posted 10-21-2011 11:58 AM               

Because there is no precedent for this situation throughout nearly 50 years of spaceflight, there are no USG guidelines or requirements for spacecraft visiting the areas of existing USG-owned lunar hardware regardless of condition or location.

Fortunately, there are several lunar experts across NASA and the scientific, historical, legal, materials, and flight-planning communities who can provide some initial guidance for these lunar endeavors. NASA has performed recent propellant/plume and lunar regolith impingement analyses and initiated a science evaluation that examined the risks and concerns of damage to the heritage Apollo landing sites resulting from future spacecraft descent/landing and associated surface and low-altitude flight mobility. From a scientific perspective, many sites are still active (e.g., Apollo retro-reflectors), and continue to produce material, biological, and physical scientific data associated with long-term exposure of human-created systems (e.g., witness plates) to the lunar environment. NASA has also considered impacts to non-Apollo USG lunar artifacts.

Until more formal USG guidance is developed and perhaps a multilateral approach is developed to reflect various nations' views on lunar hardware of scientific and historic value, NASA has assembled this document that contains the collected technical knowledge of its personnel – with advice from external experts and potential space-faring entities – and provides interim recommendations for lunar vehicle design and mission planning teams. As such, this document does not represent mandatory USG or international requirements; rather, it is offered to inform lunar spacecraft mission planners interested in helping preserve and protect lunar historic artifacts and potential science opportunities for future missions.

These recommendations are intended to apply to USG artifacts on the lunar surface – these artifacts include:

1. Apollo lunar surface landing and roving hardware;
   
2. Unmanned lunar surface landing sites (e.g.,Surveyor sites);
   
3. Impact sites (e.g.,Ranger, S-IVB, LCROSS, lunar module [LM] ascent stage);
   
4. USG experiments left on the lunar surface, tools, equipment, miscellaneous EVA hardware; and
   
5. Specific indicators of U.S. human, human-robotic lunar presence, including footprints, rover tracks, etc., although not all anthropogenic indicators are protected as identified in the recommendations.

Because of the relevance of these recommendations to current and future lunar elements deposited by other space-faring entities, NASA has begun engaging in dialogue with foreign space agencies, as appropriate.

posted 10-21-2011 12:02 PM               

"There is a need for more archaeological input into the process of protecting what is certainly humanity's most extraordinary series of events that led us off the Earth and onto the Moon."

posted 05-29-2012 09:54 AM               

Private moon race to follow NASA rules to preserve historic lunar landing sites

A multi-million dollar private race to land robotic rovers on the moon will abide by recommendations released by NASA to protect the historic landing sites on the lunar surface, space agency and contest officials have said.

NASA and the X PRIZE Foundation of Playa Vista, Calif., announced recently that the Google Lunar X PRIZE will recognize the guidelines established by NASA to protect historic sites and preserve ongoing and future science on the moon. The foundation will take the recommendations into account as it judges the plans submitted by 26 teams vying to be the first privately-funded organization to visit the moon.

posted 08-29-2012 02:08 PM               

Neil Armstrong's death may spur Apollo 11 landing site preservation

The passing of famed astronaut Neil Armstrong, the first man to set foot on the moon and the commander of Apollo 11, may strengthen the movement to designate Tranquility Base, his 1969 lunar landing site, as a National Historic Landmark.

The relatively new field of space heritage preservation is gaining momentum, and a recently authored bill aims to protect the Apollo 11's "Eagle" lunar lander touchdown site and all the artifacts that Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin left behind on the lunar surface.

posted 08-29-2012 04:27 PM               

The relatively new field of space heritage preservation...

posted 08-30-2012 12:01 AM               

No? Then don't bother.

posted 08-30-2012 06:19 AM               

Once a site is designated a National Historic Landmark, it can then be nominated for the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization's World Heritage List.

Westwood and O'Leary also have been working with the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), the World Heritage List's advisory body, over the last three years to make the case for the Apollo sites to be added to this list.

posted 08-30-2012 09:08 AM               

The objects at Tranquility Base are in a legal gray area, O'Leary said. By treaty, countries own the property they have placed on the moon, but no one can own the lunar surface.

posted 12-31-2012 11:10 PM               

1. Eventually, an asteroid will smack right into any or all of the Apollo landing sites. Will the concept of 'site preservation' be a moot point when that eventually happens with any of these sites?

2. What happens if, say, Chinese astronauts land on the Moon and decide to go all tourist over one of these sites? Really, what kind of penalty could there possibly be? UNESCO heritage sites have already been destroyed by people in the past, what kinds of punishments did any of them face?

3. Conspiracy theorists must have some sort of backup once a commercial outfit flies over one of these sites and points out the footprints while going over them, right? I mean, what are they going to say when ANYONE can go up and see for themselves?

posted 12-31-2012 11:25 PM               

1. Acts of nature are acts of nature, whether they occur on Earth or elsewhere in the solar system. The possibility of wildfire, tornado or hurricane taking out a historic site on Earth doesn't negate the need to protect such sites from human intervention.

2. If the nation is party to the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, then any such actions would be open to sanctions by the United Nations.

3. Why is this even worth pondering?

posted 01-03-2013 01:50 AM               

There was concern voiced by historians and others in the space history community that at least some of the lunar heritage sites needed guidelines to protect them from purposeful vandalism (e.g. rover tracks crisscrossing bootprints).

posted 01-03-2013 12:01 PM               

O'Leary and Chico State University archaeology professor Lisa Westwood worked with California Congressman Dan Lungren and his staff to write the bill.

posted 01-04-2013 10:40 AM               

I asked several astronauts about preserving the lunar landing sites when I went to Spacefest back in June. What I got from them was basically that federal laws are already in place. While most of the international community has agreed to respect the lunar sites, there's nothing to prevent any of them from sending their own people or robots to the Apollo sites.