Martian Dust Major Risk to Manned Mission

space.com ^ | 11/01/05 | Bjorn Carey

[KevinDavis]

This past weekend, Mars swung closer to Earth than it will for the next decade, and coincidentally a dust storm kicked up and gave skywatchers something special to view.

While the red planet looks close enough to grab through a telescope, NASA doesn’t plan to send people there until after 2020, and even that far-off date could be pushed back by something as seemingly insignificant as dust.

According to a NASA report that evaluates the risks of sending a manned mission to Mars, Martian dust poses as one of the biggest potential problems.

Compared to here, dust on Mars is thought to be larger and rougher, like the dust that covers the Moon. When Apollo astronauts landed there, they were covered in just a few minutes. Within hours, rough lunar dust had scratched up lenses and degraded seals.

[KevinDavis]

Problem will be resolved...

[KevinDavis]

[Riley]

[phantomworker]

That's funny.

[phantomworker]

Although signs of life haven’t been discovered on Mars, that might be a different story in 25 years. The possibility that microbial organisms, or their remains, could exist in Martian soil is ranked as the number three mission risk.

Having never been exposed to these forms of alien life, they could stand as a substantial health risk to astronauts. The biggest concern to scientists, though, is that these life forms might hitch a ride back to Earth, where they could replicate, prosper, and do unknown damage.

I think I saw a (blue) movie or two about this in the past. HaHa.

[There You Go Again]

That little hand vacuum picture is hysterically funny. That is why I love Free Republic. What wit people have on here...

[manwiththehands]

Great. Martian "dust bunnies". Send the marines.

[Atlas Sneezed]

For 1/10th the cost, you could do 100 unmanned missions, including sample recovery, and get far more science.

[SunkenCiv]

:'D Way too quick for me.

http://www.cmu.edu/magazine/02fall/newsbriefs.html#gantz

[orionblamblam]

> For 1/10th the cost, you could do 100 unmanned missions, including sample recovery, and get far ...


... less science, less progress and less interest. As wonderful as the rovers are, one astronaut with a camcorder could do all they've done in an afternoon or two. Plus, an on-site astronaut could notice things and make decisions that a robot never could.

But most importantly... the rovers in and of themselves are meaningless. The data they send back is of Absolutley No Value unless you plan on building from it. And colonization of Mars is the only real goal for going there. And robots... they don't breed people so good.

[Atlas Sneezed]

As wonderful as the rovers are, one astronaut with a camcorder could do all they've done in an afternoon or two.

---

At 1000 times the cost. What you fail to consider is that an ongoing series of unmanned missions would have advancing technology, each building on prior mission knowledge. A dust storm would be a learning experience, not a national tragedy.

And the corollary benefits would be in remote imaging, expert systems, pattern recognition, etc., not "how do we keep people alive in a hostile environment?"

Imagine sample returns, and Omnimax movies of Mars to thrill the masses, instead of inarticulate government employees retelling their experiences second hand.

After 100 missions over 20 years, we may be ready to consider manned missions, or we may develop the wisdom and knowledge to realize that it would be a mistake to try.

[Constantine XIII]

Noooooooooooot exactly.

a 20 minute communication delay slows things down considerably!

[orionblamblam]

> At 1000 times the cost.

Really? An unmanned Mars mission will run you $200 million or more. The currently planned manned Moon/Mars program should cost about $100 billion... but that gives numerous lunar missions for that price as well as Mars missions.

> What you fail to consider is that an ongoing series of unmanned missions would have advancing technology

Not substantially, and not ina direction that is especially helpful. Yes, robots will get better, but so what? That doesn't help us colonize Mars or the asteroids.

> A dust storm would be a learning experience, not a national tragedy.

What makes you think a dust storm would be a "national tragedy?" What makes you think that danger makes opening an entire New World not worth the risk?

> Imagine sample returns, and Omnimax movies of Mars to thrill the masses, instead of inarticulate government employees retelling their experiences second hand.

And what makes you think a manned mission won't involve sample returns and Omnimax movies? With unmanned, what do you get movies of? Robots. Whoopadeedoo. With a manned mission, you get movies of explorers. I believe I know what would be of greater value.

> After 100 missions over 20 years, we may be ready to consider manned missions, or we may develop the wisdom and knowledge to realize that it would be a mistake to try.

Gah. Thinking like that is what stalled the space program starting *before* Apollo 11. Had we had policy-setters with both balls and vision, there'd be permanently manend Mars bases by the '90's.

The only purpose for robots is to pave the way for Man.

[Atlas Sneezed]

a 20 minute communication delay slows things down considerably!

---

Which is why a program of unmanned missions will require the (useful) development of expert/sensing/acting systems that do not rely on controllers for every move.

A serious unmanned Mars program would generate spinoffs in the areas of cars that drive themselves, improved sensing and computing, etc. (Not useless knowledge of how to keep people alive in the radiation of space for years.)

[Atlas Sneezed]

>An unmanned Mars mission will run you $200 million or more. The currently planned manned Moon/Mars program should cost about $100 billion...

I think you are dreaming, comparing actual costs for a single mission (instead of a series that would gain economies of scale) with an undefined mission that could easily cost 10x as much as the initial budget.

>Not substantially, and not ina direction that is especially helpful. Yes, robots will get better, but so what? That doesn't help us colonize Mars or the asteroids.

Those are emotional goals. Isn't the purpose to gain scientific knowledge, and to develop USEFUL technology along the way (see post above)? Why colonize Mars? There is plenty of space in Antarctica, and it is far more hospitable and affordable.

>What makes you think a dust storm would be a "national tragedy?"

When the men who we sent there die due to equipment failure.

>What makes you think that danger makes opening an entire New World not worth the risk?

The new world was opened by people who reasonably believed it would make money for them (the ones who were paying.) You want me to pay for a government Mars mission that no private company would undertake, and I can guarantee I wouldn't see a penny (in the unlikely event it returns any.)

>And what makes you think a manned mission won't involve sample returns and Omnimax movies?

Indeed it might, at an extraordinarily higher cost, especially considering that the manned mission might actually FAIL, where as occasional failures in a persistent unmanned program are no big deal.

>With unmanned, what do you get movies of? Robots. Whoopadeedoo. With a manned mission, you get movies of explorers. I believe I know what would be of greater value.

More emotion. Hollywood offers the emotional lift you need, at a far lower price.

>The only purpose for robots is to pave the way for Man.

Not a big fan of knowledge gathering?

The only purpose of government is...(fill in the blank, and then you will understand my primary objection.)

[beef]

We have already spent billions of dollars proving that a reusable space plane is not practical given the physics that we know. The multiple aborted attempts to improve on the shuttle, such as the NASP, DC-X, and VentureStar simply confirmed that fact. Before we embark on any more manned space adventures, we need to figure out how to get in and out of orbit cheaply and safely. AFAIK, we have no plans for doing that.

[orionblamblam]

> Isn't the purpose to gain scientific knowledge, and to develop USEFUL technology along the way (see post above)?

Scientific knowledge to do what? Technology to do what?

Robots just for the sake of robots does no more than provide fodder for scientists to write letters back and forth at each other in Physical Review D.

> Why colonize Mars?

Because, unlike Antarctica, it's a whole other *world.* Because the universe is *filled* with other worlds, and Mars will get us a start on the rest.

And because we can't terraform Antarctica without screwing up the rest of the planet.

> >What makes you think a dust storm would be a "national tragedy?"

>When the men who we sent there die due to equipment failure.

So, you'd design the equipment to fail in the dust. Fortunately, we'll have someone else design that.

> The new world was opened by people who reasonably believed it would make money for them (the ones who were paying.) You want me to pay for a government Mars mission that no private company would undertake,

No private company would undertake the role of the USAF or the USMC, either. But colonizing the rest of the universe is every bit as important to defending our civilization as the military is.

> Hollywood offers the emotional lift you need, at a far lower price.

Far lower price than robots, too.

> The only purpose of government is...(fill in the blank, and then you will understand my primary objection.)

The only purpose of government is... to defend its citizens and their way of life. Hmm. Since colonization of the universe by Americans is the only long-term way to ensure the survival of our culture, I'm not sure I see your point. Which of the followign do you want your children looking at and seeing on flagpoles?



Or...

[orionblamblam]

> We have already spent billions of dollars proving that a reusable space plane is not practical given the physics that we know.

Incorrect: we've proven that a reusable space plane is not practical given the *management* and *politics* that *NASA* knows. DC-X was actually remarkably successful for what it was, until NASA took control.

[beef]

"Incorrect: we've proven that a reusable space plane is not practical given the *management* and *politics* that *NASA* knows."

If it's so easy, then why doesn't someone just do it? I suppose Exxon is sitting on the patent or something like that.

[Atlas Sneezed]

>Scientific knowledge to do what? Technology to do what?

Useful things.

>Why colonize Mars? Because, unlike Antarctica, it's a whole other *world.* Because the universe is *filled* with other worlds, and Mars will get us a start on the rest.

That is not an answer. The fact it is another world is undisputed. Why go to an expensive and hostile place, when there is lots of room here that is far safer and more accommodating (and doesn't require taking my earnings to make the dream come true)?

>The only purpose of government is... to defend its citizens and their way of life. Hmm. Since colonization of the universe by Americans is the only long-term way to ensure the survival of our culture, I'm not sure I see your point.

The planet would survive better if we didn't tax earners, and let freedom control, instead of big government advocates with Sci-Fi fantasies.