posted 07-22-2026 10:13 AM               

"If you want to go fast, go familiar," he said. "We want to get to the surface. If we want to land soon, familiar, daylight, equator."

One reason he preferred equatorial regions is the ease of getting there and back. NASA's plans for landings at the lunar south pole had involved the use of a near-rectilinear halo orbit, a highly elliptical orbit that would also have been used by the Gateway. However, that orbit would have required astronauts to spend up to a week on the lunar surface before Orion or the Gateway would be in position for them to depart.

Glover cited a hypothetical case of an astronaut who suffers a burst appendix during an Artemis landing mission. "If it ruptures on landing day, you're stuck for a week. That's a big deal to me, and I don't like that plan," he said. "The equator gives me opportunity to save that person."

Polar landing sites pose other challenges. The sun is low on the horizon there, casting long shadows that can hamper landings and also make it difficult to walk or drive in the direction of the sun.

"You think driving home into the sunset is challenging? Imagine being on another celestial body and going from this room to low sun angle in a suit," he said.

He advocated for a more stepwise approach that would start with landings closer to the equator to build up experience toward polar landings, comparing it to test flight programs that incrementally expand the envelope in speed and altitude. "You have a process for accepting risk more and more, but also retiring it right," he said.

"I think we need to be realistic and work our way to the south pole, and maybe not try to go there first," he said.

posted 07-30-2026 05:37 PM               

1. ALS 6 - The Surveyor spacecraft sitting at about two degrees north latitude in Oceanus Procellarum. This site would permit sampling of pristine Western Mare material, unlike the contaminated material obtain by Apollo 12. In addition, the crew could retrieve parts of Surveyor I, which has been sitting on the lunar surface since June 1966 and endured 743 lunar temp cycles.

2. Hyginus Crater and Rille - This crater is of volcanic and not impact origin and sits at eight degrees above the lunar equator. Its floor also offers the chance to explore some small lunar domes. The rille features small craters that are actually volcanic vents ("maars") as well as some pyroclastic deposits. This was the backup site for Apollo 13 if Fra Mauro proved to be not feasible.

3. Rima Bode II is a rille that sits in a vast deposit of very dark pyroclastic material at thirteen degrees above the equator. Over the years it has gained more interest from lunar scientists and is on China's short list of human landing sites.

4. Revisit the Apollo 14 Fra Mauro site at 3.6 degrees South latitude and and sample Cone Crater the way it should have been. Artemis astronauts could also retrieve material left on the previous visitors.

posted 07-31-2026 12:53 PM               

As we leave the moon and Taurus-Littrow, we leave as we came, and, God willing, we shall return, with peace and hope for all mankind.

They could verify if the flag is still red, white and blue and that Tracy's initials haven't been erased by the solar wind. They could tell the story of where we left off, while at the same time laying the foundation for a new era of exploration.

And yes, they could do some geology. Imagine having Jack Schmitt on console guiding the Artemis crew around his old stomping grounds, retrieving his rock hammer and then exploring areas for which there was not enough time on Apollo.

posted 07-31-2026 05:28 PM               

I believe NASA choose wisely when they selected ALS 7 for Apollo 12. But it would still be nice to fill in that gap of pristine Western Mare material by visiting ALS 6 with Artemis IV. Parts from Surveyor I would be a nice engineering bonus.

I like Robert's suggestion of revisiting Taurus-Littrow too, but it is at a hefty twenty degrees north latitude and flight ops might need to reduce fuel safety margins to make the required plane changes for the HLS ascent stage to rendezvous with Orion.

Likewise, the two sites from which NASA proposed to get rebound material (Copernicus or Gassendi) each have issues that one would not want to address on Artemis' first lunar landing flight.

I really would like NASA to revisit Fra Mauro (I sure hope someone from the Artemis science directorate is monitoring collectSPACE!). As Don Wilhelms wrote:

The total [Apollo 14] haul from the rim-flank of Cone ... was 16 Hasselblad photographs (out of a mission total of 417), six rock-size samples heavier than 50 g, and a grand total of 10 kg of samples, 9 kg of which are in one rock ... That is to say, apart from [that single rock] we have less than 1 kg of rock — 962 g to be exact — from what in my opinion is the most important single point reached by astronauts on the Moon.

posted 08-01-2026 01:08 PM               

I would have to agree with you 100% for a landing at Taurus-Littrow area on the Moon to pick up where we (unfortunately) left off. I would like to add that I believe that we should land in the easier spots first then journey to the South Pole region(s) on the later Artemis flights.

Some spots that should be considered are:

• Apollo 17's Taurus-Littrow area (the orange soil).

• Apollo 15's Hadley-Rille/Apennine Mountains and explore down into the rill and climb the mountains this time.

• Apollo 11's Sea of Tranquility spot. This would be very historical to return to the original spot and we can pick up the American Flag that fell over from Eagle's lift-off and we could photo the original spot and take newer samples and compare them to Apollo 11's original samples.

posted 08-01-2026 01:46 PM            

The total [Apollo 14] haul from the rim-flank of Cone ... was 16 Hasselblad photographs (out of a mission total of 417), six rock-size samples heavier than 50 g, and a grand total of 10 kg of samples...

According to Wilhelms, Shepard and Mitchell came within 17 metres (about 55 feet) of the rim of Cone Crater. Could they have done better? Or did they do as well as could be expected in difficult circumstances, where NASA obviously had to place crew-survival ahead of great geology? This was, after all, the longest exploration on foot made by any Apollo astronauts, and the risk to life must not be overlooked.

I do think it is generally acknowledged that Shepard was not much interested in rock-sampling. But he had a much more crucial task to prioritize. After Apollo 13, a second failed mission would probably have killed Apollo. Shepard had to get to the Moon; land safely; pick up samples; return to the LM; and get safely back to Earth. He succeeded, leaving the way clear for the J-missions to concentrate on science.

posted 08-01-2026 02:01 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by astro-nut:
...we can pick up the American Flag that fell over from Eagle's lift-off

---

I believe the majority of those who believe in the preservation of human heritage sites agree on leaving the Apollo 11 site as it is. There is greater disagreement if the other Apollo sites merit the same protection.

posted 08-01-2026 10:19 PM               

Establishing a GPS and communications constellation is an inevitable need, as is a reliable and regular mode of surface transport and a way of getting on and off the Moon quickly. EVA suits that people can work in will probably prove harder to perfect than many think.

By the time such things have been established, going to the far side or the poles would just be the next step, not the hardest part. Doing another giant leap may mean it takes another 50 years to take the next step.

While I understand the sentimental meaning of the Apollo 11 site to my generation, it may prove to be impossible to protect from subsequent generations once people start to explore the lunar surface. Here on Earth, our history shows that some people don’t overly care about history as much as others do.

There will be people who see nothing wrong with taking things from the site and turning them into framed collectibles for the collectors' market, and there would be people who don’t have a problem paying for it.

If lunar tourism ever becomes a thing, the demand to get as close as possible to the landing sites would probably be strongest, and history shows that we don’t have a problem fencing off sites and building footpaths and facilities to cater for the tourists, as a way of "preserving" them. There is always that one person who thinks jumping a fence to get a selfie is worth it, and adding a few more footprints won't matter. How often do people stray off the path in national parks?

I feel that engineers and scientists would love to study hardware and materials left on the moon for over 50 years, especially those tasked with developing habitats for future missions. There would be someone who wanted to research the waste material left up there as well. The effects of solar wind and radiation, micro meteoroids, thermal cycling, and whatever unknowns are yet to be discovered may be crucial for future designs.

The cameras and other equipment left behind could all hold information that could help design things. Who decides if such information is more important than preserving history? We ask if the colour of the flags has faded. Would anything be left of the flags today? Did they survive exposure to the sun and impacts from space dust?

How do you stop other nations from resisting the temptation of taking items for research that could give them a leg up in building future lunar equipment?

Without politicising things too much, I doubt that in today's political climate America holds the same respect it held years ago when it comes to respecting the history associated with a Cold War-driven achievement; if there was something to be gained from recovering material, respect may not matter. The laws of other nations don’t always get respected.

It would probably be best to open one landing site to investigation as a way of protecting the other sites for just a little longer. Who decides which one?

I have no idea what value future generations will attach to the 1st generation landing sites, but feel confident that the next nation to land on the Moon will want their first site protected. What size perimeter should each site be allowed? And how many first sites will there be?

What happens if we discover that the Apollo 11, or another site, sits on top of some valuable resource below? There are a lot of towns that no longer exist or were relocated because they sat on a natural resource.

If you were alive when Apollo landed on the moon, you probably have a different attached meaning to the sites than someone much younger. What happens when the average age of politicians is younger than the Moon landings?