaps moondust could be used in the future
      to make toys for Canadian children.

      Perhaps in the future a Canadian Political Party
      will make a moondust self attack ad with hand puppets.

    4. Re:Lunar Dust by Jonny+do+good · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually smoking may be benificial here. The dust would tend to stick to the tar rather than scatter freely. Just look at the inside of a computer from a smokers house... the fans a gummed up, sticky dust covers everything and canned air does nothing on the tar laced dust. Mabe the tar can be used to help clean the dust from the air? NASA should give me funding to test this theory :-) Maybe the astronauts shouldn't smoke themselves but a tar derived from smokers homes could be used in air filters or something.

    5. Re:Lunar Dust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This Ad

    6. Re:Lunar Dust by skoaldipper · · Score: 4, Funny

      Actually smoking may be benificial here.
      [The air tight vacuum seal squeeks as the airlock pressure normalizes. Two astrominers take off their helmets.]
      Zapp: Just let me catch my breath. Perhaps these will clear my lungs ...
      [Zapp unravels a square pack from his t-shirt sleeve]
      Zapp: Out-staaanding. Laramie Extra-tar now comes with cesnium-methyl-butate.
      [Zapp's eyes roll back as he takes a long drag]
      Zapp: Ahhh. Damn, that's smooooooth. [cough cough] Easy money baby. Another day, another euro.
      Troy: Don't kid yourself, Branny. My good looks paid for that moon buggy, and my talent filled it with gold nuggets.
      [Zapp laughs as a tar stained tooth drops from his mouth]
      Zapp: Gold? I thought that was cheese.
      --
      I hope, when they die, cartoon characters have to answer for their sins.
    7. Re:Lunar Dust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      For starters, most "normal" household dust is flakes of skin, the greater portion not containing the great deal of silicates, metalic compounds and other "hard" materials which the lunar dust seems to mainly composed of. There's also the morphology, size and shape of the individual particles to consider, as they seem to differ quite a bit from the standard earthly variety.

      From what I can gather, from the various articles cited, the closest setting that comes close producing the problem lunar dust presents earth-side is found in mining, volcanic fallout and heavy dust-producing industrial settings and which are not the sort of dust you'd normally breath.

    8. Re:Lunar Dust by dr_d_19 · · Score: 1

      They could!

      But they will probably buy tar from Lockheed, sold under the name LGAPG (Low Gravity Adhesive Protective Gum) for $4,000,000 per ounce.

    9. Re:Lunar Dust by mstahl · · Score: 1

      NASA should give me funding to test this theory :-)

      Uhhhh yeah! Me too. Let's send in a grant request to them for a couple of cartons of Luckies.

    10. Re:Lunar Dust by ChrisA90278 · · Score: 1

      "Why is Lunar dust so different than "normal" dust and/or sand that we breathe and/or eat every day?"

      Moon dust is just broken glass. It has microscopic sharp edges and is strong and abrasive. On Earth there is water and air and the dust gets moved around and the sharp edges get worn off quickly by a weathering process. The dust on the Moon is created by imacts where rock gets melted and fractured, those fractures make sharp edges that last forever. Beach sand here on Earth gets tumbled by wave acted an ground into a round, smooth shape.

    11. Re:Lunar Dust by picob · · Score: 1

      Dust causes lung cancer, NASA is to blame, so we can't have dust. No, let's smoke to produce tar, Dust problem solved.

      What? you still got lung cancer? Duh... that's because you smoke.

    12. Re:Lunar Dust by An.+(Coward) · · Score: 1

      Because it has not been smoothed down by water and wind. Only hits of meteorites scatter stuff there, and that is not enough to smooth away edges on grains of silica and other rough rocks.

      Exactly. It's like inhaling microscopic shards of glass.

  2. Wha.....? by LordPhantom · · Score: 2, Interesting

    But moon dust could also lodge in astronauts' lungs, possibly triggering long-term health effects.

    Possibly? Is there not a consensus that this is likely to cause disease like silicosis?

    1. Re:Wha.....? by arivanov · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Worse.

      Moon dust off the surface has been nicely activated by radiation and sun over centuries. It is not the relatively inert silica you get from cutting glass and rocks. It can catalyse all kinds of strange and wonderfull reactions because cosmic ray particles have kicked out (or even modified) an atom here and there and it has remained there in a very active form due to the lack of atmosphere. On earth it would have been deactivated nearly immediately by oxygen, water or even nitrogen from the air. On the moon it will stay active nearly for ever and over the years there will be more and more of these on the surface of each particle. Add to that the habit to accumulate static charges (which is actually related to the surface being active) so it sticks everywhere and you got yourself a really nasty problem on your hands.

      Moon dust is something you do not like having anywhere near lungs and in fact anywhere near the innards of a space station. Think of asbestous, but with nearly instantaneous effect and the habit to cling to everything.

      In the 60-es they did not care about health and safety. Nowdays, this would be considerably more difficult to ignore.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    2. Re:Wha.....? by y00st · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You are probably right. The stuff may be dangerous.

      Here is an article describing the smell of moon dust..

    3. Re:Wha.....? by elrous0 · · Score: 1
      Am I the only one here who thinks this is one of the silliest articles today?

      Why? Because WE HAVE NOT SENT A HUMAN BEING TO THE MOON IN 35 YEARS AND WILL NOT BE DOING SO AGAIN ANYTIME IN THE FORSEEABLE FUTURE!!!

      It's just more NASA talk, no more meaningful than a 1970's Popular Science article speculating about the problems we'll face when we build our moonbases in the 1980's.

      -Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    4. Re:Wha.....? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if a strong enough E-M field surrounding a space suit, could shield away the particles and keep them from sticking.

      Or, if we can figure out if there is a material that it WON'T attract to, or better yet, repelled by, that would also seem like a viable option.

    5. Re:Wha.....? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Your post reminded me of this: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/30jan_smel lofmoondust.htm

      Another possibility is that moondust "burns" in the lunar lander's oxygen atmosphere. "Oxygen is very reactive," notes Lofgren, "and would readily combine with the dangling chemical bonds of the moondust." The process, called oxidation, is akin to burning. Although it happens too slowly for smoke or flames, the oxidation of moondust might produce an aroma like burnt gunpowder. (Note: Burnt and unburnt gunpowder do not smell the same. Apollo astronauts were specific. Moondust smells like burnt gunpowder.)

      Your mention of health and safety issues reminded me of the "lunar hay fever" Apoloo astronauts experienced after exposure to the stuff. And that's just with one or two EVA's - Imagine dozens of exposures in less than a week for an extended stay mission.
  3. Re:WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what, like ensuring the safety of long term habitation of the moon?

  4. It has to be said... by Brad1138 · · Score: 1

    giant lint rollers

    You have to be F***ing kidding.

    --
    If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
    1. Re:It has to be said... by Dr.+Eggman · · Score: 1

      I agree, a giant vaccuum hose, or a super powered compressed-air sprayer would be much more practical and easier to handle too.

      --
      Demented But Determined.
    2. Re:It has to be said... by drgonzo59 · · Score: 1
      What about an electrostatic approach? Charge up the outside of the suite then charge a wall panel that also has sticky scotch like stuff on it with the oppsite charge and let the dust jump right off the suite. Cover the panel and re-pressurize the cabin. I would think a giant vacuum would be heavier than a sheet of scotch tape and a high voltage generator...

    3. Re:It has to be said... by montyzooooma · · Score: 4, Funny
      "magnetic wands and giant lint rollers."

      Yeah, apparently the space program is now doing their purchasing on the Shopping Channel.

    4. Re:It has to be said... by SkyDude · · Score: 1

      giant lint rollers

      You have to be F***ing kidding.

      This could lead to the birth of a new industry.

      --
      == First cross river, then insult alligator.
    5. Re:It has to be said... by beowulf · · Score: 1

      Adam Selene calls Sharper Image. "I'd like to order 1000 of your largest Ionic Breeze machines. And do you deliver? Great, the address is 823 de la Paz Way, Luna City. Have a nice day."

    6. Re:It has to be said... by Dr.+Eggman · · Score: 1

      While my post was originally a joke (though it kind of tripped over the line between ludicrous and hilarious, falling flat on its face at mundane) I was thinking of the folds, creases, and crevasses the dust could get into. I decided that 'passive' methods like attractive forces of magnets, or methods involving ungainly giant lint rollers, wouldn't do. So I figured a hose vaccuum, kind of like what they use in the space shower, could be applied by the user to get into the pits of the suit. Or otherwise using air pressure to knock it off (afterwhich some collection method would be necessary.) Of course the suit itself would make it hard to manuever the hoses everywhere necessary. But the electrostatic idea is interesting. The only problem I could forsee would be making sure the outside of the suit charges properly, not sure what materials would work with it (I don't know a whole lot about the priciples behind electrostatic-y things.)

      --
      Demented But Determined.
  5. Before assuming... by Monkey_Genius · · Score: 5, Informative

    That lunar dust is "not hazardous", read this: MICRO-MORPHOLOGY AND TOXICOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF LUNAR DUST The part about "glass shards" really brings the "point" home.

    --
    I've got your sig, right here.
  6. Ask 3M. by bronney · · Score: 1

    I bet 3M can do a better job with this than anyone. Make a non-stick so the dust won't carry.

    1. Re:Ask 3M. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually one of the problems with lunar dust is that it has a charge. Imagine sticking your arm in a box of packaging peanuts and pulling it out and have a number of the peanuts stuck to your arm. It's along that type of concept. The other big issue with lunar dust is that it's very abrasive. I believe in the original lunar missions, when they scooped up lunar dust into containers, it cut the o-rings on the containers that they brought the lunar dust back in.

      I am currently involved in an experiment to use a circuit board to remove the lunar dust from solar panels in lunar gravity. If you tried and brushed it off, it would scratch the glass and the solar panels would become less efficient. The circuit has been proven before, but we're (as far as I know) the first ones to try it in lunar gravity. Hopefully this concept can be adapted in the future to create a lunar dust "vacuum cleaner" or maybe apply it to "repel" dust in other ways.

    2. Re:Ask 3M. by Ignis+Flatus · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, but if you make astronauts any more repulsive than they presently are, the complications resulting from additional unrequited love would have to be dealt with.

    3. Re:Ask 3M. by WalksOnDirt · · Score: 1

      I would think you could afford to use a hard scratch resistant coating, like maybe sapphire, instead of glass on solar cells sent to Luna. I suspect that's much harder than the dust.

      --
      a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
    4. Re:Ask 3M. by bronney · · Score: 1

      Ah thanks for the info. So they're statically charged? So you actually need something to ground whoever or whatever is picking them up? We already have "anti-static" materials here on earth right? Those coatings on the new LCD monitors. Or are they not really anti-static?

    5. Re:Ask 3M. by jdray · · Score: 1

      we're (as far as I know) the first ones to try it in lunar gravity

      So, just out of curiosity, how are you replicating that here on Earth?

      --
      The Spoon
      Updated 6/28/2011
  7. Re:WTF and ½ ?! by lilomar · · Score: 3, Informative

    Wipe your feet off before entering the airlock Um... did you not read?

    "It turns out what we did in Apollo was probably the worst way we could have handled it operationally," says Kriss Kennedy, project leader for architecture, habitability and integration at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas, US. That is because the Apollo landers did not have airlocks, so the astronauts had to live among the dust for days.
    (My emphasis)
    --
    The creator of this post (Jacob Smith) hereby releases it, and all of his other posts, into the public domain.
  8. I don't see the problem. by jd · · Score: 0, Redundant
    Breathing hard vaccuum is a really bad idea, so most space suits likely to be worn will be 100% isolated from the outside. This means that the only possible place for dust to get into lungs would be in the landing capsule - if the helmets are removed. Let's say, however, that they are not. That the astronaut simply connects to a piped oxygen supply when in the capsule. Then the risk of contamination is greatly reduced. Not eliminated, but reduced.

    There is still the problem of when the astronaut connects to the piped air. That connection could potentially get contaminated with dust and therefore potentially be hazardous. With no air in the capsule, the dust cannot be carried by convection currents. This means that dust must eventually hit the floor. If the floor is a mesh with aerogel under it, the dust will be trapped by the gel but the astronauts will be able to walk just fine.

    This eliminates the problem of when the astronauts finally return to the main rocket. With the dust trapped in aerogel, you should be able to repressurize the capsule without stirring the dust back up. Thus, there should be no risk in doing so. If you want to be ultra-careful, you could always have the astronauts spacewalk to and from the capsule and never have the capsule pressurized at all. The saving in weight by not having it pressurized would be minimal and spacewalks are not risk-free, but it would remove any last possibility of dust hazard. Personally, I'd have thought the aerogel would be sufficient, but that would certainly be one way to remove the last remaining risk-factor.

    (*aerogel is used here to denote not only the substance that trades under that name but any material that could act as a sponge for ultrafine dust particles of the quantities under consideration AND which is light enough to be a practical method of preventing dust circulation. Frankly, if you could find a way of stacking toothpicks to do the same thing, I'd take that over a brand-name for the sheer geek value.)

    --
    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:I don't see the problem. by AngstAndGuitar · · Score: 1

      You could additionaly spray them off with air/nitrogen/whatever other gas, that would help scatter those particles that were stuck to the suits, the could even do this before getting back into the landing module.

      Much like the hose we used to have at the ranch house, you wash the mud off of your shoes before coming into the house, then left your shoes just inside the door.

      --
      Less look fast, more go fast.
    2. Re:I don't see the problem. by Dr.+Eggman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Lets say you spend hours/days in a tin can with very little room (and head-room) while your head is tethered to the wall and inside a fish bowl. Now lets try and not only sleep in that fish bowl, but carry out day-to-day activities. I think I do see a problem.

      --
      Demented But Determined.
    3. Re:I don't see the problem. by kegger64 · · Score: 1

      Well, that's 40 seconds of my life I'll never get back.

      --
      653899 - Another prime Slashdot UID
    4. Re:I don't see the problem. by cheesee · · Score: 1

      How did this get modded insightful? The guy totally missed the point. He's not saying that they remain tethered for the entirety of the journey, only that they should remain tethered while in the lunar lander.

      --
      Got Shadowrun? Awakened Worlds
    5. Re:I don't see the problem. by MichaelSmith · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Breathing hard vaccuum is a really bad idea, so most space suits likely to be worn will be 100% isolated from the outside. This means that the only possible place for dust to get into lungs would be in the landing capsule - if the helmets are removed. Let's say, however, that they are not. That the astronaut simply connects to a piped oxygen supply when in the capsule. Then the risk of contamination is greatly reduced. Not eliminated, but reduced.

      You should read the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. Sleeping in the suits was found to be very uncomfortable, even for the short missions (Apollo 11-14). Even then they had to take their helmets off to eat and drink.

      Lunar dust is so fine it sticks to everything and gets into everything. Even Armstrong and Aldrin, who were only out for just over two hours, were absolutey covered with the stuff.

      The longer missions being planned for the future will need to have a proper airlock area where the crews can strip down to their skin, shower, and only then enter the living area. The airlock would also be used to maintain suit fabric and seals, which are the real problem IMO because the dust is so abrasive.

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
    6. Re:I don't see the problem. by pedestrian+crossing · · Score: 1

      He's not saying that they remain tethered for the entirety of the journey, only that they should remain tethered while in the lunar lander.

      It's not like we're going to go back up there, hang out for a couple of hours, then take off again (that is -so- 60's!).

      If you want to do anything long-term up there, you need to solve the dust problem in a way that that allows the astronauts to live and work effectively for extended periods. What the OP recommends does not meet those criteria...

      --
      A house divided against itself cannot stand.
    7. Re:I don't see the problem. by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      The most obvious solution, given how pervasive and abrasive the moon dust is, is to design space suits like snake skins where you simply shed the outer layer in the airlock and dump it outside onto the moon leaving the inner suit dust free for you to procede into the living area and change into uniform.

      You'd need some clever way of unpeeling the skin from the suit without spreading the dust everywhere but I'm sure that's perfectly possible.

    8. Re:I don't see the problem. by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      they should remain tethered while in the lunar lander

      You do realise that that's going to be for a few days at least, right?

      Besides which, I think you're thinking far too small scale and short term - what about if/when we finally establish a colony on the Moon, and people are there for months at a time?

      --
      It's official. Most of you are morons.
    9. Re:I don't see the problem. by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      Since the space suit is already designed to handle a vacuum, why not make it capable of 'docking' with an airlock so the suit never comes inside, and the astronaut just climbs in and out of it at his or her own leisure?

      --
      It's been a long time.
    10. Re:I don't see the problem. by Sj0 · · Score: 1

      You make a good point I hadn't thought of before. If this stuff is both physically abraisive and chemically active, it might be a constant struggle to keep it outside and the air inside.

      Lime Kilns and recausticizing plants in paper mills are usually just slathered in lime dust, which turns into a strong base when exposed to moisture, and eats away at everything. If we can design a recaust plant that you could eat a meal in without dying violently, that would be good practice for a long-term moon base.

      --
      It's been a long time.
  9. Re:WTF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I could be wrong, but I think the original poster might have been making a joke with respect to "angel dust". Which would be kind of funny I think...

  10. Finally a chance for robotic exploration to shine! by LighterShadeOfBlack · · Score: 2, Funny

    Hello, iRobot? Yeah I'd like to place an order for 1 million Roombas. And uhhh, what kind of delivery charge is there for the Moon?

    --
    Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
  11. Because.... by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 0
    If you're breathing lunar dust it means your helmet is broken and all the air got out and boy are you fuckered!

    You know, "One small oops for man, one large oops for mankind!"

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:Because.... by wolf369T · · Score: 1, Informative

      Right, but the astronauts could take the dust inside their Lander and in the Apollo capsule, on their suits or shoes, where they breath normally :)

  12. Or pictures for the impatient ones by keeboo · · Score: 2, Informative

    This looks like a nice stuff to breathe.

  13. Get ready for... by the_other_one · · Score: 4, Funny

    The iRobot Moonba

    --
    134340: I am not a number. I am a free planet!
  14. Quick call Sharper Image by edwardpickman · · Score: 2, Funny

    Finally a use for Ionic Breezes!

  15. REAL Dustbusters are so cheap, we can send dozens. by mikelieman · · Score: 1

    This is not a showstopper.

    Additionally, shooting these "Astronauts" into space isn't getting us anywhere.

    We need to send Norm Abrams. And hell, send some of them other remodeling people. Send some of those makeover people. Send Flav, Vern, and Janice Dickenson and some other b/c listers, sell the rights and the whole damn thing is self financing.

    --
    Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
  16. Re:Finally a chance for robotic exploration to shi by mikelieman · · Score: 1

    Just get UPS to bring them to Florida, they can take it from there.

    --
    Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
  17. why not spend 1 billion on asteroid location by McDrewbie · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Wouldn't it be more prudent to just take 1 billion of those dollars and spend it looking for near earth asteroids.

    1. Re:why not spend 1 billion on asteroid location by franksands · · Score: 1

      You mean the one you bombed the whole country and then tried to see if there were anyone left, or the more recent one, where you invaded the country, and are choosing a new governor that will give a better price for their oil?

    2. Re:why not spend 1 billion on asteroid location by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if 300 years from now Earth needs to be abanoned because (for some reason) it cannot support life. We need to start finding ways to live off of this planet and soon.

    3. Re:why not spend 1 billion on asteroid location by RyatNrrd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because 410 Billion was spent on the war, on the real important things it comes down to an either this or that.

    4. Re:why not spend 1 billion on asteroid location by blackicye · · Score: 1

      "I knew somebody would say this.

      We spend 410 Billion on an unwinnable war where the "liberated", by a majority, hate our guts and now on the real important things it comes down to an either this or that.
      "

      War is infinitely more profitable for most of the parties not directly involved though.

    5. Re:why not spend 1 billion on asteroid location by Garrett+Fox · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      This article was about Lunar dust, and it turns into a denunciation of the Iraq War? It would be equally justified to say "We can't afford it because we're spending so much on the prescription drug program/the war on drugs/illegal immigration policy/any other spending item," but instead we pin everything on the war.

      --
      Revive the Constitution.
    6. Re:why not spend 1 billion on asteroid location by Capt+James+McCarthy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "We spend 410 Billion on an unwinnable war where the "liberated", by a majority, hate our guts and now on the real important things it comes down to an either this or that."

      Try not to take it so personally. Those folks do not hate you. Hell, I bet they don't even give two shits to what you think. There are always two sides to every decision, those who like it and those who are pissed by it. Just like many leading nations/empires of the past, the US will fall at some point and then you can be pissed at China for having to much control.....if you are allowed to be pissed.

      --
      There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
    7. Re:why not spend 1 billion on asteroid location by saforrest · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You mean the one you bombed the whole country and then tried to see if there were anyone left, or the more recent one, where you invaded the country, and are choosing a new governor that will give a better price for their oil?

      You know, the really sad thing here is that those descriptions don't even apply uniquely to Iraq.

    8. Re:why not spend 1 billion on asteroid location by franksands · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      And yet, Bush won easily in his "re-election". But, hey, that's a lot better than gay marriage, right?

    9. Re:why not spend 1 billion on asteroid location by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      And yet, Bush won easily in his "re-election". But, hey, that's a lot better than gay marriage, right?

      Easily? Even with their skullduggery they did not manage to get him to win the popular election, and he barely squeaked through. In fact there are three states that, if they had only a tiny change in the vote, would have gone the other way.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:why not spend 1 billion on asteroid location by AJWM · · Score: 1

      Asteroids have dust too. Your point?

      --
      -- Alastair
    11. Re:why not spend 1 billion on asteroid location by alienmole · · Score: 1

      Gay marriage happens inside the United States. That trumps anything that's going on in some furrin country that almost no Americans (other than soldiers) have ever visited. You gotta get into the parochial, everythingophobe mindset of the religious conservative!

    12. Re:why not spend 1 billion on asteroid location by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      instead we pin everything on the war

      There's good reason for that:

      * it's more expensive than your other examples
      * it's less popular (amongst slashdotters at least) than your other examples
      * it's arguably none of our business what goes on in a sovereign country
      * even if it is, we turned (and continue to turn) a blind eye to many other arguably worse regimes and more serious humanitarian crises
      * it's a destabilising influence in an already less-than-stable area

      Other than that I agree, it's irritating that almost any article that even tangentially involves US public policy or spending ends up with at least one flame war about either the Iraq war or Bush himself. The whole damn thing should be Off Topiced into oblivion (yes, including this).

      --
      It's official. Most of you are morons.
    13. Re:why not spend 1 billion on asteroid location by alienmole · · Score: 1

      Because the war represents $400 bn plus that a majority seem to feel didn't need to be spent, i.e. it's an ongoing mistake. Not sure there's evidence that the same applies to those others.

      As for topicality, perhaps NASA's discoveries related to moondust will help soldiers operating in desert conditions, which is apparently going to be an unavoidable part of America's future for decades to come.

    14. Re:why not spend 1 billion on asteroid location by triffid_98 · · Score: 1
      "The story begins with Dr. Zarkov's invention of a rocket ship, in which the three of them make a journey to the planet Mongo, where they are stranded. Mongo is inhabited by a number of different cultures, some quite technologically advanced, that have been falling one by one under the domination of the vicious tyrant Ming the Merciless."

      Just like many leading nations/empires of the past, the US will fall at some point and then you can be pissed at China for having to much control.....if you are allowed to be pissed.
  18. Re:Finally a chance for robotic exploration to shi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like a job for Rosie.

  19. what are they forgetting? by DragonTHC · · Score: 0

    "long-term health problems"

    psh! they need to worry about space herpes!

    --
    They're using their grammar skills there.
    1. Re:what are they forgetting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think that's bad, you should hear about Electro-Gonorrhea: the Noisy Killer.

  20. climb in suit? by Takichi · · Score: 1

    I'm thinking they could insert their helmet into the air lock, and crawl out. That way, they'd only need to worry about dust that gathered on the helmet. But I suppose it would be expensive/impossible to design and make a one piece suit.

    1. Re:climb in suit? by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      If you design the suit right, you don't even need an airlock.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    2. Re:climb in suit? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm thinking they could insert their helmet into the air lock, and crawl out. That way, they'd only need to worry about dust that gathered on the helmet. But I suppose it would be expensive/impossible to design and make a one piece suit.

      They would need to bring samples, equipment, and suits into the habitat for research and maintenance. The dust is so abrasive that the outer surfaces of the suits wear away quickly and would need to be regularly replaced.

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
  21. Trouble breathing - Duh!? by What+is+a+number · · Score: 0

    "During the relatively short Apollo Moon landing missions nearly 40 years ago, astronauts reported difficulty breathing."

    Well DUH! Of course they had trouble breathing - there's no oxygen on the moon! Common people, it's not rocket science.

    ---
    I type this every time.

  22. Good news! by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

    But moon dust could also lodge in astronauts' lungs, possibly triggering long-term health effects.

    Well, then it's good that there's no air on the Moon, so they'll asphyxiate long before the dust can cause any problems. :)

  23. Space email: I will rip off your space suit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "First urge will be to rip your clothes off, throw you on the ground and love the hell out of you."
    http://badhardware.blogspot.com/2007_03_01_archive .html#5598394580701060652/

    By the way, why this email wasn't lost? It will be used in the court, right?

  24. Ze new bucket and ze cleaning woman by OpenSourced · · Score: 2, Funny

    reduce the amount of lunar dust

    Previously astronauts were men, which are all pigs, as is well known. Now the solution is obvious. Send a woman to every moon mission and she certainly won't tolerate dust, moon or other kind, to accumulate in the living quarters, solving the problem. I can already hear her... "Commander! If I've told you once I've told you a thousand times. CLEAN YOUR FEET before coming in!"

    Just...let's hope they don't try to open the windows when dusting.

    --
    Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
    1. Re:Ze new bucket and ze cleaning woman by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah...send a woman.....

      Every time a New Moon comes around, she'll bith the living hell out of Mission Control. However, there is an upside: Mission Control has a 'mute' button.
      I can hear it already:

      Lunar Lander: "Goddamn it! Who the hell tracked dirt in here?! I just finished cleaning this mess up! Am I the only one who picks up around here?!"

      Mission Control: "Ma'am, just calm down, Everything is going to be fine."

      Lunar Lander: "Fine?! How the hell is this 'fine'?!"

      Mission Control: "Look, just calm down. It's nothing to get pissy about. Jeez... just frickin' relax!"

      Lunar Lander: "REALX?! That's all you ever do is relax! Every time I come in it's nothin but you sitting down in front of the damn TV with---"
      (click)
      Mission Control: "So, Bob, you catch the race the other day?"
      Mission Control: "Yeah. Speaking of races, see if you can put NASCAR up on the big screen.
      Mission Control: "Hold on a sec. Lemme check just one thing first....."
      (click)
      Lunar Lander: "GODDAMNITWHATTHEHELLAREYOUFATASSESDOINGDOWNTHEREA LLYOUEVERDOIS-----"
      (click)
      Mission Control: "What you guys wanna watch? Fishing, Foxworthy, or Nascar?
      (sounds of beer cans opening, feet being put up on the table, and loud belching)

      --
      Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
    2. Re:Ze new bucket and ze cleaning woman by Philotic · · Score: 1

      Apt sig you've got there.

    3. Re:Ze new bucket and ze cleaning woman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You people have obviously never met my wife...who has never met a vacuum cleaner. Sad to say, not all women would clean up the moon.

      Damn right I'm an anonymous coward!

      -E

  25. Space email: I will rip off your space suit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Moondust problem? But, what about this one after long time Lunar mission:
    Space email: I will rip off your space suit
    " First urge will be to rip your clothes off, throw you on the ground and love the hell out of you.
    But honestly, love, I want you to totally and thoroughly enjoy your hero's homecoming.     "
    http://badhardware.blogspot.com/2007_03_01_archive .html#5598394580701060652/
    By the way, why this email wasn't lost? It will be used in the court, right?

  26. Re:Finally a chance for robotic exploration to shi by r_jensen11 · · Score: 1

    So Woot finally has a purpose?

  27. only a nonissue if... by Khyber · · Score: 1

    the astronauts are forced to enter the landing vehicle, flood the airlock with air and pressurize it, have them remain in their suits and strap in securely as the airlock de-pressurizes and the vacuum sucks that dust out before it can get inside, minus the tiny bits that'd come in stuck to the bottom of astro-boots or in creases of astro-suits. It'd take a long time for silicosis or lung/tissue damage from micro-glass shards to actually occur. I'd think this type of protocol would make this a non-issue, however, even microscopic things can cause problems in small numbers if left unattended for long periods of time. It'll take diligence and somethign better than a fucking lint-roller for protection to make this completely null and void.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    1. Re:only a nonissue if... by pedestrian+crossing · · Score: 1

      as the airlock de-pressurizes and the vacuum sucks that dust out before it can get inside, minus the tiny bits that'd come in stuck to the bottom of astro-boots or in creases of astro-suits

      You're thinking like an earthling.

      Moon dust isn't like dirt, it's more like soot or ash. It doesn't just stick in the creases and cracks, it coats everything, and it is very abrasive.

      You can't just wipe/blow it off. This stuff is nasty.

      --
      A house divided against itself cannot stand.
    2. Re:only a nonissue if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know how earthbound my mind is, but is there a reason no one has suggested taking a shower?
      My idea was much the same as GP just step inside, shower down depressure and eject waste water. If moondust actually acts like soot/ash then water ought to eliminate almost all of the dificulties in dealing with it.

      cyphercell

  28. Advance Vacuum Vacuuming Party by hughbar · · Score: 1

    The solution is simple, just send an advance party of experienced house cleaners to clean the surface up a litte. They can send the full dust bags into moon orbit using little mini-thrusters. This also provides much-needed employment for the badly paid.

    I would have suggested a fleet of Roomba carrrying vessels but they might take over the moon and clain it for the Roomba republic.

    I hope this comment is helpful for the many valuable people working on this problem.

    --
    On y va, qui mal y pense!
  29. Gasp by Jeppe+Utzon · · Score: 5, Funny

    During the relatively short Apollo Moon landing missions nearly 40 years ago, astronauts reported difficulty breathing.

    And that is how we discovered that the Moon doesn't have an atmosphere...

  30. Just Wait For the Chinese To Get There First by ReidMaynard · · Score: 0

    I'm sure once the Chinese get there, they will tidy up the place in no time.

    --
    -- www.globaltics.net

    Political discussion for a new world

  31. Lunar Rovers? by blankoboy · · Score: 1
    Why are we not sending a pair (or cluster no less) of roving robots, like we the ones on Mars, up there to study it ahead of sending weak skintube humans?

    There should be a huge push to really advance the robotics technology and deploy these throughout the known galaxy. But of course the stupid humans would rather blow there time, $$ and technology to fight wars and kill each other. Sigh....almost makes one ashamed to be human. Almost?

  32. Moon Makeover or Pimp my satellite? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice idea... People who bought plots on the moon could finally get some work done on them. What would you call it though? Moon Makeover? Pimp my satellite? Something else?

  33. Frikin' lasers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The clear solution is to use massive lasers to glass the entire surface of the moon over.
    This would have the added benefit of increasing it's reflective properties resulting in lower electricity costs for street lighting and fewer violent crimes at night as well as reducing overall greenhouse emissions and helping to reverse global warming. Oh and it would help stop terrorists.

    Lasers... Is there anything they can't do?

  34. I can see it now... Have mop will travel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Big franchise opportunity. Sky no limit.
    Some travel required.

    See http://www.mollymaid.com/

  35. No Problem by unamiccia · · Score: 1

    This is easily resolved by shipping the Moon units without astronauts.

    1. Re:No Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is easily resolved by shipping the Moon units without astronauts.

      While you're at it, why not send the entire Zappa family...

  36. Can't be bothered to read the article... by yogi · · Score: 1

    ...cos my first thought on seeing the headline was

    "People on airless planet report problems breathing"

    which doesn't really seem to be pushing back the frontiers of human knowledge....

  37. "Space Madness" by Garrett+Fox · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A recent book (reviewed here) denounces the entire concept of manned spaceflight as the useless "madness" of boys who never outgrew childish games. Milder critics of the space program ask why we should send humans into space when automated probes are supposedly more useful for their price. Not too long ago, Discover Magazine had a cover article asking whether, maybe, space is so innately dangerous (with all that radiation) that we should avoid going back until we have robots or gengineered humans (!) able to cope with it. Others such as Vox Day, hater of humanity, begin using their word processors to declare that "science has outlived its usefulness to Mankind." And here, we have NASA saying hold everything; we're afraid of the dust.

    (An excerpt from the book:
    "If there is a lesson to be learned, it is in the futility of seeking fulfillment in outer space. We need to judge ourselves by who we are, not by where we go... Hubris took America to the Moon, a barren, soulless place where humans do not belong... If the voyage has had any positive benefit at all, it has reminded us that everything that is good reside on Earth.")

    "We're not worthy, it's not safe, nothing we've ever done is worthwhile." I see this line of thinking as suicidal for the human race. If transhumanism is a supposedly unrealistic fantasy of doing more things than have ever been done before, then shall we call this sentiment "subhumanism," the desire for people to set their sights below what's been accomplished already?

    --
    Revive the Constitution.
    1. Re:"Space Madness" by plnrtrvlr · · Score: 1

      While I agree with most of your comment, I think I understand what NASA is saying, and it isn't "hold everything" but rather more of a "slow down, we need a solution to this dust problem." The dust is definately a problem, but not one that is insurmountable. The dust is abrasive to space suits and equipment, it is harmful to breathe it in. NASA is looking for the optimal solution to the problem. It may be something as simple as a shower in the airlock and recycle the water, or blow it off in the airlock and filter the air. What about equipment outside in the environment? What about hasty emergency entrances through the airlock? Like everything else about missions into space and solar bodies, NASA has to study the problem and look for an optimal compromise between perfect safety and getting the job done. I don't consider a conversation about issues that need to be delt with to be a show-stopper. Just something that has to be done in the hopes that whatever solution is arrived at isn't one that will lead to a Columbia scale disaster.

  38. Sometimes simpler is better by Nemosoft+Unv. · · Score: 1
    How about a shower? Or a bucket of water with a mop?

    We may not have (much) water on the moon, but what we bring with us we can be recycled, and we do have gravity.

    --
    "Fix it? It has been disintegrated, by definition it cannot be fixed!" - Gru in Despicable Me.
  39. Why not... by Mizled · · Score: 1

    Why not in the air lock have air nossles that spray down the astronauts suits as they come in? Similar to the ones in hosiptals and such. It would spray all the dust off and stay in that one room (or most of it).

    --
    Bite my shiny metal ass.
  40. how? by jshriverWVU · · Score: 1

    Silly question perhaps, but how are they able to breath the dust? Aren't they in a contained suit since there is no atmosphere on the moon or is this from dust built up on the suit and inhaled while they're taking the suit off?

  41. Astronaut explodes in routine MRI scan--film at 11 by jhsiao · · Score: 1

    Magnetic dust?

    So putting someone with heavy lung contamination into an MRI machine will result in a perforated astronaut?

    ObMovieReference: Just like what Magneto did to that security guard in X2?

  42. Moo by Chacham · · Score: 1

    I for one welcome our new giant lint rollerlords.

    --
    Have you read my journal today?
  43. Sticky Wall Climbing Toys by clickety6 · · Score: 1

    If you've ever had one of those sticky rubbery toys that you fling at a wall and it slowly climbs down, you'll know the tacky surface picks up all sorts of dust and crap and you have to wash it with soap to clean them. Just spray the spacesuits with this stuff and the dust will stick to it safely... :-)

    --
    ----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
  44. Microwave the dust! by jci · · Score: 2, Informative

    I went to a lunch presentation on returning to the moon. One of the ideas for longer term use like colonization was to make roads by microwaving the regolith.

    The iron melts into a continuous crust instead of being so abrasive and sharp

  45. chrome it! by geoffspear · · Score: 1

    Yet another problem that would be completely solved if we'd just listen to the fine folks at alt.chrome.the.moon.

    --
    Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
  46. money? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wait...
    yesterday nasa claims they don't have enough money to monitorize big asteroids that could hit earth, now we hear they'll go on the moon again in 2020?
    hell, i must have missed something....

  47. Is it just me or does it seem like by T00lman · · Score: 1

    chest congestion is the least of your problems if you're "breathing" dust on the surface of the moon? IANAA (I am not an astronaut) but maybe they could use the "vacuum" to loose the dust, or use an Andromeda Strainer.

    --
    0x7279727972797279
  48. Obvious answer by huckamania · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Take a look at the surface of the moon and you will see a wonderful mechanism for clearing out dust from an area of the moon. Seriously, dust busters, metal grates, giant lint rollers are the best ideas we can generate? Who is sponsoring this nonsense, black & decker?

    This really angers me on so many levels. This reminds me of when our new top scientist, then vp, gave the shuttle replacement to the project which didn't under go any flight tests and didn't have a feasible technological basis. 15 years later, we still don't have a replacement. Burt Rutan did it on his own in less time and with less money.

    This is a non-problem. Why don't we focus on developing a junk yard in space and start cleaning up our orbit? Why not focus on mining asteroids and find one between us and Mars or us and the asteroid belt? Why not focus on living in space, which we will need to do if we are ever to fulfill our potential? My greatest fear is that in the year 3000 we will still be stuck on this rock.

    Of course, I'll be long dead by then, but what about my red-headed, blue eyed half mexican/half chinese muslim decendants?

  49. My Lunar Dust Experience by JoshDM · · Score: 1

    My dad used to work at a company on Long Island that had a spacesuit on display in the hallways, back in the mid-80's. I saw it on many a company tour.

    When I later joined as a summer intern, I noticed that the suit was no longer on display; it was missing from the building entirely. I found out that NASA had given the suit, but took it back once they realized that they had never cleaned the space dust off the suit.

    Maybe my exposure is why I have asthma. :-)

  50. Long term effects? What about the guinea pigs? by clintp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Let's look at the guinea pigs we sent to the moon:

    Still kicking:
    Buzz Aldrin is still alive. He's 77.
    Neil Armstrong is still alive. He's 76.
    Alan Bean is still alive. 75.
    Edgar Mitchell. 77 and counting.
    David Scott. 75 and counting.
    John Young, 77.
    Charles Duke, 72.
    Eugene Cernan, 73.
    Harrison Schmidt, 73.

    Died, accident:
    Pete Conrad died in 1999 at age 69. (Accident, crash)

    Died, disease
    Alan Shephard died at age 75 from leukemia.
    James Irwin in 1991 at age 61. (Heart failure, which may have been a preexisting condition and caused him to suffer a heart attack during Apollo 15)

    Not bad, actually. They should be healthier than the normal person, sure, but I don't see rampant cancer, lung or cardiovascular disease running roughshod over the ranks of the men who've been on the moon.

    I call Bullshit.

    --
    Get off my lawn.
  51. What is it meant by... by andreatwork · · Score: 1

    "returns to the moon"???

  52. Another method as well by jmichaelg · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Another idea to deal with the dust is to fuse the surface around the habitat. The dust doesn't migrate like it does here on earth because there isn't an atmosphere to waft it. You knock dust loose on the moon, it plummets directly to the ground like a bowling ball. So the idea is to melt the regolith around the habitat so that most of the dust is shed just walking across a paved surface to the habitat. It won't get rid of all the mess, but it'll cut it down.

    The Apollo 12 astronauts dealt with the problem in an ad-hoc, but effective, fashion. Gordon, the command module pilot, wouldn't let Bean and Conrad back in until they stripped to buck naked because he didn't want them gunging up their ride home. As they were firing up the engine to leave lunar orbit, one of them joked that if the engine failed, the recovery crew would be wondering why a couple of the astronauts were naked.

  53. thats what you get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    when you make the set out of toxic materials, so it looks like moon dust.

  54. It's no wonder they couldn't breathe easily... by charlesbakerharris · · Score: 1

    There's no air on the moon! AMIRITE???

  55. Is the moon landing a scam? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After seeing the 9/11 terror fraud, I no longer believe the USA
    landed anyone on the moon. Critical thinking says the video shows the US flag
    flapping in the wind. There is no wind on the moon. I fervantly believed as a
    youth. Today, in a poll, I would say "no."

    Just the facts, guys, just the facts. Keep it real. Keep it open source.

  56. retrun to the moon... by sentientbrendan · · Score: 1

    >So now, before astronauts return to the moon in 2020

    oh come on. Why are we wasting money preparing for a project we know is going to get canceled? I mean... who really thinks that when it comes time to actually send someone, and we need to actually pay for it, that it's not going to get canceled? This is a lot of nonsense about one politician trying to take credit for an ambitious program and forcing another future politician to suffer from its eventual failure.

  57. Re:WTF and ½ ?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yep... once you and your partner wanted to come back in, all zero people left in the lander had to put on a suit.