Author
|
Topic: White House: Preserving Apollo landing sites
|
Robert Pearlman Editor Posts: 43576 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 03-21-2017 10:36 AM
collectSPACE White House to look at how to best 'protect and preserve' Apollo moon landing sitesThe White House will look at what laws or international treaties are needed to protect and preserve the historic Apollo moon landing sites almost half a century after the first astronauts walked on the lunar surface. President Donald Trump on Tuesday (Mach 21) signed the NASA Transition Authorization Act of 2017, which includes a section directing the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to assess the issues that relate to "protecting and preserving historically important Apollo program lunar landing sites and Apollo program artifacts residing on the lunar surface, including those pertaining to Apollo 11 and Apollo 17," the first and last missions to land astronauts on the moon. |
cspg Member Posts: 6222 From: Geneva, Switzerland Registered: May 2006
|
posted 03-21-2017 12:25 PM
A recent book on this topic (don't forget sites here on Earth): The Final Mission: Preserving NASA's Apollo Sites. |
schnappsicle Member Posts: 396 From: Houston, TX, USA Registered: Jan 2012
|
posted 03-22-2017 08:20 AM
I hate to say it, but I think that regardless of laws and treaties, the overwhelming factor of greed still remains. People will want always the PLSSs and the cameras and other artifacts that were left behind. While the vast majority of future lunar visitors will respect (and avoid) the Apollo sites, there will always be a handful of unscrupulous people who are looking for fast money. |
Robert Pearlman Editor Posts: 43576 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 03-22-2017 09:38 AM
While theft may indeed be a long term concern, the considerations now are probably going to be more focused on formalizing something similar (if not identical) to the perimeter guidelines drafted by NASA in 2011. The Google Lunar X PRIZE teams have agreed to abide by those guidelines as they exist now, but they are only applicable to U.S.-based entities. The White House might suggest a new international treaty setting a common approach by all moon-bound entities, or could seek World Heritage Site status (or similar) through the United Nations. |
moorouge Member Posts: 2458 From: U.K. Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 03-22-2017 10:33 AM
Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but I thought there was in place an international treaty that the Moon, like Antarctica, had been declared as belonging to everyone. If the US is going to claim that the Apollo 11 and Apollo 17 landing sites are theirs to preserve, isn't this going against this existing treaty?Further, how does one define the geographic (lunagraphic?) limits of a landing site? |
Robert Pearlman Editor Posts: 43576 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 03-22-2017 10:44 AM
The same treaty (Outer Space Treaty of 1967) that sets out that "the moon... is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means" also establishes that parties to the treaty retain control over the objects they launch into space: A State Party to the Treaty on whose registry an object launched into outer space is carried shall retain jurisdiction and control over such object, and over any personnel thereof, while in outer space or on a celestial body. Ownership of objects launched into outer space, including objects landed or constructed on a celestial body, and of their component parts, is not affected by their presence in outer space or on a celestial body or by their return to the Earth. As such, the U.S. is not attempting to declare sovereignty over the lunar property on which the Apollo spacecraft landed, but rather preserving and protecting its equipment as provided for by the treaty.The concerns then become the bootprints and whether they can be protected, which is a question the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy will need to address. quote: Originally posted by moorouge: Further, how does one define the geographic (lunagraphic?) limits of a landing site?
I would point you back to the guidelines drafted by NASA in 2011, referenced earlier in this thread and in the article. The document defines a visiting vehicle surface mobility boundary, a descent/landing boundary, an artifact boundary and a keep-out zone to protect the sites in question. |
One Big Monkey Member Posts: 171 From: West Yorkshire, UK Registered: Jul 2012
|
posted 03-24-2017 03:20 PM
I've said this elsewhere but I'll repeat. I think there is not only tremendous human interest in re-visiting the Apollo sites, but enormous scientific value too. Here we have equipment and trails that have been undisturbed for nearly 50 years, so we have a perfect chance to see what has changed and to what degree - it may prove useful for our long term ambitions for the moon to determine what happens to stuff that's there a long time.By all means consult NASA, and discuss the best way to avoid disturbing the sites (and thus spoil any experimental value they have), but close them off? No. They belong to all mankind, and all mankind should get to look at them and marvel that we were there. |
Rick Mulheirn Member Posts: 4208 From: England Registered: Feb 2001
|
posted 03-24-2017 03:29 PM
I personally agree that we should re-visit the Apollo landing sites should the opportunity arise for the reasons outlined. Might I suggest however that only one site be disturbed? That would provide most if not all of the scientific benefit to be gained by examining hardware left on the moon for 50 years.I would nominate the Apollo 17 site. It has a rover and Gene Cernan left his Hasselblad on the rover, (at NASA's behest) lens toward the sun in the hope that somebody would one day examine it, thereby fulfilling the rationale behind NASA's instruction in the first instance. |
Robert Pearlman Editor Posts: 43576 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 03-24-2017 03:55 PM
If PTScientists is successful in its plans, its first two Audi Lunar Quattro rovers will visit the Apollo 17 landing site as soon as 2018 — staying outside the perimeter as defined by NASA, but approaching close enough to inspect and take HD imagery of the Apollo lunar rover. |
Rick Mulheirn Member Posts: 4208 From: England Registered: Feb 2001
|
posted 03-24-2017 04:09 PM
While the approach as intimated by the artists impression would not afford the kind of detailed examination afforded the Surveyor camera returned by Apollo 12, it would certainly satisfy my curiosity and garner plenty of valuable information. |
p51 Member Posts: 1658 From: Olympia, WA Registered: Sep 2011
|
posted 03-24-2017 06:23 PM
I consider this no more an intrusion to these sites than when the bell from sunken ore ship Edmund Fitzgerald was recovered from its watery grave in Lake Superior and replaced with one marked in memory of the crew.Sure, none of the Apollo landing sites is a grave site (thank goodness for THAT), but think of the extension of the human spirit it took to get there, to be able to recover and display items from the landings themselves in museums. Imagine the sense of awe if you could go to the Smithsonian someday and actually see the overshoes (or what might be left of them) that Armstrong wore when he made the most famous single step in all of human history. |
Wehaveliftoff Member Posts: 2343 From: Registered: Aug 2001
|
posted 03-25-2017 01:35 AM
That would be cool to see how the moonprints were affected if at all, but agreed to not disturb them either, a tricky proposition. Though I hate even the concept of drones, if there ever was a use for one in very little gravity or atmosphere, this would be the ideal use and purpose. |
Mike Dixon Member Posts: 1428 From: Kew, Victoria, Australia Registered: May 2003
|
posted 03-25-2017 03:07 AM
Personally, I think the Apollo 11 and Apollo 17 sites should be left as is, undisturbed as they are the bookends to moon exploration by humans. |
p51 Member Posts: 1658 From: Olympia, WA Registered: Sep 2011
|
posted 03-25-2017 12:46 PM
They won't be undisturbed forever. Someday, a meteor is going to hit many of them, if not all of them. It's just a matter of time before what's left is scattered and tiny little chunks all over the place, with a giant crater in the center of it. |
David C Member Posts: 1039 From: Lausanne Registered: Apr 2012
|
posted 03-25-2017 02:56 PM
Well, for reasons already stated I think this isn't desirable, necessary or practical. I'd prefer to see the artifacts recovered and preserved, and monuments erected.But I'd rather see time and money put into getting on with space exploration than on, at best "feel good" distractions, at worst cynical posturing. |
Mike Dixon Member Posts: 1428 From: Kew, Victoria, Australia Registered: May 2003
|
posted 03-25-2017 10:31 PM
quote: Originally posted by p51: Someday, a meteor is going to hit many of them, if not all of them.
I agree but we'll all be long long gone (as will most of the future generations) by the time that happens. Just go after Apollo 15 or Apollo 16 is all I'm suggesting if we're going to do it. |
David C Member Posts: 1039 From: Lausanne Registered: Apr 2012
|
posted 03-27-2017 06:44 AM
Not really, that's only "on average," it could happen tomorrow. Obviously not very likely, but... |
Robert Pearlman Editor Posts: 43576 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 03-27-2018 12:00 AM
collectSPACE White House: Protect Apollo moon landing sites, but treaties could lead to backlashThe White House believes there is value in protecting and preserving the Apollo moon landing sites for historic, cultural and scientific reasons, but has qualms about hindering future commercial pursuits or entering into new international treaties to do so. The administration outlined its position in a report provided to Congress on March 21. The assessment, conducted by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), fulfilled the requirement for such a report that was included in the NASA Transition Authorization Act of 2017, which President Donald Trump signed into law in March of last year. |