Lunar Dust Mitigation: On the Development of Materials and Coatings for ARTEMIS Mission

Background. One of the most restricting facets of lunar surface exploration was experienced by Apollo landed-lunar missions between 1969 and 1972: the dust problem. Valuable astronaut time was spent in manual brushing to remove dust from spacesuits and equipment [1]. Lunar surface operations were hindered by levitated fine lunar dust for which considerable unknowns remained unexplained [2]. Introduction. An optimal solution to mitigate dust adhesion identifies the dominant components of the adhesive force and reduces that force by surface modification. Coating method, used to protect the substrates from environment, changes surface properties of the substrates, such as adhesion, corrosion resistance, and wear resistance. Select coatings applied to component-, subsystem-, and system- exteriors, made of the most traditionally used substrate-serving material---Aluminum. Dust adhesion force of the Al substrate, for example, was significantly reduced by 80% from 45.53 to 8.89 nN.The lunar dust coverage (2.19%) of the Al substrate modified by composite etching to a 4-fold lower than that of the pristine Al substrate (9.11%), indicates excellent lunar dust repellence [3].Air plasma spraying ceramic coating composed of aluminum oxide results in a bond coat that promotes adhesion and oxidation resistance with the substrate and improves its durability [4].The Dust Solution Testing Initiative (DuSTI) project comparatively demonstrates effective lunar dust mitigation with different coatings in dusty environments. Purpose. NASA is working with five commercial companies to mature vertically deployable solar array systems for the lunar surface: Astrobotic Technology, ATK Space Systems, Honeybee Robotics, Lockheed Martin, and Maxar Technologies. The DuSTI project included several adhesion and abrasion tests on various substrates.Testing results provided data recommendations on coatings to use for adhesion and abrasion mitigation for lunar dust and their increased TRL Cost-effective capabilities developed in partnership with industry provide economical, operational services for small-scale lunar missions. Technologies that are appropriate for certain (smooth) surfaces (e.g., photovoltaic panels and optical components) may be unsuitable for other applications (soft and flexible materials) such as cleaning spacesuits [5]. With proper planning, this component of the integrated strategy should prove most cost effective. An example of an architecture and operational consideration is lessening the risk of astronauts falling on the lunar surface through changing EVA procedures and adjusting tool design to accommodate better balance. Active and passive technologies can be used to close the gap between expected dust exposures and system dust tolerance limits.The aim of this paper is expore different models of how surface modications function in spacesuit-, PV solar array-, and radiator- technologies. References. [1] Gaier, J. (2005). The effects of lunar dust on EVA systems during the Apollo Missions NASA TM-2005-213610 [2] Liu, B., Wang, C., Bazri, S., Badruddin, I. A., Orooji, Y., Saeidi, S., ... & Mahian, O. (2021). Optical properties and thermal stability evaluation of solar absorbers enhanced by nanostructured selective coating films. Powder Technology, 377, 939-957[3]Wang, X., et al.. (2022). Lunar Dust-Mitigation Behavior of Aluminum Surfaces with Multiscale Roughness Prepared by a Composite Etching Method. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces, 14(29), 34020-34028. [4]Viswanathan, V., Lance, M., Haynes, J., Pint, B., &Sampath,S. (2019). Role of bond coat processing methods on the durability of plasma sprayed thermal barrier systems, Surface and Coatings Technology,375, 782–792, .[5]. Horányi, M., Walch, B., Robertson, S., &Alexander, D. (1998). Electrostatic charging properties of Apollo lunar dust, J. Geophys. Res. 103, 8575–8580.