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!"

3 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.
  3. 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.