Should We Land on the Moon's Poles or Equator?

Cujo writes "There is at present a lively controversy about sites for a crewed lunar landing. Advocates for landing near the poles, possibly on a mountain, point out the advantages of much higher sunlight availability and possible water resources in nearby cold traps. However, there may be more interesting geology and better mineral resources near the better-explored equator. NASA's Exploration Systems Architecture report lays out some of the tradeoffs."

Comments

Re:Dark Side of The Moon

[TopShelf]

Please forgive if my sarcasm detector is on the fritz, but you do know that the moon's rotation coincides with its orbit around the Earth, not the Sun, right? There is no side of the moon that's permanently dark...

Re:promise me the moon

[YrWrstNtmr]

finally allocate some $$ to NASA

You have a funny definition of the word 'finally'.

"Congress voted Saturday to give NASA all of the $16.2 billion it sought for 2005"

"Congress on Wednesday approved a $16.5 billion budget for NASA, fully funding the administration's moon-Mars exploration initiative for a second consecutive year."

Re:I've always wanted to know the answer to this:

[AJWM]

it has been suggested that the best way to counter the myth that the moon landing was faked is to go back to the moon and bring back something

Pete Conrad and Alan Bean did that on Apollo 12. They landed within sight and easy walking distance of Surveyor III, which had landed a few years earlier, and cut off and brought back part of the scoop arm and the TV camera. They're in the Smithsonian.

Didn't convince anyone who wanted not to be convinced.

Oh, and the Hubble's software won't let it be pointed anywhere near the Moon (or Sun, or Earth) without closing the "lens cap" (sun shield), so as to avoid burning out extremely sensitive instruments.

However, with the right equipment you can bounce a laser off the laser retroreflector panels the Apollo missions left, and see that.

whiners

[raquor]

This post is for those of you that think the space program is a waste of time:
http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html

Educate yourselves.
For those of you that are too freakin lazy to go to the site here is a sample of what we get from the space program:

1. Computer Technology - NASA Spinoffs
   • Advanced keyboards, Customer Service Software, Database Management System, Laser Surveying, Aircraft controls, Lightweight Compact Disc, Expert System Software, Microcomputers, and Design Graphics.
2. Consumer/Home/Recreation - NASA Spinoffs
   • Dustbuster, shock-absorbing helmets, home security systems, smoke detectors, flat panel televisions, high-density batteries, trash compactors, food packaging and freeze-dried technology, cool sportswear, sports bras, hair styling appliances, fogless ski goggles, self-adjusting sunglasses, composite golf clubs, hang gliders, art preservation, and quartz crystal timing equipment.

Now quit whining and go back to your boring job like the rest of us. Quit wasting your employers money here whining.

Interesting wikipedia pages

[morcheeba]

I found these two wikipedia articles really informative...

Far side of the moon ... the far side has a different texture compared to the near side - it is battered and densely-cratered, and doesn't have the dark spots (maria) that the near side has. The crust of the Moon is 40 km thicker on the far side.

Libration ... because of the way the moon rotates, we can actually see 59% its surface -- not the 50% you'd expect. See this excellent graphic for an explanation.