Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

NASA Needs Fake Moon Dust

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the like-to-see-the-requisition-form-for-that dept.

NASA 179

crisco writes "NASA's renewed interest in lunar exploration and 'in situ resource utilization,' or ISRU, is driving the need for tons of carefully faked lunar dust and sand for testing purposes: 'We don't have enough real moondust to go around,' says Larry Taylor, director of Planetary Geosciences Institute at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville. To run all the tests, "we need to make a well-qualified lunar simulant.' And not just a few bags will do. 'We need tons of it, mainly for working on technologies for diggers and wheels and machinery on the surface,' adds David S. McKay, chief scientist for astrobiology at the Johnson Space Center (JSC)."

cancel ×

179 comments

Fake moon landing site (5, Funny)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 7 years ago | (#17404354)

Just take it form the Fake moon landing site.

Re:Fake moon landing site (4, Funny)

mentaldingo (967181) | more than 7 years ago | (#17404464)

We need tons of it, mainly for working on technologies for diggers and wheels and machinery on the surface,
And fake videos..

Re:Fake moon landing site (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17406026)

I worked for the fake-landing film crew, you insensitive clod!

Re:Fake moon landing site (0)

JayTech (935793) | more than 7 years ago | (#17404620)

LOL. Best comment I've seen this week. Mod parent up!

Re:Fake moon landing site (0, Redundant)

forkazoo (138186) | more than 7 years ago | (#17404830)


Just take it form the Fake moon landing site.


First off - it has been decades since they used any of it, so it probably all got thrown out back, and blown away, etc.

Second off, it was only designed to *look* like moon dust. And, on 1960's TV, at that. And, they had to "lose" the high quality slow scan tapes...

Re:Fake moon landing site (1)

Cctoide (923843) | more than 7 years ago | (#17405006)

It was a sound stage on Mars.

Re:Fake moon landing site (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17405188)

Yeah? Why is there gravity then?

Americans are sheep!

Re:Fake moon landing site (5, Funny)

wootest (694923) | more than 7 years ago | (#17405308)

I didn't originally come up with this (although I wish I did), but the US is probably the only country where there are people who believe the moon landing was fake and wrestling is real.

Wrestling is fake? (1, Funny)

maximthemagnificent (847709) | more than 7 years ago | (#17405684)

What I want to know is when they are going to start having fake Nascar? Pretty much
the same demographic as wrestling, isn't it? Imagine the crashes you could have!

Easy for NASA to do (-1, Redundant)

lecithin (745575) | more than 7 years ago | (#17404356)

Well, since they faked the lunar landing - how hard would it be to come up with fake lunar dust?

Tinfoil time (-1, Redundant)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 7 years ago | (#17404360)

'We need tons of it, mainly for working on technologies for diggers and wheels and machinery on the surface,'

Yeah right, they're pulling it off again [apfn.org] ...

Of course! (0, Redundant)

Diordna (815458) | more than 7 years ago | (#17404362)

We all know the truth: the fake moon dust from the LAST moon landing went stale, and they need to rebuild the set so they can shoot more "real moon footage." NASA, so naive, they don't know we're onto them.

Re:Of course! (1, Redundant)

TheSHAD0W (258774) | more than 7 years ago | (#17404488)

Actually, it's because the "permanent moonbase" will be a lot larger than the Apollo site so they need a MUCH larger stage.

Re:Of course! Everybody knows the moon is cheese! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17405010)


Wallace: Gromit, that's it! Cheese! We'll go somewhere where there's cheese!
[Looks at "Cheese Holidays" magazine, then out window]
Wallace: Everybody knows the moon is made of cheese...


NASA should just save money by scaling the sets down a bit [msstate.edu] - Oh damn I almost forgot....it might take a while to make some more sets [wikipedia.org] ! NASA could just import some moon dust instead [wallaceandgromit.net] !

Where'd it all go? (-1, Redundant)

ayeco (301053) | more than 7 years ago | (#17404364)

Don't they have some left over from the fake lunar landing videos?

They faked it all! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17404368)

They faked it all!

okay, folks.. (0, Offtopic)

oedneil (871555) | more than 7 years ago | (#17404380)

That's 5 comments so far about leftover sand from the fake lunar landings. How many do we need?

Re:okay, folks.. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17404418)

Apparently, tons of them, mainly for working on technologies for diggers and wheels and machinery on the surface.

Re:okay, folks.. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17404440)

42. Some may be joking though.

The recently linked site BadAstronomy.com has a solid debunking of the conspiracy theories around the moonlandings.

Bad astronomy debunking url (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17404518)

Here's the url to phil plaits debunking. I highly recommend that anyone thinking the moonlandings are a hoax check it out.

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html [badastronomy.com]

Re:okay, folks.. (3, Funny)

cavtroop (859432) | more than 7 years ago | (#17404452)

You must be new here....

Re:okay, folks.. (2, Funny)

Thansal (999464) | more than 7 years ago | (#17404480)

and some one moded them all "Redundent"...

including the first one, wich leads me to think the mod agrees and is simply saying those posts are "no, duh" type posts.

cmon, its a joke, laugh!

(admitedly I was going to make a fake moon landing joke as well, but as it has already been beaten into the ground, I am gona have to pass, wich obviously opens me up to a "you must be new here" comment, and shortly there after we should see a "In soviet russi, moon dust fakes you!", and a "I for one welcome our new fake-moondust-overlords". Oh, and don't for get the "I make fake moon dust you insensitive clod!")

sigh....

Re:okay, folks.. (1)

o2sd (1002888) | more than 7 years ago | (#17405266)

(admitedly I was going to make a fake moon landing joke as well, but as it has already been beaten into the ground, I am gona have to pass, wich obviously opens me up to a "you must be new here" comment, and shortly there after we should see a "In soviet russi, moon dust fakes you!", and a "I for one welcome our new fake-moondust-overlords". Oh, and don't for get the "I make fake moon dust you insensitive clod!")

Imagine a beowulf cluster of those fake moon dust generators!

Re:okay, folks.. (1)

antek9 (305362) | more than 7 years ago | (#17405368)

All YouR MooN DusT ARE BelonG To US,
signed, NASA

Re:okay, folks.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17405522)

1) make fake moon dust

2) ????

3) Profit!!

Re:okay, folks.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17405768)

Step 1: Get Steve Ballmer to throw a chair at the moon.
Step 2: Collect Dust.
Step 3: Profit!

Re:okay, folks.. (1)

swonkdog (70409) | more than 7 years ago | (#17405824)

You've forgotten about pouring hot grits and moon dust on Natalie Portman! 8^)

Re:okay, folks.. (1)

Wavicle (181176) | more than 7 years ago | (#17405838)

In Korea, moon dust is only for old people.

Re: okay, folks.. (5, Funny)

robably (1044462) | more than 7 years ago | (#17404568)

That's 5 comments so far about leftover sand from the fake lunar landings.
Congratulations, you made it 6!

And, um, I made it 7.

Mark above post... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17405666)

...redundant, as I just made the 8th comment on fake lunar landings (this one).

Re:okay, folks.. (1)

Joebert (946227) | more than 7 years ago | (#17405158)

How many do we need?

Well, if we take them with a grain of sand, I estimate only a few million more before we have enough.

Ask any conspiracy theorist (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17404386)

Check Area 51 isn't that where they got it last time they went to the "moon"

To not be able to find REAL moon dust must (1)

davidsyes (765062) | more than 7 years ago | (#17404408)

mean it really WAS a windy day in Arizona...

hum (-1, Redundant)

gcnaddict (841664) | more than 7 years ago | (#17404494)

"NASA Needs Fake Moon Dust"

Again?

I swear I've heard this one already. (4, Interesting)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 7 years ago | (#17404590)

You joke, but I absolutely remember hearing this same thing a few years ago. I think it was possibly more than five or six years back. Probably it was on NPR.

I haven't read TFA, but in the story I remember hearing, NASA used to have literally thousands of pounds of moon rock and dust from the Apollo missions, but over the years it's been parceled out for various purposes (including being given to school kids, etc.) and now they only have a few pounds left. They want someone to come up with a simulated sand so they can test how it gets into bearings and stuff.

What I'd like to know is why is this still an issue? If it was a problem five or six years ago, you'd think they'd have gotten around to solving it by now. And yet it's still being discussed as if it was a new problem. Then again, I guess this is NASA we're talking about.

The last time I heard about this, the closest moon-dust simulacrum was some type of pulverized volcanic ash. My immediate question was whether you could really simulate the lunar surface using Earth gravity -- even if you were using real moon dust, it seems like its effects on equipment would be radically different on the moon, than it would be here. Here on Earth you have humidity and various atmospheric effects, plus gravity, that could affect how the dust gets into bearings and other components; all of these wouldn't exist on the moon. It seems like if you want to test parts for use on the moon, you'd need something that's not the same as moon dust here on earth.

Re:I swear I've heard this one already. (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 7 years ago | (#17404934)

I'm pretty sure that I could design a test fixture for wheel bearings and the like that operated at vacuum. Big parts would be harder, but still possible. Maybe you could get away with an inert atmosphere instead of a vacuum for certain parts. Dry nitrogen might work for certain tests. But in any case, you need to get the conditions as close as you can - you can't get away with the usual, just build it 4 times stronger than you need to... too much weight.

Re:I swear I've heard this one already. (4, Interesting)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 7 years ago | (#17405142)

Fine dust clumps up differently in a vacuum, and becomes incredibly hard. There's no air to get between the grains, y'see. Think about the crufty stuff that builds up on your PC case fans, then imagine it with all the air squeezed out...

Re:I swear I've heard this one already. (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 7 years ago | (#17405500)

Hmmmm, another reason is that the dust that builds up on PC case fans has a lot of human skin cells and hair in it. It might be worth studying how that sort of dust interacts (under both vacuum and a reasonable pressure) with straight lunar dust.

Re:I swear I've heard this one already. (1)

cooley (261024) | more than 7 years ago | (#17405084)

haven't read TFA, but in the story I remember hearing, NASA used to have literally thousands of pounds of moon rock and dust from the Apollo missions, but over the years it's been parceled out for various purposes (including being given to school kids, etc.) and now they only have a few pounds left. Not to detract from the rest of your statement, but there's *no way* the Apollo program brought back "thousands" of pounds of samples from the moon, considering: -Only six (IIRC) of the Apollo missions actually landed - You ever see one of the retrieved-from-splashdown Modules? They're barely big enough for the dudes that were in them. It's been years since I tried to access that part of my memory, but I'm gonna say there was significantly less than 1000 pounds of samples brought back; the payload capacity and storage space of the modules simply wouldn't support it. I'm thinking they could have probably brought back maybe 200 pounds max, per trip (and probably significantly less for most trips, considering some missions brought back parts of lunar probes and such). I am not in any way affiliated with NASA, I just think there's no way we had more than several hundred pounds of samples from the Apollo program.

Re:I swear I've heard this one already. (1)

Kadin2048 (468275) | more than 7 years ago | (#17405438)

You're right; Wikipedia says there were 842 lbs of samples collected in total by the Apollo program. I could have sworn though that the program I heard a few years ago said something about thousands of pounds of dust, but maybe they were engaging in a little poetic license.

Interestingly, WP states that almost 650 lbs of the original 842 is still in storage in Houston TX.

Re:I swear I've heard this one already. (1)

cooley (261024) | more than 7 years ago | (#17405456)

Don't feel bad; maybe the program was produced by the English, and it was a statement of worth, not weight. ;)

obvious solution (2, Funny)

Surt (22457) | more than 7 years ago | (#17404498)

Blow up the moon. We probably have enough nukes to do it, and how hard can delivery be? The amount of material that drops on the earth as a result will surely be at least several tons.

Re:obvious solution (1)

polyomninym (648843) | more than 7 years ago | (#17404564)

If you've ever watched Mr. Show (HBO), then you may remember the skit about blowing up the moon. Scientists trained a monkey to do the job, but then, using sign language, it asked "Why blow up the moon?" Thankfully, they fired that monkey and hired a circus monkey to do it. No questions asked. Hooray for the USA!

Re:obvious solution (3, Informative)

SeeSchloss (886510) | more than 7 years ago | (#17405720)

I'm always astonished by the level of ignorance of people regarding nukes and blowing up large objects... I seriously doubt any amount of nukes detonated on the surface of the Moon would be able to blow it up, detonating all of the Earth's arsenal a thousand of kilometers or so under the surface might produce some results (but 'm doubtful about it) but there's no way we can do that.

I remember this time I was talking about sending nuclear waste or nukes to the Sun to get rid of them to someone, and another guy who heard that was like "No way ! With the power of modern nukes, we'd just blow up the Sun !". Stupid.

Re:obvious solution (1)

jrmiller84 (927224) | more than 7 years ago | (#17405928)

Wait, someone actually said that? Considering that the sun itself expends energy equivalent to who knows how many nuclear bombs on any given earth day, that is highly unlikely. ok, it's not even possible. Especially when you take into account the suns sheer size. What get's me is people who think that the Armageddon scenario is possible no matter how large the asteroid is.

Re:obvious solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17406030)

The Sun is equivalent to 80 billion hydrogen bombs exploding every second.

Re:obvious solution (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 7 years ago | (#17406138)

Besides, anything hurled at the sun would vaporize in the several million degree temperature of the corona, and be pushed back on the solar wind as its component atoms - and in some cases not even that. The person saying that OBVIOUSLY wasn't a nerd.

Re:obvious solution (1)

Wicko (977078) | more than 7 years ago | (#17405864)

Yeah, thats not self defeating in the least.

Oh boy... (3, Funny)

wertarbyte (811674) | more than 7 years ago | (#17404508)

Another movie remake.

Re:Oh boy... (1)

aldo.gs (985038) | more than 7 years ago | (#17404604)

Please, this time let the moon shoot first, dammit!

The Best Moon Dust In The Universe... (0, Offtopic)

creimer (824291) | more than 7 years ago | (#17404510)

They need to send a spaceship out to the planet Dune to pick up a load of sand for the fake moon landing. That should work. Just watch out for the worms and Fremen.

Re:The Best Moon Dust In The Universe... (1)

Marcos Eliziario (969923) | more than 7 years ago | (#17404902)

I am sure the DEA will have serious restrictions about your trip to planet Dune... Be prepared to enter soon in a no-fly list.

ash (3, Interesting)

hurfy (735314) | more than 7 years ago | (#17404520)

I thought that huge pile of ash from Mt St Helens was a close substitute.

Aren't there still piles of it at the end of the ?Toutle? river. Used to be tons and tons of it stacked up by I-5. I'll bet the price is right too ;)

Heck maybe it is worse than lunar dust and they can overbuild the vehicles a bit to get thru it :)

How much $$$? (1)

rlp (11898) | more than 7 years ago | (#17404532)

I happen to have just what they need and it's been stored in a vacuum. Even contains evidence of lunar canines and space dust bunnies. NASA - please let me know if you're interested before Tuesday (trash pick-up).

Armstrong describes the Lunar soil (4, Informative)

Fox_1 (128616) | more than 7 years ago | (#17404580)

Armstrong and Aldrin found a thin dust layer on the surface of the moon.
'I am at the foot of the ladder. The LM [lunar module ] footpads are only depressed in the surface about one or two inches, although the surface appears. to be very, very fine grained, as. you get close to it. It is almost like a powder. Now and then it is very fine. I am going to step off the LM now. That is one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.'
When he started walking on the surface of the moon he said:
'The surface is fine and powdery. I can - I can pick it up loosely with my toe. It does adhere in fine layers like powdered charcoal to the sole and sides. of my boots. I only go in a small fraction of an inch, maybe an eighth of an inch, but I can see the footprints. of my boots and the treads in the fine sandy particles.'
When he was collecting samples:
'This is very interesting. It is a very soft surface, but here and there where I plug with the contingency sample collector, I run into a very hard surface, but it appears to be very cohesive material of the same sort. I will try to get a rock in here.'
Apparently the ground was unyielding enough that they had trouble getting the flag planted.

Re:Armstrong describes the Lunar soil (4, Interesting)

agent0range_ (472103) | more than 7 years ago | (#17404976)

As I understand the lunar dust is much "rougher" as it hasn't been polished by the same forces (eg: wind and water), which causes it to stick to just about everything.

The Effects of Lunar Dust on EVA Systems During the Apollo Missions [nasa.gov]

"the effects could be sorted into nine categories: vision obscuration, false instrument readings, dust coating and contamination, loss of traction, clogging of mechanisms, abrasion, thermal control problems, seal failures, and inhalation and irritation. Although simple dust mitigation measures were sufficient to mitigate some of the problems (i.e., loss of traction) it was found that these measures were ineffective to mitigate many of the more serious problems (i.e., clogging, abrasion, diminished heat rejection). The severity of the dust problems were consistently underestimated by ground tests, indicating a need to develop better simulation facilities and procedures."

I wonder how someone could manufacture "fake moon dust" here on earth. Meh, at least I can sleep at night knowing this isn't my problem.

Re:Armstrong describes the Lunar soil (1)

MindStalker (22827) | more than 7 years ago | (#17405210)

Manufacturing nano particle in mass has been going on for a few years now. Shouldn't be hard to use some of these processes to make moon dust. Sure it won't have the same randomness possibly, but it shouldn't be too hard, just an issue of scale. How much does NASA really want this, are they willing to buy enough to fund a factory.

Re:Armstrong describes the Lunar soil (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 7 years ago | (#17405464)

I get the impression that there are some sources that have been around since the 80's. The lunar soil simulants have been improving in quality and cost since then. I think a lot of the new simulants are necessary to test out industrial processes that might be used on the Moon and to better understand the likely effects of lunar dust abrasion.

Re:Armstrong describes the Lunar soil (1)

SydShamino (547793) | more than 7 years ago | (#17405876)

That is one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind

You left out the "a". Not only did he intend to say it, he did say it, and it was lost in the poor voice transmission. [collectspace.com]

Got abrasive dust? (4, Informative)

JayTech (935793) | more than 7 years ago | (#17404592)

Sounds like a nearly impossible task to replicate lunar dust considering how abrasive the stuff is. This article [wired.com] does a good job of explaining.

Re:Got abrasive dust? (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 7 years ago | (#17405548)

They didn't need any lunar dust the first time they went to the moon. Why do they need this stuff now. Just to crank up the budget?

Apollo 11 Press Conference (-1, Troll)

ElephanTS (624421) | more than 7 years ago | (#17404614)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RcKLAo62Ro [youtube.com]

No, they're definitely not lying are they? Are they?

Re:Apollo 11 Press Conference (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17405796)

No, they're definitely not lying are they? Are they?
Why, no, they're not, you ignorant fool.

why not use... (1)

MoFoQ (584566) | more than 7 years ago | (#17404650)

why not use recycled building materials that are crushed into a fine powder or whatever consistency is "near" moondust?

Drywall/sheetrock, concrete, I'm sure it can be ground-down and it provides a use for them instead of being chucked into the landfill.

Re:why not use... (3, Interesting)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 7 years ago | (#17404852)

If the lunar surface is primarily aluminum oxide of some form (not that it is, but that sounds kind of right) then is will be both durable and abrasive. If testing is required to determine life expectancies of both operating equipment and excavation/drilling machinery then they will need to replicate both the particle size, distribution (in terms of seive percentages) and durability/hardness.

Excuse me...I need to go start my RFP paperwork...

uhuh (1)

way2trivial (601132) | more than 7 years ago | (#17405526)

and as you have the only lucid post here for me to ask this of..

when you are building equipment to test moving multiple cubic meteres of solids, and you wanna be so precise that you are mucking up composition and particle sizes-

won't one of the big factors be the weight per given volume- and won't that be drastically different on the lunar surface than anything earthbound?

i.e. to build a 'earthmover' (regolithmover?) able to tunnel straight down a 2X2 meter sharft and remove the remainder straight up-- might be different enough under lunar pull that all the tests are useless to begin with..

how about making cement under reduced gravity- the tensile strength results will be all wrong if the heavier particles don't have as much gravity to pull them to the bottom of the slab.....

So predictable (2, Informative)

Lord Kano (13027) | more than 7 years ago | (#17404688)

NASA is finally winning over the last few people who believe that the original moon landings were faked and now as they prepare to go back they put out a call for tons of fake lunar soil. I'd suspect that they do some of these things to intentionally draw the charges.

LK

Diatomaceous earth? (1)

jpellino (202698) | more than 7 years ago | (#17404730)

We've been using it to simulate craters in the classroom for decades.

Re:Diatomaceous earth? (2, Interesting)

rucs_hack (784150) | more than 7 years ago | (#17404796)

would that be fine enough though. The stuff they need would need to be the same as material that had been pounded by meteorites for billions of years and irradiated for that long too.

Wasn't it found to be very fine and thus 'sticky'.

I suspect some heavy industrial processing would be required to replicate it. However, without the same gravitational field it would behave differently anyhow, so a less accurate analogue would likely suffice.

Riiiiiight (4, Funny)

CODiNE (27417) | more than 7 years ago | (#17404820)

They just want us to think they don't know how to make fake moon dust. :)

swiss or chedder (1)

lazy genes (741633) | more than 7 years ago | (#17404824)

I need a good cheese joke. Albert had bad days too. "This topic brings me to that worst outcrop of herd life, the military system, which I abhor... This plague-spot of civilization ought to be abolished with all possible speed. Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism -- how passionately I hate them!

How close is volcanic ash? (2, Interesting)

istartedi (132515) | more than 7 years ago | (#17404844)

It's quite abundant, and I'm sure there are some places in the Phillipines or maybe even our own Mt. St. Helens area where they've still got excess and would be happy to get rid of it. If that doesn't fit the bill, how hard is it to find rocks of the same composition as the moon, and grind them up?

Re:How close is volcanic ash? (1)

Cadallin (863437) | more than 7 years ago | (#17405414)

I think the trick would probably be to get some volcanic stone, and then expose it to repeated explosions (not grinding) in an anaerobic environment, in as close to vacuum as you can generate on earth. By the way, grinding is definitely not the way to go here, as that would tend to polish the grains, making them far smoother than lunar dust.

Re:How close is volcanic ash? (1)

istartedi (132515) | more than 7 years ago | (#17405608)

Well, if the vacuum and lack of bacteria isn't important, then maybe they could give free stone targets to shooting ranges, with the stipulation that the dust be collected and given back. All kinds of problems with that too. Bullets are probably less energetic than meteors, and maybe you need meteors of various sizes. If it turns out they actually need to reproduce the process, that sounds like a really cool machine. You'd need to have one heck of a containment system for fragments produced by rocks colliding at astronomical speeds.

fa!go8z (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17404848)

than its Window9es or chair, return

Funny idea.... (4, Insightful)

kigrwik (462930) | more than 7 years ago | (#17404872)

With the gravity being different, the mechanics won't fit, whether or not the dust is moon-like or not.

Simulating different gravity.. (1)

The Creator (4611) | more than 7 years ago | (#17405110)

If you are going to simule an enviorment with different gravity, just change the size and/or time scale of everything.

Re:Funny idea.... (1)

WoLpH (699064) | more than 7 years ago | (#17405966)

Just throw everything into the vomit comet and watch the results ;)

lunar simulant (4, Funny)

robably (1044462) | more than 7 years ago | (#17404898)

a well-qualified lunar simulant
That's no moon, it's a Space Station.

And it's got a degree.

Re:lunar simulant (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17404960)

Shut up already. Star Wars is for fags and eight year olds.

Re:lunar simulant (1)

Evanisincontrol (830057) | more than 7 years ago | (#17406148)

Star Wars is for fags and eight year olds.


Funny how you were able to pick up on the reference, then.

Alternative Source Found (4, Funny)

Gunfighter (1944) | more than 7 years ago | (#17404984)

From what I've seen from lunar landing footage and descriptions of the lunar surface, I have about a pound of material that would make a great substitute. It's caked on my video card and motherboard inside my computer case. I'll just scoop it up into a ziplock back and mail it to NASA. Perhaps if the other two million Slashdot readers can empty theirs as well, they would have enough to complete their mission. Where should we mail this stuff to?

Re:Alternative Source Found (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17405616)

You must smoke. That is what happens to a computer kept in a smokers environment.

Fake moon sand or fake mars sand? (1)

Conti (914631) | more than 7 years ago | (#17405020)

Are they really looking for fake moon sand? I mean, they're probably planning to shoot a fake mars landing. Is fake moon sand really what they need? Does it looks the same as mars sand?

Re:Fake moon sand or fake mars sand? (2, Funny)

smitty97 (995791) | more than 7 years ago | (#17405442)

there's another request from NASA, which was previously considered unrelated:

NASA needs hundreds of gallons of reddish-orange dye

hmmm (2, Funny)

Swimport (1034164) | more than 7 years ago | (#17405040)

Whoever gets this contract, I bet NASA ends up paying $100,000 a ton for dirt.

Re:hmmm (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 7 years ago | (#17406124)

I bet NASA ends up paying $100,000 a ton for dirt.

      FAKE dirt, even.

couldnt they make it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17405058)

they made those confy tempurpedic matresses, how hard is it to make dirt.. i mean god supposably made dirt, why cant they?

Sheesh! (1, Funny)

seebs (15766) | more than 7 years ago | (#17405132)

Why not just use whatever they used for those famously faked moon landings?

Not as easy as it sounds... (1)

PhysicsPhil (880677) | more than 7 years ago | (#17405146)

Dust and dirt from Earth have generally been exposed to natural erosion forces that round off the corners from the rock fragments. The stuff coming from the Moon has not experienced equivalent weathering, and so it is much more abrasive than one might expect. As NASA begins to design new lunar equipment, it needs to test just how the prototypes will hold up to the Moon's "environment."

Re:Not as easy as it sounds... (0)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 7 years ago | (#17406088)

. The stuff coming from the Moon has not experienced equivalent weathering, and so it is much more abrasive than one might expect.

      So get some pretty hard rocks and shove them into a ball mill at your friendly local cement plant, and grind them up to the size you need. You'll get plenty of sharp edges THAT way I promise!

No NASA, no.. (3, Funny)

Plutonite (999141) | more than 7 years ago | (#17405216)

You're not going to cure the apathy of us 18-25 year olds with fake pot. I'm telling you, we're better than that, we are the myspace generation!

Wait a minute..fake moondust will do just fine.

Enough Already ... (2, Informative)

openldev (925511) | more than 7 years ago | (#17405240)

If I hear another "fake moon landing" joke, I think I might kill myself. Seriously folks, it's an old joke and isn't funny the 100th time it is posted for the same story ...

crum (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17405324)

be a lot sLower [goat.cx]

Just send engineers to the damn moon... (1)

mikelieman (35628) | more than 7 years ago | (#17405342)

Let them use the huge supply there...

Johnson and Johnson (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 7 years ago | (#17405502)

could supply tons of baby powder quite easily...

We dont know where to get fake moon dust.... (2, Funny)

bigsam411 (1043552) | more than 7 years ago | (#17405910)

Because we (the iPod Generation) are indifferent to space exploration.

Obscure reference (1)

Guppy06 (410832) | more than 7 years ago | (#17405944)

Then where will Belldandy and her sisters get their bracelets?

Try ebay (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17405950)

Someone's got to be selling fake moon dust on ebay.
If not, does this mean that it is legal to sell fake moon dust?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...