Ryan L. Kobrick

University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, Colorado

Kenneth G. Budinski

Bud Labs, Inc., Rochester, New York

Kenneth W. Street, Jr.

Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

David M. Klaus

University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, Colorado

Three-Body Abrasion Testing Using Lunar Dust 

Simulants to Evaluate Surface System Materials

NASA/TM—2010-216781

August 2010
NASA STI Program . . . in Profi le

Since its founding, NASA has been dedicated to the 

advancement of aeronautics and space science. The 

NASA Scientifi c and Technical Information (STI) 

program plays a key part in helping NASA maintain 

this important role.

The NASA STI Program operates under the auspices 

of the Agency Chief Information Offi cer. It collects, 

organizes, provides for archiving, and disseminates 

NASA’s STI. The NASA STI program provides access 

to the NASA Aeronautics and Space Database and 

its public interface, the NASA Technical Reports 

Server, thus providing one of the largest collections 

of aeronautical and space science STI in the world. 

Results are published in both non-NASA channels 

and by NASA in the NASA STI Report Series, which 

includes the following report types:

• TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports of 

completed research or a major signifi cant phase 

of research that present the results of NASA 

programs and include extensive data or theoretical 

analysis. Includes compilations of signifi cant 

scientifi c and technical data and information 

deemed to be of continuing reference value. 

NASA counterpart of peer-reviewed formal 

professional papers but has less stringent 

limitations on manuscript length and extent of 

graphic presentations.

• TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM. Scientifi c 

and technical fi ndings that are preliminary or 

of specialized interest, e.g., quick release 

reports, working papers, and bibliographies that 

contain minimal annotation. Does not contain 

extensive analysis.

• CONTRACTOR REPORT. Scientifi c and 

technical fi ndings by NASA-sponsored 

contractors and grantees.

• CONFERENCE PUBLICATION. Collected 

papers from scientifi c and technical 

conferences, symposia, seminars, or other 

meetings sponsored or cosponsored by NASA.

• SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientifi c, 

technical, or historical information from 

NASA programs, projects, and missions, often 

concerned with subjects having substantial 

public interest.

• TECHNICAL TRANSLATION. Englishlanguage translations of foreign scientifi c and 

technical material pertinent to NASA’s mission.

Specialized services also include creating custom 

thesauri, building customized databases, organizing 

and publishing research results.

For more information about the NASA STI 

program, see the following:

• Access the NASA STI program home page at 

http://www.sti.nasa.gov

• E-mail your question via the Internet to help@

sti.nasa.gov

• Fax your question to the NASA STI Help Desk 

at 443–757–5803

• Telephone the NASA STI Help Desk at

 443–757–5802

• Write to:

 NASA Center for AeroSpace Information (CASI)

 7115 Standard Drive

 Hanover, MD 21076–1320
Ryan L. Kobrick

University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, Colorado

Kenneth G. Budinski

Bud Labs, Inc., Rochester, New York

Kenneth W. Street, Jr.

Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

David M. Klaus

University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, Colorado

Three-Body Abrasion Testing Using Lunar Dust 

Simulants to Evaluate Surface System Materials

NASA/TM—2010-216781

August 2010

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Glenn Research Center

Cleveland, Ohio 44135

Prepared for the

40th International Conference on Environmental Systems

cosponsored by the AIAA, AICHE, ASME, SAE Environmental Systems Committee,

and ICES International Committee

Barcelona, Spain, July 11–15, 2010
Acknowledgments

This research was supported by a NASA Graduate Student Researchers Program (GSRP) grant (NNX07AR55H) provided by 

the Dust Management Project, under the Exploration Technology Development Program at the Glenn Research Center (GRC). 

Test equipment and support were provided by Bud Labs, Inc. and simulants were provided by NASA GRC. Additional support 

was provided by BioServe Space Technologies at the University of Colorado at Boulder and the Achievement Rewards for 

College Scientists (ARCS) Foundation, Inc.

Available from

NASA Center for Aerospace Information

7115 Standard Drive

Hanover, MD 21076–1320

National Technical Information Service

5301 Shawnee Road

Alexandria, VA 22312

Available electronically at http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov

Trade names and trademarks are used in this report for identifi cation 

only. Their usage does not constitute an offi cial endorsement, 

either expressed or implied, by the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration.

Level of Review: This material has been technically reviewed by technical management. 
NASA/TM—2010-216781 1 

Three-Body Abrasion Testing Using Lunar Dust Simulants 

to Evaluate Surface System Materials 

Ryan L. Kobrick 

University of Colorado at Boulder 

Boulder, Colorado 80309 

Kenneth G. Budinski 

Bud Labs, Inc. 

Rochester, New York 14615 

Kenneth W. Street, Jr. 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Glenn Research Center 

Cleveland, Ohio 44135 

David M. Klaus 

University of Colorado at Boulder 

Boulder, Colorado 80309 

Abstract 

Numerous unexpected operational issues relating to the abrasive nature of lunar dust, such as 

scratched visors and spacesuit pressure seal leaks, were encountered during the Apollo missions. To avoid 

reoccurrence of these unexpected detrimental equipment problems on future missions to the Moon, a 

series of two- and three-body abrasion tests were developed and conducted in order to begin rigorously 

characterizing the effect of lunar dust abrasiveness on candidate surface system materials. Two-body 

scratch tests were initially performed to examine fundamental interactions of a single particle on a flat 

surface. These simple and robust tests were used to establish standardized measurement techniques for 

quantifying controlled volumetric wear. Subsequent efforts described in the paper involved three-body 

abrasion testing designed to be more representative of actual lunar interactions. For these tests, a new 

tribotester was developed to expose samples to a variety of industrial abrasives and lunar simulants. The 

work discussed in this paper describes the three-body hardware setup consisting of a rotating rubber 

wheel that applies a load on a specimen as a loose abrasive is fed into the system. The test methodology is 

based on ASTM International (ASTM) B611, except it does not mix water with the abrasive. All tests 

were run under identical conditions. Abraded material specimens included poly(methyl methacrylate) 

(PMMA), hardened 1045 steel, 6061-T6 aluminum (Al) and 1018 steel. Abrasives included lunar mare 

simulant JSC-1A-F (nominal size distribution), sieved JSC-1A-F (<25 μm particle diameter), lunar 

highland simulant NU-LHT-2M, alumina (average diameter of 50 μm used per ASTM G76), and silica 

(50/70 mesh used per ASTM G65). The measured mass loss from each specimen was converted using 

standard densities to determine total wear volume in cm3

. Abrasion was dominated by the alumina and the 

simulants were only similar to the silica (i.e., sand) on the softer materials of aluminum and PMMA. The 

nominal JSC-1A-F consistently showed more abrasion wear than the sieved version of the simulant. The 

lunar dust displayed abrasivity to all of the test materials, which are likely to be used in lunar landing 

equipment. Based on this test experience and pilot results obtained, recommendations are made for 

systematic abrasion testing of candidate materials intended for use in lunar exploration systems and in 

other environments with similar dust challenges. 
NASA/TM—2010-216781 2 

I. Introduction 

Numerous unexpected operational issues relating to the abrasive nature of lunar dust were 

encountered during the Apollo missions. Issues recorded by astronauts on lunar extravehicular activity 

(EVA) were catalogued by Gaier (Ref. 1) and included abrasion on Apollo spacesuits leading to scratches 

and wear affecting visibility and pressure retention. The resultant fine-grained and highly angular shapes 

of lunar dust particles have been attributed to the continuous micrometeorite bombardment of the Moon 

and a lack of mechanical weathering, consequently making them especially abrasive (Refs. 2 and 3). Fine 

dust particles in this context are typically characterized by their size range of <1 to 50 μm (Refs. 4 and 5). 

Although specific definitions between groups vary, on average, researchers refer to particles with 

diameters less than 20 μm as “dust” (Refs. 6 and 7). 

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Dust Management Project (DMP) has 

identified key physical properties of interest to the lunar science community. Abrasion’s importance for 

study was ranked as ‘high’ for future exploration missions because it affects any space system component 

that comes into contact with dust, especially having moving parts and/or has a seal. The DMP was created 

in the Exploration Technology Development Program (ETDP) at NASA following the results and 

assessment of the Exploration Systems Architecture Study (ESAS). One goal of the research being 

conducted within the DMP is to develop recommendations and standard testing protocols for evaluating 

the impact of lunar dust abrasion on proposed surface system materials and operations. Both two-body 

and three-body abrasion modes are currently being investigated for future NASA testing of lunar 

equipment in relevant environments using abrasives that parallel actual regolith, known as lunar dust 

simulants. 

To avoid reoccurrence of detrimental equipment abrasion problems noted during Apollo, future lunar 

surface systems (LSS) used in missions to the Moon can be designed to take into account expected 

operational wear. To rigorously characterize the effect of lunar dust abrasiveness on candidate materials, a 

series of two- and three-body abrasion tests have been developed and conducted. Two-body scratch tests 

were initially performed to examine fundamental interactions of a single particle on a flat surface (Refs. 6 

and 7). These simple and robust tests were used to establish standardized measurement techniques for 

quantifying controlled volumetric wear (Refs. 8 and 9). Subsequent testing involved a three-body 

abrasion technique designed to be more representative of actual operational interactions. For these tests, a 

new tribotester was developed to expose samples to a variety of typical abrasives and the lunar simulants 

JSC-1A-F, representative of the lunar mare region, and NU-LHT-2M, representative of the lunar highland 

region (both are based on the average chemical composition of Apollo samples). This paper discusses the 

apparatus, methodology and results obtained from initial testing. 

II. New Test Methodology 

The initial two-body abrasion baseline laid the foundation for conducting the more representative 

three-body tests. Instead of a single pass scratch, three-body abrasion better simulates the lifetime of a 

material by quantifying material removal in a set amount of time based on intended operational 

interactions. This test method is a derivative of the ASTM International (ASTM) B611 Standard that 

allows use of custom abrasives, i.e., lunar stimulants (Ref. 10). The test specimen is cleaned and weighed 

three times to determine the initial mass. From 20 to 80 grams of abrasive is fed onto the rubber wheel (as 

indicated in Figure 1) during the entire test time. The specimen is at the bottom of a vessel that holds 

loose abrasive and the rubber wheel forces the abrasive against the horizontal counterface (see Figure 1 

for configuration). Mass change is used as the test metric. The tester is shut down after 450 revolutions 

(170 m). The test specimens are washed in water and Windex (S. C. Johnson & Son, Inc.) after testing 

and dried before reweighing (see Figure 2). The specimens are again weighed three times for a final mass 

average. Fresh abrasive was used for each test. 
NASA/TM—2010-216781 3 

Figure 1.—Three-body abrasion tester (rotation direction indicated with curved arrow) with abrasive entry point on 

right side (indicated with straight arrow). The specimen sits at the bottom of the rotation wheel. 

The test employed uses the same concept as ASTM B611 except that the testing equipment (Bud 

Labs, Rochester, NY) uses a rubber wheel and no water, just a dry abrasive, which is more applicable for 

Moon, Mars or other celestial body abrasion environments. The test is not a standard yet, as methods of 

feeding dust into the system are still being evaluated. The abrasion tester includes a 60 Shore A Neoprene 

wheel (12.7 mm wheel width, 109 mm diameter), with velocity of 0.17 m/s (30 rpm) and a force on the 

specimen of 55 N (12.3 lb). 

Abrasives and material specimens used are summarized in Table 1 with number of tests conducted. 

Abrasives included: JSC-1A-F (nominal size distribution); sieved JSC-1A-F (less than 25 μm particle 

diameter prepared by NASA Glenn Research Center using a mechanical sieve); alumina (50 μm average 

particle diameter); and sand with AGSCO AFS 50/70 mesh (200 μm average diameter). A chemical or 

sieve analysis is not conducted on the later two abrasives because both are ASTM test standard abrasives 

and shipped as such. The sand is used in ASTM G65 and the alumina is used in ASTM G76 (Refs. 11 and 

12). Material specimens that were abraded included: 6061-T6 aluminum (Al); 1018 steel (hardness of 

60 HRB); 1045 steel (hardness of 50 HRC); and poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA). 
NASA/TM—2010-216781 4 

TABLE 1.—THREE-BODY ABRASION TEST SUMMARY WITH NEW TRIBOTESTER 

 Number of Abrasive Tests 

Material JSC-1A-F JSC-1A-F <25um Alumina Silica (Sand) NU-LHT-2M 

6061-T6 Al 3 3 4 4 3 

1018 Steel 3 3 4 4 3 

1045 Steel 3 3 4 4 3 

PMMA 3 3 4 4 3 

Figure 2.—Image of aluminum specimen after being abraded by alumina. 

III. Results 

The results (summarized in Appendix A) are graphically presented in Figure 3 and Figure 4 as wear 

volume loss in cm3

 after conversion using material densities (Ref. 13). Figure 3 represents the PMMA 

wear volumes from various simulants and Figure 4 represents the metal specimens wear volumes. The 

discussion following the results includes qualitative observations inferred from the data. Further tests 

would have to be repeated in multiple labs to establish quantitative statistical significance. The test 

materials selected represent the range of materials likely to be used in lunar landing equipment or other 

spacecraft missions that will voyage to planetary or asteroid surfaces. 
NASA/TM—2010-216781 5 

Figure 3.—Wear volume of PMMA abraded with new tribotester by various lunar simulants and abrasives. 

Figure 4.—Wear volume of metals abraded with new tribotester by various lunar simulants and abrasives. 
NASA/TM—2010-216781 6 

IV. Discussion 

Based on the experience and pilot results obtained from this testing, lunar dust simulants can be 

expected to produce a range of wear effects on various materials. The data indicate that lunar dust 

simulants have comparable abrasivity to silica on the softer test materials only (Al and PMMA). The tests 

results showed similar trends for wear volume in the different materials. Alumina powder dominated 

abrasion on all materials, resulting in the most volume removed. In general, steels showed good resistance 

to abrasion against the lunar simulants, aluminum is prone to abrasion by the simulants, and PMMA is 

very prone to abrasion by simulants. 

The JSC-1A-F nominal particle size distribution produced more wear than the sieved version of the 

abrasive. This size difference may or may not be the reason for the difference in values obtained since the 

mineralogy is not uniformly distributed within the simulant by size fraction. This means that the larger 

particles removed by sieving might be harder minerals. Most of the abrasives were in the 25 to 100 μm 

range except the silica, which was closer to 200 μm. It was observed in the NU-LHT-2M simulant that 

there were large 500 μm pieces that would stall at the wheel’s base upon contact, and when they did, a 

distinctive “crunch” was heard. Smaller particles are likely to polish materials, while the larger 

particulates may be causing the most wear. Therefore, selection of appropriate abrasive particle size and 

distribution will be critical for fully characterizing wear interactions using this device. 

The simulants available are representative of the two main lunar regions (mare and highlands) so do 

not represent the full diversity of the lunar terrain. Further, recently available information by Cole et al. 

(Ref. 14) on the strength of lunar regolith grains as compared to terrestrial materials of similar 

composition has demonstrated that lunar plagioclase grains can have two to three times less mechanical 

strength than terrestrial material when compressed. Cole et al. paper clarifies why the terrestrial 

counterparts are considerably more robust - the lunar grains appear to be composed of much smaller 

fragments fused or sintered together. This structure is considerably weaker at the fragment boundaries 

than the internal crystal energies holding mineral crystals grains together thus leading to enhanced 

friability. If actual lunar grains were applied to the testing procedure described in Section II of this paper, 

one would expect to see considerably less damage due to the polishing action of the fine fragments as 

they are released by mechanical crushing. This means that laboratory tests should be conducted with 

abrasives that are specific to the intended location of future missions. A similar approach can be used to 

develop testing protocols for exploration of Mars, asteroids or other planetary surfaces. 

An alternative to location specific abrasive selection would be to over design a system to take into 

account a worst-case wear scenario. For example, pure alumina could be used as a single test abrasive in 

place of specific lunar simulants if it is consistently shown to produce the most significant abrasive wear 

in future tests. This approach would come at a mass penalty, but might help with risk assessment or in 

establishing engineering design safety factors. Ultimately, using systematic abrasion testing and 

measurements can aid in material selection for lunar surface systems, as well as for other spaceflight or 

terrestrial environments with similar dust challenges. 

V. Conclusions and Recommendations 

The new tribotester demonstrated that well-controlled data could be obtained using a variety of dry 

abrasives and test materials. This device provides a versatile means of conducting material abrasion 

testing recommended for planetary exploration because of the flexibility to systematically change 

abrasive variables such as grain size. Future upgrades to the simulations could add control of humidity, 

temperature, and pressure, as needed. This test method is simple and inexpensive, making it attractive to 

the space engineering design community to either adopt directly or contract out to a lab for analysis. 

Future work is planned to address the effects of varying the alumina average grain size. Other suggested 

tests include varying the applied load on the abrasion wheel, the rotation speed of the wheel, and test 

duration in the case of abrasion resistant materials. 
NASA/TM—2010-216781 7 

References 

1. Gaier, J.R. (2007): “The Effects of Lunar Dust on EVA Systems During the Apollo Missions,” 

NASA Glenn Research Center. NASA/TM—2005-213610/REV1. 

2. Heiken, G.H., Vaniman, D.T., French, B.M. (1991): “LUNAR Sourcebook: A User’s Guide to the 

Moon,” Cambridge University Press and Lunar and Planetary Institute. 

3. Taylor, L.A., Schmitt, H.H., Carrier, W.D. & Nakagawa, M. (2005): “The Lunar Dust Problem: From 

Liability to Asset,” AIAA 1st Space Exploration Conference: Continuing the Voyage of Discovery. 

Orlando, FL. AIAA–2005–2510. 

4. Rickman, D. & Street, K.W. (2008): “Expected Mechanical Characteristics of Lunar Dust: A 

Geological View,” Proceedings of the Space Technology and Applications International Forum, 

Albuquerque, NM. AIP Conf. Proc., 969, 949–955. 

5. Plescia, J. (2008): “Lunar Regolith Formation and Properties,” Presentation, Lunar Regolith 

Community of Practice (LunRCoP) Webinar, 26 Feb 2008. 

6. Kobrick, R.L., Klaus, D.M., and Street, K.W. (2009): “Developing Abrasion Test Standards for 

Evaluating Lunar Construction Materials,” 39th ICES, Savannah, GA. SAE Technical Paper 2009-01-

2377 [accepted for publication (2010) SAE Transactions Journal of Aerospace]. 

7. Kobrick, R.L., Street, K.W., Klaus, D.M., Greenberg, P.S., and Hyatt, M.J. (2008): “Developing 

Abrasion Testing Hardware to Evaluate Effects Caused by Lunar Dust on Construction Materials,” 

59th IAC, IAC-08-A3.2.INT3, Glasgow, UK. 

8. Kobrick, R.L., Klaus, D.M., and Street, Jr., K.W. (2010, Submitted for Publication): “Validation of 

proposed metrics for two-body abrasion scratch test analysis standards,” J. WEAR. Elsevier. 

9. Kobrick, R.L., Klaus, D.M., and Street, Jr., K.W. (2010, Submitted for Publication): “Standardization 

of a volumetric displacement measurement for two-body abrasion scratch test data analysis,” J. 

WEAR. Manuscript number: IH-6025. Elsevier. 

10. ASTM B611 - 85 (2005): “Standard Test Method for Abrasive Wear Resistance of Cemented 

Carbides,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2005, DOI: 10.1520/B0611-85R05, 

www.astm.org. 

11. ASTM G65 (2004): “Standard Test Method for Measuring Abrasion Using the Dry Sand/Rubber 

Wheel Apparatus,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2005, DOI: 10.1520/G0065-04, 

www.astm.org. 

12. ASTM G76 (2007): “Standard Test Method for Conducting Erosion Tests by Solid Particle 

Impingement Using Gas Jets,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2005, DOI: 

10.1520/G0076-07, www.astm.org. 

13. Budinski, K.G. and Budinski, M.K. (2010): “Engineering Materials: Properties and Selection - 9th 

Edition,” Columbus OH: Prentice Hall. 

14. Cole, D.M., Taylor, L.A., Liu, Y., and Hopkins, M.A. (2010): “Grain-scale mechanical properties of 

lunar plagioclase and its simulant: Initial experimental findings and modeling implications,” Earth & 

Space 2010: Engineering, Science, Construction, and Operations in Challenging Environments. 

ASCE. pp. 74–83. 

NASA/TM—2010-216781 9 

Appendix A.—Summary of Data From Three-Body Abrasion Testing 

 Wear volume, cm3

Material Abrasive Mean Std. Dev. (n)a

6061 Al JSC-1A-F 0.0075 0.0001 (3) 

1018 Steel JSC-1A-F 0.0005 0.0004 (3) 

1045 Steel JSC-1A-F 0.0002 0.0002 (3) 

PMMA JSC-1A-F 0.0546 0.0106 (3) 

6061 Al Silica 0.0106 0.0006 (4) 

1018 Steel Silica 0.0049 0.0004 (4) 

1045 Steel Silica 0.0014 0.0003 (4) 

PMMA Silica 0.0399 0.0027 (4) 

6061 Al Alumina 0.0156 0.0011 (4) 

1018 Steel Alumina 0.0075 0.0010 (4) 

1045 Steel Alumina 0.0053 0.0007 (4) 

PMMA Alumina 0.1274 0.0017 (4) 

6061 Al JSC-1A-F <25 μm 0.0039 0.0002 (3) 

1018 Steel JSC-1A-F <25 μm 0.0007 0.0000 (3) 

1045 Steel JSC-1A-F <25 μm 0.0002 0.0001 (3) 

PMMA JSC-1A-F <25 μm 0.0515 0.0015 (3) 

6061 Al NU-LHT-2M 0.0126 0.0010 (3) 

1018 Steel NU-LHT-2M 0.0030 0.0006 (3) 

1045 Steel NU-LHT-2M 0.0004 0.0001 (3) 

PMMA NU-LHT-2M 0.0604 0.0032 (3) 

a

n = number of tests 
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved 

OMB No. 0704-0188 

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the 

data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this 

burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. 

Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB 

control number. 

PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS. 

1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

01-08-2010 

2. REPORT TYPE

Technical Memorandum 

3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Three-Body Abrasion Testing Using Lunar Dust Simulants 

to Evaluate Surface System Materials 

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER

5b. GRANT NUMBER

NNX07AR55H 

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

6. AUTHOR(S)

Kobrick, Ryan, L.; Budinski, Kenneth, G.; Street, Kenneth, W., Jr.; Klaus, David, M. 

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

WBS 936374.03.05.03.03 

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

John H. Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field 

Cleveland, Ohio 44135-3191 

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

 REPORT NUMBER

E-17408 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Washington, DC 20546-0001 

10. SPONSORING/MONITOR'S

 ACRONYM(S)

NASA 

11. SPONSORING/MONITORING

 REPORT NUMBER

NASA/TM-2010-216781 

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Unclassified-Unlimited 

Subject Categories: 42 and 48 

Available electronically at http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov 

This publication is available from the NASA Center for AeroSpace Information, 443-757-5802

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

14. ABSTRACT

Numerous unexpected operational issues relating to the abrasive nature of lunar dust, such as scratched visors and spacesuit pressure seal leaks, were encountered during the 

Apollo missions. To avoid reoccurrence of these unexpected detrimental equipment problems on future missions to the Moon, a series of two- and three-body abrasion tests 

were developed and conducted in order to begin rigorously characterizing the effect of lunar dust abrasiveness on candidate surface system materials. Two-body scratch tests 

were initially performed to examine fundamental interactions of a single particle on a flat surface. These simple and robust tests were used to establish standardized 

measurement techniques for quantifying controlled volumetric wear. Subsequent efforts described in the paper involved three-body abrasion testing designed to be more 

representative of actual lunar interactions. For these tests, a new tribotester was developed to expose samples to a variety of industrial abrasives and lunar simulants. The work 

discussed in this paper describes the three-body hardware setup consisting of a rotating rubber wheel that applies a load on a specimen as a loose abrasive is fed into the system. 

The test methodology is based on ASTM International (ASTM) B611, except it does not mix water with the abrasive. All tests were run under identical conditions. Abraded 

material specimens included poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA), hardened 1045 steel, 6061-T6 aluminum (Al) and 1018 steel. Abrasives included lunar mare simulant JSC1A-F (nominal size distribution), sieved JSC-1A-F (<25 μm particle diameter), lunar highland simulant NU-LHT-2M, alumina (average diameter of 50 μm used per ASTM 

G76), and silica (50/70 mesh used per ASTM G65). The measured mass loss from each specimen was converted using standard densities to determine total wear volume in 

cm3. Abrasion was dominated by the alumina and the simulants were only similar to the silica (i.e., sand) on the softer materials of aluminum and PMMA. The nominal JSC1A-F consistently showed more abrasion wear than the sieved version of the simulant. The lunar dust displayed abrasivity to all of the test materials, which are likely to be used 

in lunar landing equipment. Based on this test experience and pilot results obtained, recommendations are made for systematic abrasion testing of candidate materials intended 

for use in lunar exploration systems and in other environments with similar dust challenges.

15. SUBJECT TERMS

Abrasion; Lunar exploration 

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION OF

 ABSTRACT

UU 

18. NUMBER

 OF 

 PAGES

14 

19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

STI Help Desk (email:help@sti.nasa.gov) 

a. REPORT

U 

b. ABSTRACT

U 

c. THIS 

PAGE

U 

19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (include area code)

443-757-5802 

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)

Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39-18