Slashdot Mirror
The Dusty Concern for the Mission to Mars
eldavojohn writes "Astronauts sent to the red planet may find much of their job involving the task of dusting off their equipment and suits. The president says we're going there but the dusty planet has some obstacles and uncertainties for engineers because we don't have a sample of Martian dust. Is it toxic? Will it conduct electricity and short circuits? Will astronauts suffer from the triboelectric effect? How large is the average grain? Will humans be allergic to it? Will sinuses jeopardize a mission? Will a dust storm stop a take off and return flight? So many uncertainties from something as simple as dust but one thing is clear — we need samples!"
"Dig a 1-foot deep hole in 30 seconds, as opposed to 30 years."
"Walk further than 100m per day"
"Walk into the bowl of a crater, poke around for interesting rocks, and carry the interesting rocks out."
"Immediately discern between 'interesting' and 'uninteresting' rocks without having to wait 24 hours to ask for new instructions."
No disrespect intended to our robot overlords; they've done wonderful work over the past few decades, but sometimes the right tool for a job is pickaxe powered by 200 pounds of meat.
IIRC, the Mars rovers were originally (at least in concept, before budgetary reality set in) designed to drag back a sample or two. Why not build a mission that, you know, does what the original plans intended them to do in that regard? If nothing else, get up something with better instrumentation; Viking 1 and 2 were supposed to have the tools to answer nearly all of the questions, though they had been found to be flawed in many respects and hampered by things which today's tech has a better chance of overcoming.
Dunno... just sounds too easy to dismiss in light of all the ungodly extrapolation that we are capable of from mere astronomy, let alone what we can bring to bear with instruments on the ground there right now.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Can we stop pretending we're going to send astronauts to Mars? There's is no way we're going to spend the enormous amount of money required to do it, and we don't even know if the astronauts can survive the radiation exposure on the trip.
Besides the fact that it won't be done by any government in the next 30 years, it *shouldn't* be done. I've harped on this before, but it's still true: we could send 1,000 probes similar to the Mars Lander for the price it takes to do a P.R. stunt like sending humans to Mars. Yeah, it's romantic, but if the goal is science, then it's a total waste.
I like space. I'm a supporter of space. But I think humans should go on the back burner until space exploration is much, much, much more of a mature technology. We don't even have casual trips to orbit, much less the moon, much less significant space stations, and much, much less Mars.
Let's be rational about space exploration and let an army of robots do the work, instead of a few fragile, expensive humans.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
I wonder when the issue of sex in space will be taken seriously, and studies undertaken in that area. American may like to avoid the subject, but to most Europeans both Western and Eastern, its a well known reality. If we're going to take long missions to places like Mars, sex better be understood to be something that's going to happen. And I'm not talking about solitary masturbation...
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
And, ummm, this would be a lot simpler and cheaper than having the humans continue the remaining 0.001 percent of the way?
rj
Yes, yes, yes,yes,yes, and yes.
Everything you fear is true, plan for it.
solution, give the astronauts a pair of leaf blowers to blow each other off before heading back in the habitat, that would reduce dust ingress into the habitat significantly, make all suits banished to the entry room, force a shower in recycled water before entering station.
They got any hard problems? because industrial complexes have dealt with these problems already for decades.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
There are several much more significant challenges than dust:
* The lack of any kind of spaceship capable of making the return trip
* The lack of any kind of system for keeping the crew alive in space for that long
* The lack of any serious programme to develop the above
* The lack of the money such a programme would require
* The lack of the political will to address any of the points above
* The lack of public interest in any of the points above *this* point
Overall, I think it's probably not a good idea to burn Earth yet.
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
And then suffer a historically 50/50 chance of losing it somewhere between launch and landing. Everyone seems to forget that Mars is a space probe graveyard.
In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
Yep -- 3 to 20 minutes one way, meaning you don't see the results of your command until 6 to 40 minutes later.
There is a well know problem with some volcanos that produce a lot of very fine ashes. They do not kill many people during the erruption, but many of the people who breathed or swallowed some ashes will suffer from various organs or bones diseases. They are usually very painful ,untreatable and often lethal within years, compared to decades for asbestos (that stays in the lungs).
So 1- it is worse than asbestos and 2- Since Mars has volacanos and the martian dust is known to also be very fine, there is a real risk they will have similar nasty effects on exposed humans.