Am I completely out of it, or is there no GLXP thread on here? I couldn't find one. Anyway, things are moving on it, so I thought we ought to have one.
For the record, I just turned down my second invitation to join a team. I'm staying as an interested observer on this - for now, anyway.
There is a forum at the GLXP site as well as team info. There are a lot of people with half-baked ideas of how to go about it. The real professionals are not doing much on the forum, just working behind the scenes.
At LPSC two weeks ago, Bob Richards of Odyssey Moon invited people to propose instruments to carry on their rover - targeted to a pyroclastic deposit, probably Rima Bode or Sulpicius Gallus. And I see they have now signed an agreement to carry Celestis's lunar burials to the Moon. Richards will be here next week, and I'll be spending some time with him.
This whole thing is going to be interesting.
Phil
I remember discussing it - but it must have been elsewhere.
I'm really looking forward to the creativity that comes out of this. However, the Google cash isn't enough, imho, to do the mission in full. As a result, there needs to be some commercial return (not insignificant commercial return) and I don't know where that will come from or what it will mean for the science that may or may not get done.
With the Ansari X-Prize, there was a world of commercial sub-orbital lobs to tap into, with a lot of people prepared to pay a lot of money. I'm not sure there's money to be made in small scale lunar rovers ( unless ESA/NASA/JAXA start paying people to do them - and the spending of too much governmental money outside of the nations in question isn't going to go down too well ).
And - can anyone figure out a way to get to the surface with just a Falcon 1 sized LEO payload?
Doug
I've been thinking about the Google Lunar X Prize in the context of protecting historic sites. Transorbital, Inc. had to guarantee its end-of-mission impact (for the Trailblazer orbiter) would not harm old sites, as a condition of getting government licenses to fly the mission. GLXP specifically encourages people to land close to and visit old sites. Are these incompatible?
I have made this map of the Apollo 17 site to suggest otherwise. A rover could land in one of two relatively smooth areas near the LM and drive to within a few tens of meters of the LM (and the ALSEP just to its west) without even crossing old LRV tracks and footprints. A very accurate landing system could find landing sites just SW or N of the LM and be within the GLXP minimum traverse distance of 500 m as well.
I argue that most or all teams will need sponsorships and potential sponsors will not want the bad publicity that would come from and damage to the sites - purists might interpret that as including driving over old footprints.
Phil
Excellent post, and excellent work Phil. Preserving the historic nature and integrity of the Apollo landing sites really is something I feel strongly about, and is something that the Google people will need to sort out before hardware starts landing. I've been emailing them about it already, and although they do appreciate it is an "issue", there's a long way to go yet.
Some people might think it would be no big deal if Apollo footprints and rover tracks were disturbed by Google rovers. I disagree. These are important and historic sites, and need to be preserved for as long as possible. There will almost certainly come a day when these landing sites are visited, for genuine and scientifically sound reasons (to see how material there has been affected by long exposure to the lunar environment perhaps?), but those visits should be made by people, not robots. The only visitors allowed near to these "Apollo Heritage" sites should be trained professional astronauts who are fully aware of the significance of the sites and the hardware at them, who will make every effort to respect the sites and do as little damage to them as possible. I honestly shudder at the thought of little rovers scudding and scuffing around in the shadows of the lunar landers, obliterating the astronauts' footprints and kicking up dust everywhere.
And if that sounds a bit "rock huggy" and sentimental, or over-romantic, then fine, hands up, guilty as charged, because I seriously believe that a thousand years from now, when there are people living on Mars, Enceladus, Europa, Titan and planets orbiting other stars too perhaps, those people will look back at us, through the wrong end of the telescope of time, and will either praise us for preserving and protecting some of the most significant and - I hesitate to use the word, but I will - sacred sites in human history, or think us pitiful for allowing them to be ruined.
Also the moon is so big, why land on a place weve already seen while there are so many exciting things we haven't seen yet?!
Not sure I understand what you mean with that.
Whats there?
There's the whole of antarctica to visit - so why do so many like to visit Shackletons hut.
Why does anyone go to see the Bell X1, why take pictures of the empty lander from MER like the Lion King pan, why visit the Apollo landing sites...
It's a place of ultimate historical significance.
Or - to flip your argument - when there's so much of the moon to choose, why not choose the site the public will be most interested in from a revenue generating perspective.
Doug
It kind of makes you wonder how in the future such sites might be protected and at the same time be available for people to experience the history and the wonder of it all. I'm guessing some kind of acrylic dome structure surrounding the site where people might be able to walk across a transparent floor 10 or 20 feet above it all.
But who knows what technology will bring in the next fifty or a hundred years?
An even better reason than 'because it's there' - because GLXP will pay several million bucks extra if you do.
Phil
1969 Is not that long ago (heh and I'm only 21), I can understand if the next generations find this place interesting to revisit but this is hardly history. We have pictures and movies of the first steps on the moon, what’s a robot going to show us that those existing movies and pictures don't show already?! The place still looks exactly the same as it did 50 years ago, and you'll get exactly the same pictures as we did 50 years ago, the only difference is that they are taken by a robot instead of a human.
I agree that’s its a very important 'historic' place and I’m sure people would want to revisit it in the future, but what’s the point of revisiting it so early? It’s the only historic place that will stay the same for ages; I want to see something new now that we finally return!
We've been waiting more than 50 year for the next moon landing and we are aiming for the exact same spot to see the exact same things? How crazy is that?
Tbh I would be a lot more excited to see some never before seen landscapes; mountains, gigantic craters, strange rock formations, ice(?!),...
I think this is missing the point. Look at Astrobotic's plan; land near Apollo 11 and look at it (there are other things they could look at in the area too - Surveyor 5, Ranger 8) - then drive 300 km to Apollo 16 and look at that. There is lots of new territory along the way to look at in addition to the historic sites. That's why rovers are part of it.
As for the business to support future flights, a big one is just data. Instead of NASA flying landers and rovers, they fly their instruments (maybe as Discovery Missions of Opportunity) on a commercial lunar service. This is Odyssey Moon's business plan, with commercial add-ons like Celestis as well, but a minor component. The Discovery MOO guidelines have, I understand, just been adapted to allow MOOs on commercial missions.
Phil
It's not about making money - nor was the Ansari X Prize. It's just a subsidy, from that point of view. But also, by bringing in big names, it attracts publicity which makes sponsorships or other deals more feasible.
Phil
If pictures and movies from 1969 don't inspire them I'm not sure how new pictures of the same thing are going to inspire them instead. Hell, I don't think 8 year olds will be very excited about a robotic mission to the moon, knowing that humans did it 50 years ago.(that's actually depressing )
I've never been in front of a classroom talking about space exploration, but I’m not sure I can agree with all the things you say. I honestly can’t believe kids are more excited about robotic mission than human missions. If that’s so, why aren’t the 2 mars rovers doing their trick? I remember seeing studies that showed that kids are far less interested in space-related things now. If it’s correct what you say, we should be seeing the opposite now because we have never had so many great robotic missions at the same time.
I can understand your point about kids being familiar and more excited about robots that before, they are after all becoming part of our lives but still...
Media is also very important for kids nowadays; they have TV, movies and games. Sc-fi is an important theme and most of the time it’s about 'humans' exploring the universe, if robots show up they are most of the time the 'evil' guys (Matrix, BSG, terminator,...). I’m not sure kids like the fact that robots will replace humans when it comes to space exploration.
Kids who are really interested in space probably have seen a lot of pictures from the Apollo missions. For me (and for those kids) it would be the first moon landing during my lifetime and I would be very disappointed to see the exact same things I’ve seen on all those pictures and movies from 1969.
So IMO kids who are interested in space will be disappointed, kids who are not interested in space just don't care; its a far-from-bed show 'with robots exploring a world far far away where people once walked but never returned'....
If you want to have a slap fight about education - do so elsewhere.
D
I've made a map showing the various places on the Moon indicated in public statements as potential landing sites for the GLXP teams. Teams not named on the map have not announced a site yet. There should be more news after the Team Summit at ISU later this month.
Phil
NOT liking the "Tranquility Trek", Astrobotic, or Frednet ideas at first glance for reasons previously stated in this thread ; http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.nasm.si.edu/collections/imagery/apollo/FIGURES/LandingSitesMaps.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.nasm.si.edu/collections/imagery/apollo/AS11/a11landsite.htm&h=624&w=638&sz=99&hl=en&start=3&tbnid=NrlLLPWRmBARFM:&tbnh=134&tbnw=137&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dapollo%2Blanding%2Bsites%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DG are the Apollo sites. Looks uncomfortably close.
Might be time to petition for a ground rule: hands off Apollo 11. I honestly don't have a problem with visiting the other Apollo sites, but Tranquility Base is sacrosanct as an integral, known transition point for the very history of life on Earth, and they would be doing a grave disservice to all of our descendants by disturbing it.
The disturbance issue is going to be big, and I'll be presenting on it at Ames in July. (well, if they accept my abstract). I think it very likely that they will land safely nearby and drive to within 10 or 20 m - to get a good view but without disturbing anything. I would (will) argue the same for all Apollo and robotic sites, in fact, but Apollo 11 is even more important. There is a proposal in place to have it designated a US National Historic Landmark:
http://www.space.com/news/spacehistory/save_footprints_000418.html
and see also:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1988LPICo.652..234S
(I would now go for smaller parks!)
But I don't think this should preclude respectful observation and imaging of the site.
Phil
Glad to hear this, Phil. One other constraint must be brought up (which you've probably thought of already, but haven't read your links yet): the rover's landing ellipse can't contain Tranquility Base. I just had this nightmare vision of the thing landing right on top of the descent stage, or the flag, or cocked against the landing leg with the ladder and obliterating Armstrong's first footprint...
The landing ellipse issue is very important, and I have to say most people involved in GLXP (I really mean the participants on their forum, rather than official teams) haven't thought any of this through, assuming instead that they can land on a dime (assuming they can find one on the Moon). Astrobotic are on the ball, with partners Raytheon - and Odyssey Moon are too - I'm being critical of the others when I say that.
Phil
Well, I'd concede that the lack of atmosphere contributes favorably to targeting accuracy, but also have to assume that most of the proposals will be direct landings (no insertion into lunar orbit beforehand) for cost savings. I'd go for a 500m clearance guarantee, and if they land too far away to reach the site, well, them's the breaks; even if it crashes in, the damage to the site should be minimal, if any.
I would agree that I would hate to see an x-prize lander go splat onto the Apollo 11 site. However, in the longterm, I strongly disagree with totally avoiding the sites. I think a better solution, should human moon travel become a regular thing, would be to have a restricted path - perhaps marked out by a rover's tracks, carefully targeted to not cross over anything - through which one can pass. I don't see any point in preserving the sites if no one can see them.
Here's an idea: you disturb ANYTHING at Tranquility Base within 50m of Eagle, you're instantly disqualified. Simple.
It wouldn't be acceptable to go pull pieces off Scott's Antarctic hut, would it? Or hack a piece out of the Liberty Bell? Or spray paint a message on the side of what's left of the Titanic? Or stomp all over those preserved human footprints in Africa?
This needs sorting out, in a way that leaves doubt and no wriggle-room.
Here's an interesting tidbit... was quite amazed no-one had thought to do this before... wish I had! It's obvious when you think about it...
http://moonpans.com/Neil_Armstrong_on_the_moon.htm
People who care about the protection of these sites should contact the GLXP or take part in the forum on their site:
http://www.googlelunarxprize.org/
The rules are still being worked out.
Phil
On the Google Lunar X-Prize website, a YouTube video from one of the teams ("http://www.googlelunarxprize.org/lunar/teams/astrobotic") refers to their rover "seeing, at some point, the US flag, or the remains of it... the footprints of the astronauts and, up close, the plaque..." Now, how they're going to see those things - especially "up close" - without disturbing the site is beyond me.
Yeah...esp. with that little robot-vacuum-cleaner-looking rover.
Starting to get a chilly feeling down my spine that TB may be much less than intact by the time the next human visits it...
I'm going to make http://journals.aol.com/stuartatk/Cumbrian-Sky/entries/2008/05/04/preserving-tranquility-base/3610 the subject of my next Carnival of Space entry, see what people "out there" think, try and get some debate and discussion going. I tried getting on to the GLXP forum but keep getting "Access Denied" even tho I'm logged on and everything... Try again later. I'll email Astrobotic directly tho, raise my concerns with them.
This http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080212-st-lunar-sandblast.html on Space.com discusses how difficult it will be to keep anything free of dust that's anywhere near a vehicle landing on the Moon. Incredible as it sounds, analysis of the videos from the Apollo landings showed that some of the dust was actually accelerated nearly to escape velocity by the LM's descent module engines. The article discusses how dust was forced into a small inspection hole on the Surveyor 3 camera that was oriented in the direction of the Intrepid...from more than 600 feet away, dust was blasted into that opening! Can you imagine what kind of damage could be done to the "pristine" Apollo sites by any kind of vehicle landing within even kilometers of the sites?
Jeez... ...thanks, ILB!
I'm sure that none of the proposed landers will use a descent engine even a hundredth as powerful as the LM's, but it damn sure is another consideration in this debate.
Knowing luck, we will take all sorts of drastic measures to protect the Apollo 11 site, only to find when we take our next sufficiently high resolution picture of the place that a wayward meteor has turned it into a nice little crater. The odds are long, but things like that have a way of happening.
Looks like http://www.space.com/news/spacehistory/save_footprints_000418.html feel the same about preserving TB, too...
I'm 100% behind the principle of preserving the Tranquility base site, but the cynic in me feels that human greed will triumph eventually and the site will be interfered with by private adventurers - maybe not in my lifetime, but at some point in the future.
It's in 'international waters' if you will, just as is the wreck of the Titanic, and we all know how that has been unforgivably plundered by treasure-hunters and curio-seekers.
How much would a millionaire collector pay for a piece of gold insulation from the lander? or for the remains of the flag or plaque? The sort of money generated by the sale of such items may in time themselves finance part or all of a mission to the moon.
I hope I'm wrong.
Sadly, I'm 100000% certain that you're right, and that one day some entrepeneur or "adventurer" will go to Tranquility Base and plunder it for financial gain. And I don't think there'll be anything anyone can do to stop it because it'll be done on the quiet, or in total secrecy, and the damage will be done by the time the pieces of foil, or scraps of flag material, are unveiled to the world's media in a flashbulb-lit pre bidding war frenzy...
But this is a high profile, public competition, and with no hardware flown yet, no landings attempted yet, and blueprints, timelines and mission plans still stretched out on desks and tables in universities, workshops and labs around the world, there's still, I feel, a chance for people, and public opinion, to influence the Teams and the competition organisers and ensure that at least on this occasion the Right Thing is done.
We have to at least try. Don't we?
From historian D.C. Watt:
“To destroy the relics of the past is, even in small things, a kind of amputation, a self-mutilation not so much of limbs as of the memory and imagination.”
Good point, but it does suggest an element of "dashing for the prize" don't-spare-the-horses thinking, dontcha think?
Full inline quote removed. - Doug.
It does; but is that thinking realistic?
Their site's frustratingly short on details. However - whilst I can believe the assembled engineering clue are capable of producing a working rover, I can't see how they can get it onto the moon unless someone gifts them several hundred million dollars for a commercial launch, and - how much for developing a transfer stage and landing capability, which are less available off the shelf?
No, imipak, several hundred million dollars is way out of line for a launch. Several tens of millions is more like it (this has been the subject of a lot of discussion on their forum). And one Astrobotic team component is Raytheon - at least, a group from Raytheon working privately on this project. They have a lot of expertise, it's not just a group of rover builders. Some other teams plan to launch themselves - unrealistic, in my view.
I understand that Astrobotic expect to pay for a commercial launch, and the Raytheon people will design the transfer stage and lander. The whole thing might cost $80 million, and they are now raising money for it. We all know that will be hard, but Astrobotic are as well prepared as anybody to do it. As things stand now I think there are only two serious contenders, Astrobotic being one of them. The 40th anniversary of Apollo 11 seems too close to me, I think another year will be needed.
Phil
What is the other one?
I'm not saying! Can't afford to alienate everybody else... but if a certain person reads this he'll know his team is the one.
Phil
"I still don't see how it can be done without huge amount (say $80m) of corporate charity"
I know what you mean. But they don't regard it as charity. I confess I don't know that this is possible, but the major teams are looking at ways to earn that money.
Astrobotic had links with the old Lunacorp, and has some of the same plans for selling video and other content as entertainment. Odyssey Moon issued a request for Information in March to get ideas for science instruments they could carry, and NASA's Missions of Opportunity guidelines have just been changed (as I understand) to allow Discovery Program money to fund instruments on commercial missions. So they are looking at sources of income to recoup their costs. To my mind the Odyssey Moon plan looks more realistic - though the time needed to make it all happen might delay the landing too much for the prize. Astrobotic has to raise the money up front and then hope to recoup it by selling content - which might be hard to do.
Some other teams have plans that do seem to rely on charity. Those, I think, will not get off the ground. But the antigravity team might get off the ground. I can't see anything holding them back.
Phil
“To destroy the relics of the past is, even in small things, a kind of amputation, a self-mutilation not so much of limbs as of the memory and imagination.”
The Apollo artifacts on the Moon will last far longer than anything in museums on Earth. Being put in a museum is the last stage in the existance of valued artifacts, as they tend to be in 'prestige' cities which are eventually destroyed. I would prefer the objects in New York and Washington D.C. be dispersed into smaller places away from 'target locations'. The Kansas 'Cosmosphere' could well become the largest collection of space flight artifacts within the lifetimes of some group members.
Apollo 11 may be sacred, but to me not all landing sites are created equal. If I had to pick an Apollo site worth revisiting, it would be Apollo 14. The Lunar surface television from that mission was the poorest of the colour cameras used, due to a defect causing 'spreading' of bright parts of the image. It would be interesting to see if there was anything left of the nylon flags. If they are intact there might be a trace of blue pigment left, but the red would be bleached out of all sun exposed surfaces. Examination of the LM descent stage for micrometeorite pits, etc. after a long exposure to Lunar conditions would be useful in planning for hoped for Lunar bases. It would be nice to finally see the interior of 'Cone Crater' before pushing on to parts unknown.
Apollo 15 would be a close second, because the Hadley Rille scenery is worth revisiting. Otherwise I would put a rover down at 'Ina', the glassy looking formation once called the 'D' Cauldera'. The source pit of the Io like volcanic 'ring' sprayed across southwestern mare Orientale would be interesting to examine close up. So would be the youngest lava flow on the Moon, wherever that is determined to be.
Don
Very good point really in your last, Don. Why the hell should we revisit places we've been to before at this stage of the game?
The Moon has plus or minus the same surface area as Africa, and we've seen very, very little of it up close & personal. Surely it would be more prudent--and obviously far more scientifically productive-- to set down an X-lander in a previously unexplored region of geological interest, if feasible.
I know that scientific productivity might not be on the minds of the competitors right now, but in the long run it had better be. NASA might well decide to subcontract UMSF to vendors that demonstrate robust capabilities someday, and this sure looks to me like an early chance to shine in that regard.
That is exactly the rationale of Odyssey Moon.
Phil
I wish them luck; seems as if my opinions & theirs are fairly congruent.
heh nprev thats the point I've been trying to make, look how that turned out
If you're referring to http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=5050&view=findpost&p=112199, then, yeah, I'm pretty much with you.
I would actually love to see the Apollo sites again to see what's become of them after 30+ years of exposure to lunar conditions, but seems like there's so much new ground to be covered that it would be a waste for this initiative.
Yeah, but... I have this image of Buzz Aldrin, in his pajamas, a la Bedford at the end of the film "The First Men in the Moon," exclaiming, "That.. that's where we were!"
-the other Doug
Okay, NOW I have to go get my brain flashburned to purge the mental image...thanks, oDoug!
You can always add to that "Poor Neil -- he did have such an awful cold..."
-the other Doug
<removes creaking 386 space-certified processor from cranium, reluctantly dips it in a concentrated HCL bath....>
Okay. Better now. What just happened?
Here is photographic evidence that the Apollo 11 landing site is still intact in the year 3000:
(the ascent module was returned by the Historical Sticklers Society):
Unfortunately, Neil Armstrong's historic footprints were obliterated by some idiot delivery boy:
Fortunately, a disreputable robot, that might have stolen the entire site, was otherwise occupied:
Bill
Hey...nobody saw me, you can't prove anything, that ain't my kid, I was drunk, and I want a lawyer!!!
I am, however, gratified to know that apparently via an extraordinarily fortunate quantum fluctuation (undoubtedly induced by the Historical Stickler's Society, whose powers are shrouded in the deepest secrecy) the ascent stage of Eagle did not crash into the lunar surface after Armstrong and Aldrin transferred back to Columbia and departed for Earth, but instead was placed safely back upon the descent stage. That's some good quantum fluxin' there, yes, sir...
(Really no kidding like the phrase "disreputable robot", BTW, Mongo... ...hilarious!!! )
Cease this friviolity at once!
And now for something completely different. The new issue of Smithsonian magazine has an article on this topic. One point to reassure some people - Astrobotic talks about viewing from a distance with a telephoto lens, not driving right up to the LM.
Phil
A terrifying glimpse into the future...?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=HODkJABWo08
Stop that nostalgic, wistful sighing at once...!
...now there's a blast from the past! Thanks, Stu!!!
Yeah, there was an ABC Movie of the Week called Salvage where Andy Griffith built a rocket & pillaged the Apollo sites; later it became a short-lived series. Kind of wonder if it may have influenced some of the GLXP participants, actually.
Four new GLXP teams announced, and one new landing site at Apollo 12. I've updated my landing map.
Phil
... and then there were 13. One GLXP team has dropped out citing philosophical differences and some concerns about how XPF treated them at the recent team summit, as well as funding issues. I would expect a bit of a shakedown in the next little while, as teams find out how hard it is to obtain funding.
Phil
Thanks for that, Astroblogger, really appreciate your feedback on this very important issue. Good to know that you're aware of the concerns many people have, and are open to input from them.
One of our favourite PI's gets involved in the Google Lunar X-Prize - http://www.livescience.com/blogs/2008/06/18/former-nasa-executive-joins-private-moon-effort/ in a part time consulting role.
Thanks for this, Astroblogger. This is a very flat site, and I would see few problems with approaches from either the east or the west. A landing west of the LM would not be far from a secondary crater cluster called Cat's Paw - its rim was visible as a low hill on the horizon in Apollo 11 panoramas. That would make a nice target as well, climbing the gentle slopes of the crater rim to enjoy the views from the top, including a look back at Tranquillity Base in the distance. And Surveyor 5 isn't far away, though its position is a little uncertain.
Phil
The only thing we need to be reasonably careful of, landing close to Tranquility Base, is to make *certain* that even if your targeting is a bit off, you don't run the risk of blasting the historic area with rocket exhaust or pelting it with dust blown by said exhaust.
From the various sources that came out of Apollo, I'd have to think that we can model the closest safe distances from the historic site that you can allow overflights (at various altitudes) and landings.
-the other Doug
Here is a map of the Apollo 11 site superimposed on a baseball diamond
<credit to Bruce Wyman of the Denver Art Museum and NASA>
Using some ideas already discussed here - including an idea from nprev - I have put together this poster (grossly reduced to fit on here) for the NASA Lunar Science Conference at Ames in two weeks.
Phil
Edit: I have updated the poster. And fixed the attachment problem...
Looks great, Phil! Very honored by your acknowledgement; thanks, happy to help!
Very nice, Phil!
Just one caution (and I know, this is so obtuse it's beyond belief) -- your southwest "safe" landing zone at the Descartes site, located just west of Survey Ridge and just north of Wreck and Stubby, was reported by Young and Duke to be a pretty deep depression in the local lurrain. While the sides of this old depression are shallower than the sides of the larger craters in the area, the topo maps are a little misleading. Survey Ridge (just west of the return leg of the EVA-2 plot) was a very steep slope on its east side, and at the one point where the crew could look over to the other side (south of the beginning of the ridge), they estimated the western side of the ridge dipped down quite a bit further than the east side they traversed. This general impression is also borne out by the pans taken from up the side of Stone Mountain.
Unfortunately, their plan to climb to the top of the ridge and head back north along it had to be scrapped when they discovered the power to the rover's rear wheels was off. With only the front wheels powered, the rover was actually unable to climb the east side of the ridge, even angled north along it. Tells you just how steep that ridge actually was.
(Good thing that, at their next stop, the crew found the power problem to the rear wheels was due to a circuit breaker misconfiguration...)
-the other Doug
Good stuff, Phil. However, I have an issue with the preservation of tracks and footprints.
In the UK we have organisations such as English Heritage and Historic Scotland to protect historical sites from the blatant effects of vandalism and trophy-hunting, and to (gently) control access by members of the public in order to preserve the sites as much as possible for posterity. Preservation for posterity naturally implies "future visitors"...yet a trip to Stonehenge or Skara Brae is many magnitudes easier for anyone on the planet than a trip to the lunar surface, and it's likely to stay that way for generations: possibly to a time when footprints and tracks are considerably degraded.
I'm all for the preservation of the material artifacts - they're in an environment which should allow them considerably more longevity than most Earth-based equivalents - but I'd personally draw the line at staying clear of tracks. We know, for example, that there's no "first footprint" we can gaze at in awe in some future decade: it was trampled by Aldrin just a few minutes later, and all subsequent prints near the LM presumably (largely) blasted away during lift-off.
Why not treat these sites just like normal, historical, "built sites" on Earth: take care of the artifacts, look but don't touch, only take photos, only leave (new) footprints..?
Andy
I don't suggest tracks or footprints should be inviolable for all time, only that they should be avoided if possible and until the regulatory regime is defined. In other words, keep GLXP rovers off the tracks for now. I just edited the poster and replaced the file.
Phil
I posted a map earlier showing previous landing or impact sites, and then a GLXP site proposal map.
Now I'm adding a map showing all known landing or impact sites on the nearside. It's off topic a bit (though GLXP teams interested in the heritage prize might like it) but I thought people might like to see it. A few are VERY uncertain, especially the Luna 2 upper stage and Lunar Orbiter 4.
Phil
Great map, Phil, thanks for posting! I had not seen anything that had all of the impact sites shown. I thought it was especially interesting to see how clustered the S-IVB impacts were. I did not know that they all hit in essentially the same general area, which I find intriguing since the launches from Earth were at different phases of the moon.
I did this partly because I don't know of any other map that shows everything.
The background is a composite of USGS relief and Clementine albedo.
later, I'll get around to adding other text, grid labels and so on.
Phil
That's a keeper, Phil!
*looks around for a high quality printer*
This is the farside map. Of course, these are very heavily compressed to fit here. The originals are 4000 by 4000 pixels.
I have done this because we are going to get a lot of new points soon. In the next year there should be 4 new impacts (Chandrayaan's MIP, Kaguya's Rstar subsatellite, LCROSS (2 events but one point on the map) and Kaguya itself about 6 months after its primary mision ends. Kaguya's Vstar satellite will remain in orbit for about a decade.
After that there will be various other end of mission impacts, the ILN landers, and Chandrayaan 2, Selene 2, Chang-e 2 etc., and whatever comes from the GLXP (link to thread topic slipped in at the last minute!)
Please point out any omissions or (shudder) errors.
Phil
Astrobotic have now released a list of future missions they are planning to fly, with the Google Lunar X Prize only the first. The list is here:
http://astrobotictechnology.com/
(lower left box on that page).
They are the team with the earliest projected launch date, May 2010. Odyssey Moon are another very promising team, but their planned first launch is in 2011. They also plan further missions including one to the south pole. I still expect that raising money will be the biggest problem. It's also quite possible that early missions will experience failures, so the ability to continue after a failure is another prerequisite for success.
Phil
And here.....
http://www.livescience.com/blogs/author/leonarddavid/
... (Oct. 30 blog) is a story about Odyssey Moon making all the right connections for its lander development work.
There are only a few teams who can be said to have a chance at this competition, and these two are the frontrunners by any reasonable criteria. There are other serious teams, but they have a lot to do to catch up. And then there are the teams who are too far behind to have a chance. They will either drop out, probably fairly soon, or join other teams to combine their expertise. That's my take, anyway, and I'm following this very closely.
Mike - you're right to be skeptical, as we have seen other companies like Applied Space Resources (anyone remember them? I had dinner with them once in Houston) and Transorbital start a lunar project and then fail for lack of money. The thing that's different now is the new opportunities to cooperate with NASA, such as Discovery Missions of Opportunity funding, and more interest in purchasing services along the lines of COTS. I believe there's a chance that this can work, though I suspect the six missions Astrobotic are outlining may be rather too optimistic.
Phil
I fully appreciate the funding difficulties! I have seen plans like this come and go over the last decade, and been associated with one or two of them in a minor way. I accept that one possible outcome of the GLXP will be that no flight will ever occur, but I think the situation is more positive now than it was a decade ago for Applied Space Resources, Transorbital, IdeaLab and Lunarcorp. So we'll see. Personally, I do expect a few attempts on the prize. It is less clear to me that the sustained program promoted by Astrobotic can succeed. But it is an interesting story, and I am documenting it carefully.
Phil
Knowing several people who worked for BlastOff! ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BlastOff!_Corporation ) I'll believe it when I see it.
Quite - I wouldn't have invested in that!
Phil
http://www.googlelunarxprize.org/lunar/teams/odyssey-moon/blog/odyssey-moon-to-fly-%E2%80%9Cmoonshot%E2%80%9D-dutch-science-instrument
Odyssey Moon gets another customer.
Phil
I'm still following the GLXP news... and here's some information about Astrobotic's plans. Last year they announced a series of six missions. Now there is a revised list. Here's a link:
http://astrobotictechnology.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/astrobotic-product-and-services.pdf
The changes to note are that (1) all missions are delayed about 6 months (first three) or a year (last three), and (2) the 4th mission was to be a seismic node for the International Lunar Network, but it's now replaced with a Lava Tube Explorer. That's assuming they can find an entrance to a lava tube, something which is not yet known to exist.
Raising money for this endeavour is harder than building a moon lander! - and the current economic situation isn't helping, obviously. (thinks - will the deadline be extended?)
Phil
For those interested, Spaceflight Now has an update on the Odyssey Moon project:
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0908/12beagle/
In case anyone is following the Google Lunar X Prize... the loonytune element has finally exhausted the patience of site moderators, and the GLXP forum has been locked (Thanks for nothing, Sock Puppet!). Meanwhile the number of registered teams has risen to 21 (plus two withdrawn teams), a Romanian team is getting ready to launch an experimental rocket very soon, and the teams I consider the front runners are letting their launch dates slip, presumably due to difficulty raising funds. That of course has been a perennial problem for commercial lunar missions.
Phil
Astrobotic offers to fly your experiment... (for a price)
http://www.googlelunarxprize.org/lunar/teams/astrobotic/blog/expanded-payload-opportunities-now-available
Phil
Numerous developments in the Google Lunar X Prize in the last few months. Most important perhaps is the new set of NASA contracts for technical information (precision landing, lunar night survivability and so on), for six teams. I've been collecting information on landing sites, so here's an updated map of announced sites. Frednet might go to any of the five sites with laser reflectors, though I've only noted them at Apollo 11. STELLAR also has considered other sites. If anyone knows of other sites I could add to this I would be grateful for the information.
Phil
Thanks for the update, Phil; was wondering what the latest & greatest was with GXP.
One other thing I could have added... I always regarded Odyssey moon as a leading contender, but they have not updated their website for over a year. Recently their leader, Bob Richards, quit, and resurfaced in a 'new' team, Moon Express, which has evolved out of another team. Moon Express is one of the winners of the recent NASA data purchase competition.
Richard Speck, leader of Micro-Space, has just died, casting doubt on the future of that team.
Phil
Resurrecting a long-dormant thread... as things are finally moving towards success (or failure). I have supported the basic concept of private missions to the Moon for quiite a while now, but it has been very slow going, and as expected the greatest difficulties arose from raising money and mastering technology.
I think GLXP started out naively assuming that a few techies working in a garage somewhere could design a moon lander using off-the-shelf materials and fly cheaply to the Moon. Well, off the shelf doesn't cut it, and the cheap launches expected at the time faded away (Falcon 1) or didn't materialise. The new entrants in that field are untested, though I think Rocket Lab have a shot.
So where are we now? Five teams reached the mandatory launch agreements before the end of 2016 and can proceed. They are SpaceIL, Indus, Hakuto, Moon Express and Synergy Moon. Hakuto flies with Team Indus, not on its own. Long-time favourite Astrobotic is delaying until 2019 and so not in the GLXP competition any more. PTScientists made a booking with a ride-share broker (to fly as a secondary payload on another launch) but as the broker did not have a slot in place soon enough they lost out, but may still fly later.
There is a nice abstract at LPSC this year:
http://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2017/pdf/1914.pdf
about SpaceIL's landing site planning. Quite well planned, I must say. Three candidates so far, all at magnetic anomalies. The other teams have not published much about site selection, though Synergy Moon had a past study on the Apollo 17 site: http://www.synergymoon.com/ELSa.pdf
Moon Express has hinted at landing near Surveyor 7, and certainly in the southern mid-latitudes. Team Indus has a site in Oceanus Procellarum: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.3266.pdf .
PTScientists have suggested landing near Apollo 17 and examining its roving vehicle. And Astrobotic has a site in Lacus Mortis near a 'skylight' pit.
Here's a map of currently suggested sites:
Interesting re SpaceIL's site selection strategy. They looking for large iron-nickel meteorites?
Good one! Mike, you were always much more sceptical than I was about the ultimate success of GLXP. I'd say you have been 90% correct so far. I'm just hoping I can still get my 10%. If nothing else, it makes a good story in a certain forthcoming book.
Phil
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)