Protecting the Apollo Landing Sites From Later Landings

R3d M3rcury writes "The Lunar X-Prize is a contest offering $20 million to the first private organization to land and maneuver a robotic rover on the moon. There is also a $1 million bonus to anyone who can get a picture of a man-made object on the moon. But one archeologist believes that 'The sites of early lunar landings are of unparalleled significance in the history of humanity, and extraordinary caution should be taken to protect them.' He's concerned that we may end up with rover tracks destroying historic artifacts, such as Neil Armstrong's first bootprint, or that a mistake could send a rocket slamming into a landing site. He calls on the organizers to ban any contestant from landing within 100KM of a prior moon landing site. Now he seems to think this just means Apollo. What about the Luna and Surveyor landers? What about the Lunokhod rovers? Are they fair game?"

Comments

That's retarded

[nocomment]

We have a picture of it right? Seriously what if every time somebody did something new that spot was forbidden to be stepped on again? asinine. What if nobody as allowed to visit the beach of Columbus's first landing sites? BFD, send a plaque or something and stop wasting your time worrying about whether a footprint is going to disappear someday. It will.

Re:That's retarded

[Anonymous Coward]

There's already a plaque attached to the base of the Eagle Lander, so... all set.

I say the rovers should drive wherever the hell the operators want. Besides, it's stupid to think that Armstrong and Aldrin wouldn't have messed up the first footprint since it was, you know, right at the bottom of the ladder and in a high traffic area.

Re:That's retarded

[Psychotria]

I can't believe the current trend of comments regarding this story. Of course it should be fucking preserved. Yes, one day the footprint will disappear. I don't see any reason to accelerate natural processes though. It's kind of the same as graffiti artists (vandals) spray painting their names all over the Grand Canyon. Why should we waste our time trying to stop them, it's going to erode away anyway?

 

What if nobody as allowed to visit the beach of Columbus's first landing sites?

What if they did? Your sheltered life would probably be no worse off.

Re:That's retarded

[phoenix321]

People who spray paint anything on the Grand Canyon should be shot on sight. Several times, just to be sure. It's bad enough they ruined all vertical and non-vertical walls in our cities, but willfully damaging natural monuments as important and incredible as the Grand Canyon for no reason other than pure asshattery is over the line.

Graffiti sprayers should be incarcerated for decades anyway, but in the case of natural world wonders of this scale I have zero tolerance for them using up any more of our oxygen. Graffiti sprayers are worse than thieves, because the results of their actions are visible years from now and their damages may be much higher than that of even professional shoplifters. And their actions are done for really no reason other than to imprint their name on everything they see. Which only a small circle of their fellow jerks can even read or recognize.

Anyone who's ever been to an Asian country will instantly recognize how large the effect and impact of widespread graffiti in any environment really is, because there's absolutely no Graffiti to speak of, only some sprayed rogue advertisements. Visible graffiti means law enforcement is far or ineffective and there's people around who don't respect others or others property. That feels less safe and emboldens others that law enforcement really IS ineffective and/or nobody cares about their wrongdoings.

It's becoming impossible to uphold even the most basic laws fifteen to twenty years after social norms are not enforced anymore.

Re:That's retarded

[Paltin]

I've been to Colombus' first landing site on San Salvador island, Bahamas.. Or actually, several of them. They're not exactly sure which spot it is, and so they just put up several monuments. Does it matter? No.

You still get the same feeling of wonder and amazement.

The physical place isn't the event; the event will survive changes to the place.

Re:That's retarded

[digitalhermit]

Ever read _A Canticle for Leibowitz_? It's one of my favorites, particularly because it pokes fun at our tendency to sanctify the innocuous. In the book an ancient relic is found, something from antiquity. Turns out to be a shopping list from a guy who works a 9 to 5 job. There's another short story called "Motel of the Mysteries" that does a similar thing, except that toilet seats become some ancient religious headdressing.

The knowledge is what we need to hold dear, not the artifacts created in search of that knowledge. It's nice in a saccharine sort of way to have tangible evidence of where someone stood, but the real treasure is what that person did. If we sanctify the artifacts we tend to lose sight of the knowledge.

Re:That's retarded

[fotbr]

I know it is cliche and all, but I'm still impressed by NASA's achievements in the 60s and 70s. That photo, for instance -- fly 240,000 miles (give or take a few orbits) one way, and park within walking distance of a rover sent up 3 years earlier.

Now we piddle around in low earth orbit with tremendously expensive and fragile craft, while the bureaucracy can't make up its mind about what NASA should be doing. Sigh.

Ugh

[Xenkar]

Great, now we'll need to deal with the lunar version of NIMBYs. I was personally looking forward to Hydrogen 3 and titanium surface mining on the Moon. I want vast robotic factories on the Moon so we can start mass producing segments for cylinder-type space colonies. I want to be able to retire in one of those space colonies.

It is a shame that some people exist merely to hold the rest of us back from our ideal Star Trek future with green alien babes.

Re:100km is excessive

[MichaelSmith]

How many places would remain if all those spots are banned? There are only so much good landing sites on the Moon.

At the current rate there are enough landing sites to keep us busy for a couple of thousand years.

Idolatry

[medoc]

This is ridiculous idolatry. It's not like there is something we *don't* know about these events, there is nothing to discover there, and hence nothing to protect, as opposed to an archeological site.

Re:Idolatry

[MichaelSmith]

This is ridiculous idolatry. It's not like there is something we *don't* know about these events, there is nothing to discover there, and hence nothing to protect, as opposed to an archeological site.

I would vote for preserving the apollo 11 landing site. The first footsteps on the moon represented a fundamental advance for our species. Maybe in 100000 years people will argue about when and where it happened. Much as we debate the migration out of africa.

Uhhh....

[PhantomHarlock]

The first bootprint was likely obliterated by the lunar ascent engine exhaust on the way out. Hello!

Sea of Tranquility National Park

[metaforest]

Why not? I personally think that preserving the artifacts of the first moon landing should be considered important.

Though realistically.... Neil Armstrong's first boot print was most likely obliterated when the LEM blasted off.

There's a lot of moon up there. I see no reason to disturb the existing landing sites until we have the means to preserve them properly.

Bletchley Park

[Concerned Onlooker]

So, do you feel the same about Bletchley Park? It's not a simple question. There ARE things we sometimes like to see preserved for the awe inspiring value they have for posterity. I don't know about all the sites on the moon but I'd vote for the first landing site of anything ever (Russian?) and the spot where a human being first walked.

That's retarded, and more than you think

[TiggertheMad]

whether a footprint is going to disappear someday. It will

If it hasn't been already destroyed. Wasn't the photo of where he first stepped on the moon next to the lander? Wouldn't the lander module have toasted the ground around it when it fired it's engines up to re-enter lunar orbit?

Of course, what is the point of preserving a site that nobody can really go to anyway? Sure, if someone went there, they could 'ruin' the artifacts that remain, but who cares? It's not like anyone can visit the site and appreciate it. The best you could hope for would be to preserve it for future generations' camera equipped robotic lunar rovers.

Re:if man ever sets foot on the moon again

[Supurcell]

I propose that each new footprint be protected more so than the last.

Re:Footprints? meh! keep the tech? yes

[hey!]

In a way this argument reminds me of Bill Gates about ten years ago talking about how some day people would have wall that could display art work from the great masters. Now, I think that's the good thing, but it's not the same as having an actual Picasso on your wall. Would you feel different about owning a baseball used by and signed by Jackie Robinson, or one that had his signature printed on it? Would you feel the same about touching an Apollo specification moon boot and touching the actual one used by Neil Armstrong?

Once in a college class I got to handle a human brain. It was, to me at least, an awe inspiring experience. The thing was pickled and pre-dissected so it came apart like a puzzle block. So far was we knew, the information that was once in it was gone forever. Yet somehow I had the feeling I was holding an entire universe in my hand, even though now it was only a thing.

That's the crux. We feel that things, authentic things connected to an event or person somehow connect us.

It's not a rational feeling.

But then again, it's not really an irrational feeling either. It's arational. It needs no justification other than it exists. It's a fact of life, a facet of human experience, one of the things that makes life worth living.

Where we run into trouble is when we have to put this human value into the scales with other kinds of values. Is a Jackie Robinson baseball worth a human life? Of course not. Is the Apollo 11 site worth sacrificing future human technological process? No.

But that's not what we have here.

We have a proposal to send a rover to one of the historic landing sites. Why? Because they're cool. The value in this proposal is predicated on the connection value of the place. But the ethical question is this: in exploiting that value, how much of it do they destroy? How much of it do they leave for the rest of the human race?

I think if scientific value is our touchstone, the rovers should go where no observers have gone before.