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!"

7 of 174 comments (clear)

  1. Re:The real question is by Tackhead · · Score: 5, Insightful
    > What humans there can accomplish what robots can't.

    "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.

  2. Hate to be a killjoy, but... by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Hate to be a killjoy, but... by DerekLyons · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      That's kinda like substituting 1000 Ford Escorts for a Caterpillar D11. You'll have a lot more metal laying about - but you won't get as much done.
       
       

      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.

      That's a self defeating argument - as the technology won't mature unless you send people in the first place.
    2. Re:Hate to be a killjoy, but... by Anti_Climax · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If we actually buckled down and started the project, we could do it for about 3Bn a year for about a decade, using current tech. As far away as mars is, it's actually much easier to have a sustainable hands off mission when that little bit of atmosphere is present, as compared to the moon or ISS. While we could have 200 of the "Better, faster, cheaper" probes sent to mars for the same amount, having 4 or 5 people there that can actually cover more than 100 meters of ground in a day or seek out interesting geological features without waiting for someone else to suggest it, can translate into a lot more useful science being done. Beyond that, if the Mars Direct approach is used, we won't have to stop working if there's a dust storm blocking 99% of the sunlight.

      You do make good points, but there are some things that are cheaper and easier to do using fragile expensive humans.

      --
      Even people that believe in pre-destiny look both ways before crossing the street.
  3. I have their answers and a solution. by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  4. Dust is the least of the problems by kahei · · Score: 4, Insightful


    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.
  5. Re:Lung related concerns by aadvancedGIR · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.