Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Phil Stooke Mar 28 2008, 08:53 PM

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

Posted by: djellison Mar 28 2008, 09:26 PM

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

Posted by: ugordan Mar 28 2008, 09:30 PM

Is it http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?showtopic=4582?

Posted by: Phil Stooke Apr 11 2008, 04:38 PM

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

Posted by: Stu Apr 11 2008, 06:53 PM

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.

Posted by: Betelgeuze Apr 11 2008, 09:11 PM

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?!

Posted by: climber Apr 11 2008, 09:18 PM

Because it's there...

Posted by: Betelgeuze Apr 11 2008, 11:17 PM

Not sure I understand what you mean with that.

Whats there?

Posted by: djellison Apr 11 2008, 11:30 PM

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

Posted by: ElkGroveDan Apr 11 2008, 11:38 PM

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?

Posted by: Phil Stooke Apr 11 2008, 11:50 PM

An even better reason than 'because it's there' - because GLXP will pay several million bucks extra if you do.

Phil

Posted by: stevesliva Apr 11 2008, 11:53 PM

Given the name "climber" I'd assume that he was quoting George Mallory's justification for climbing Mt. Everest.

Posted by: Stu Apr 12 2008, 07:28 AM

Because somewhere in our DNA there's an urge to see places, people and things that we have heard about, been affected by, and attribute significance to. That's why we have museums like the Smithsonian and Natural History Museum; that's why we have "Pioneer Cabins" to look around; that's why we will drive hundreds or thousands of miles to see sections of Hadrian's Wall, the Oregon Trail tracks, or abandoned launch sites at KSC; that's why we go to art galleries to see famous paintings in person instead of just looking at them on t'internet. Looking at - better still, touching - something "famous" we've heard about makes it more real to us somehow, connects us to it and our own past, too.

I think this was beautifully shown in the Star Trek film FIRST CONTACT, when Picard and Data find the very first warp drive starship, the Phoenix, in Zeffram Cochrane's missile silo. To Data, lacking emotion, lacking a sense of history or occasion, it's just a spacecraft from his databanks... but to Picard, it's THE PHOENIX, the FIRST STARSHIP, the one that opened up the Galaxy to mankind and altered the course of history.

[Picard puts his hand on the Phoenix]

Captain Jean-Luc Picard: It's a boyhood fantasy... I must have seen this ship hundreds of times in the Smithsonian but I was
never able to touch it.

Lieutenant Commander Data: Sir, does tactile contact alter your perception of the Phoenix?

Captain Jean-Luc Picard: Oh, yes! For humans, touch can connect you to an object in a very personal way, make it seem more real.

I know that's just a movie, and it's a fantasy story, but it rings so true, doesn't it? Well, maybe not for everyone here, but for most, I'm sure. I'm certain many people here have visited the Smithsonian or other museums to see hardware from past space missions, because they want to see those pieces of history with their own eyes, and not just on pictures. I'm also sure many people here have waited (im)patiently in their gardens or on their doorsteps to watch the ISS going over on a clear night. Why bother, when the net is full of hi-res pics taken during shuttle missions? Because you can't beat seeing something with your own eyes and establishing a connection with it.

Which is why people want to see images of Apollo hardware now, and will go there to see it in person one day in the future, from a distance, under diamond sheeting, or whatever. Not just to wreck once and for all the arguments of the Moon Conspiracy nutters, but because that will link us to it personally. Right now, Apollo is almost considered "ancient history" by many people, especially kids who - rightly, I think, given the current state of manned space exploration - have a hard time believing we actually went to the Moon in those days of black and white television and funny haircuts. Check out the "Space Exploration" section on Amazon and you'll see one Apollo book after another, page after page of them. It's history, right there with the Victorian Era, Egyptians and Knights and Castles.

So, yes, you're right, there's a lot more of the Moon to see than the Apollo landing sites. I can imagine standing in the shadow of the Straight Wall and watching blazing sunlight slide down it as dawn breaks, or gazing across Copernicus crater from its rim, marvelling at the mountains looming up from its centre... but the Apollo 11 landing site is unique in the history of mankind as being the place where human beings first set foot on another world. In the future there'll be similar "First Landing" sites on Mars, Europa, Proxima Centauri B1 or whatever, and a thousand other worlds, but there'll only ever be one "Tranquility Base". Who wouldn't want to see the footprints of the first human being in history to walk on another planet?

Posted by: nprev Apr 12 2008, 01:13 PM

Terrific, very moving post, Stu!

Yeah, I'm more than convinced that nothing & nobody should go near at least the Apollo 11 site--and maybe all the landing sites--except historians and preservationists to set up a proper viewing environment as EGD proposed. These places have the same significance as the unknown locales where our distant ancestors first set foot on the other continents of Earth beyond Africa.

Actually, even more: Neil Armstrong's first step is at the same level as the first step (or drag, or hop, or whatever) of the first ocean creature to venture onto land. It's damn hard to overstate the importance of preserving it.

Posted by: imipak Apr 12 2008, 02:41 PM

I humbly submit that ~500m years gives us a lot of perspective about the significance of animal life leaving the oceans - a lot more than 35 or 40 years gives us on Apollo. In another half a billion years posterity, if there is one, will doubtless thank us for leaving the landing sites as they were when the ascent modules lifted off.

Referring back to Doug's earlier comment about the funds needed for a successful mission being more than the prize money: what options are there for raising additional commercial funding for a GLXP project?

- Planetary Society-style "fly your name to the moon"
- Kaguya-style sponsorship, funded by subscription access to video eye-candy
- straightforward "picture of your corporate logo on the lunar surface" sponsorship

Anyone know any other possibilities? These don't look like they could raise 7 or 8 figure sums

Posted by: Betelgeuze Apr 12 2008, 03:36 PM

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(?!),...

Exactly my point; if I want to see some human history I go to a museum or just look around me. If we go to the moon with a million dollar robotic mission I want to see something new, something 'non-human'.
We go to an unexplored alien world to look for 'human remains', oh the irony...

Posted by: Phil Stooke Apr 12 2008, 04:13 PM

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

Posted by: mcaplinger Apr 12 2008, 07:05 PM

If there is any possible way to make money winning the Google Lunar X Prize, I can't think of it. Then again, I didn't get rich in the dotcom boom, either.

Where's D.D. Harriman when you need him?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._D._Harriman

Posted by: Phil Stooke Apr 12 2008, 08:23 PM

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

Posted by: Stu Apr 12 2008, 08:32 PM

Trust me, to an 8 year old kid, Apollo is ANCIENT history! And they're the guys we've got to inspire and excite and find a way to consider entering technology and engineering as careers if we're to leave footprints on any other body in the solar system before the next ice age, or send sample return missions to Mars, balloons to Titan and drills to Europa...

Posted by: Betelgeuze Apr 12 2008, 10:47 PM

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 )

Posted by: mcaplinger Apr 12 2008, 11:12 PM

Sure, but you could argue that the suborbital tourism market was something that might make financial sense. It's far less clear to me that there is any source of revenue that could make commercial lunar missions on the scale of the GLXP worthwhile: the NASA data buy idea has been discussed in many contexts over the years and hasn't gone anywhere in any of them that I can think of.

As the saying goes, "the best way to make a small fortune in aerospace is to start with a big fortune."

But as noted, I could be wrong

Posted by: Greg Hullender Apr 13 2008, 12:10 AM

Kids definitely won't be excited if they perceive that the adults around them seem more interested in preserving the old stuff on the moon than they are in discovering new things there. Or even building things there.

--Greg

Posted by: Stu Apr 13 2008, 07:07 AM

I have to respectfully disagree, based on 30 years' front-of-classroom experience Greg. Many of the kids I've talked to in that time have been fascinated by the idea of "Museums on the Moon" because they're familiar with the concept and aim of preserving the past so it can be used as a reference. They're dragged around - sorry, taken to - museums quite often on school trips, so they know that it is generally felt important in society to ensure that "old things" of significance are preserved and protected. Surely, when we go to so much effort to preserve Roman pots, Greek coins and Egyptian mummies, wrecking an Apollo landing site would send out a message to kids that it wasn't such an important place, or event, after all..?

Besides, this isn't about preservation at the expense of exploration. No-one is suggesting for a moment that the Moon shouldn't be explored or built on; we're just saying that in the particular case of these rovers, they shouldn't be allowed to disturb, more than absolutely necessary, the Apollo landing sites, which are scientifically, historically and culturally significant. Think of it this way: if someone suggested to you removing all the barriers and guard rails in the Smithsonian to allow people to run their grubby, scratching hands all over the Kitty Hawk Flyer, and ice-cream and Coke-stained kids to climb over and into the Eagle capsule, would that be acceptable? No. There'd be absolute hell on if anyone suggested that. So I can't imagine why anyone would be happy to sit back and see the Apollo landing sites ruined either.

As others have pointed out there's a whole lotta Moon to explore - and build on - and I'm sure the vast majority of people here are in favour of lunar exploration and exploitation as soon as possible. But that exploration doesn't have to mean the desecration of the past.

I think the Google rovers project is a fantastic idea, with the potential to inspire a lot of kids, and I've already been in touch with one team about how I can incorporate their plans in my Outreach work to inspire kids about lunar exploration in particular and space exploration in general. But personally I'd be gutted if any of the rovers were allowed to tear around an Apollo landing site like the General Lee. There's no scientific benefit to be gained from that, not with the high-magnification, high-definition cameras available today. Here's my idea: land nearby, drive a bit closer, take your pictures of the LEM descent stage and rovers and flags from a respectable distance, get a killer front page shot of Earth shining above an Apollo landing site, then go look at new stuff, show us exciting landscapes and scenes we haven't seen before. It's not rocket science. Oh, okay, it is rocket science, but it's common sense too...

Posted by: Stu Apr 13 2008, 07:28 AM

You'd be surprised. The difference is it's something we ARE doing now, not something that happened before they were born, when the world was a funny place with funny-looking cars, all the men wore white shirts and ties and the women wore horn-rimmed glasses and kids rolled hoops down the road with sticks and raced twigs down rivers...

Seriously tho, I have been discussing future lunar exploration plans with kids in schools and they - some of them at least, I'm not claiming all - are fascinated by the idea of people going back to the Moon and exploring Mars one day, but they're also interested in rovers, on the Moon or Mars, because basically they're gadgets, and gadgets are cool. The kids have their own robots at home and school, and are familiar with the concepts of remote control and navigation in a way we weren't when we were at school. They know all about webcams, and satellites, and know that putting all those things together could allow us to "roam" the Moon remotely as if we were there, but without having to go there in person... and THAT'S the depressing thing, because kids today don't seem to have that adventurous streak. They're growing up in a cotton-wool wrapped, politically-correct, risk-avoiding environment where Health and Safety rules everything and it's not allowed to climb trees, stride across rivers or even, believe it or not, play Conkers or throw snowballs at breaktime. They have no modern explorer heroes to look up to or follow in the footsteps of. Modern astronauts come across to an 8 year old as glorified truck drivers or construction engineers. They don't GO anywhere.

So, my tack on this is to tell them that while the eventual aim is to send people back to the Moon, and on to Mars, that wil, and can, only happen, once we've studied their potential homes robotically, and made sure that those environments are reasonably safe to reach and live in. They accept that, I've found. But the unpalatable truth is we are ANOTHER generation away from sending people to Mars, and a good decade away from sending people back to the Moon, so today's kids are in a kind of limbo between two epic programs. But at least they will get to see the things shown on the fancy NASA CGI animations actually happen, unlike many of us here I fear... but that's a discussion for another place and time, I know.

Posted by: Betelgeuze Apr 13 2008, 11:18 AM

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'....

Posted by: djellison Apr 13 2008, 11:29 AM

Why does it have to be one or the other? They might, just maybe, be excited about both. My experience matches Stu.

You keep saying it's the 'same imagery' from the Apollo Era. It really really isn't. We're now talking HDTV colour movies from the surface of the moon ( never seen before ) and surface imagery of an abandoned Apollo site ( never seen before ).

And there's the bits of the moon between landing sites that we've never seen before in any way.

Also - there is the scientific bonus of visiting those sites that have a ground truth for calibration.

Doug

Posted by: ugordan Apr 13 2008, 11:36 AM

I, on the other hand, would be thrilled by the fact this kind of event happened during my time, even if it were an exact copy of the Apollo landings back then. This would be something I could relate to and say I lived through. It wouldn't be an event from the history books anymore. You can grasp the fact those old landings did take place from school books, but emotionally (and this is what probably matters in inspiring future generations), seeing something like that happen live is something completely different. I don't think we should underestimate the impact that fact alone would make.

This is the sort of thing that makes Pathfinder and the MERs, Cassini/Huygens, etc. much more real to me than Voyagers and Vikings were, even if they were the ones actually pushing the ultimate frontiers.

Posted by: Stu Apr 13 2008, 11:48 AM

I think we're actually on the same side here, because if you please read my post again, I didn't say they were I said they were excited about robotic missions because they can identify with the technology. They're just as fascinated by manned missions, but when, being honest, I tell them that they are a long way off it brings home to them that, for the moment at least, robots are the only show in town. Sad, but true.

I have never, ever, in any of my talks told kids that robots have replaced, or will replace, humans. Human space exploration always has been and will remain my passion. So I take great care to put robots in the right context - i.e. we don't know enough about the long term effects of space exploration on the human body or psyche, and don't have the right "kit", to allow us to fire people off to the Moon again or Mars yet, but those things will come, and when we do boy will we see some great sights! But let's be honest: men and women ain't going to be landing on the rolled edge of Shackleton crater until the whole place has been thoroughly mapped by rovers and landers. There's no point telling kids - or anyone - otherwise.

The Lunar Google rovers could - if handled properly, and operated with dignity and respect - be the catalyst for a revival of interest in "space" amongst kids, as long as we make it clear that they are precursors to manned expeditions, not substitutes for them. There's a lot of scientific potential with them - studies of rocks and minerals - as well as the potential for great Outreach imagery too. I worry that there'll be too much emphasis placed on imaging Apollo sites simply because of the financial rewards such images could bring. As you rightly say, there's a lot more Moon to see up there! If the goal simply becomes Land, Take Apollo Hardware Picture, Count the Money, well, the whole thing will be a waste of time. But if Google Rovers do more, if they take amazing images of other sites, if they return useful scientific data, if they flood the media with lunar images, then they really could make a difference. I'm looking forward to "using" them in my talks, but never, ever, will I prioritise wheels and tracks over boots and gloves, no matter how much I adore Spirit and Oppy.

Hmmm, we're getting a bit off track here I think; this started off as a discussion about the merits of preserving Apollo landing sites and seems to have morphed into an old faithful robots vs humans discussion. Easily done, but I apologise if it was my fault.

Posted by: Greg Hullender Apr 13 2008, 03:25 PM

This is a place where I'd expect to see a big difference between British and US school kids, though -- and not just because you have more interesting museums, having 10x as much history to put in them. :-)

--Greg

Posted by: djellison Apr 14 2008, 07:04 AM

If you want to have a slap fight about education - do so elsewhere.

D

Posted by: JRehling Apr 15 2008, 03:29 AM

It just cuts your losses. Or if you had some separate way of monetizing the mission (crazy ad scheme), of putting you over the line from red to black.

Incidentally, the futures market at Intrade.com gives about a 24% probability that anyone will actually claim the X Prize (by 2012). The total amount of money bet so far is modest, so it's not like the world has really weighed in on the matter, but it's an interesting benchmark.

The only other space exploration issue that I ever saw on Intrade was posted after Spirit landed, and it concerned whether or not Opportunity would land safely (able to return at least one image). It got an estimate of 66% probability from the market. Probably about right.

And there we have the one truly credible way to make money off of space exploration -- bet on (or against) it.

Posted by: JRehling Apr 15 2008, 03:41 AM

I think the issue there is on the demand side much, much, much more than the supply side. 50,000 engineers without megafunding won't launch a Mars mission. And the people who ran Apollo didn't start their careers inspired by any massive project (by Lindbergh, perhaps).

I'm not sure inspiration is a good return-on-investment. Two people went to the bottom of the deepest part of the ocean in 1960. No one has been back since. Moreover, I have never met a human being in any field who is even aware of the details of that descent, much less bought a book about it. Essentially no one's ever heard of it. Why didn't that event inspire anyone?

I'd warrant that inspiration per dollar gets a better yield from a modestly expensive accomplishment and brilliant marketing than from a colossally expensive accomplishment and just sitting back to rake in the laurels. Presumably what we're trying to inspire is accomplishment per young, prospective engineer, not federal budget fund-raising per young, prospective engineer.

Posted by: Greg Hullender Apr 15 2008, 04:55 AM

I sure remember reading the story of the Trieste as a kid. I think the image of the two men sealed in the steel capsule as "two mice in a tennis ball" really freaked me out. What other details do I remember (without looking it up).

The Trieste was a bathyscathe (unsure on spelling). A spherical steel capsule suspended under a large tank of gasoline. To sink, they let gas out and water in. To rise, they dropped a load of iron shot they had carried.

Challenger Deep, their destination, is at the bottom of the Marianas Trench near the Phillipines. Roughly seven miles deep.

I think the thing had lights under the capsule, but I'm not sure how they were powered. Batteries, probably.

The viewport (I think there was only one) was super thick glass, and it cracked during the descent but didn't leak in any material way -- which would have been fatal, of course.

The two explorers reported nothing particularly interesting, which is why no one ever went back. That's not to say there's nothing interesting in the abyss, but previous explorers (e.g. William Beebe in a Bathysphere) had already reported on it.

That's all I can remember about it. The claustrophobic aspect was more than enough to convince me *I* never wanted to do it. But I'd have loved to read more about it.

And I'd have been 100% satisfied if the data came from unmanned probes.

--Greg

Posted by: Phil Stooke May 3 2008, 04:57 PM

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

Posted by: nprev May 3 2008, 05:06 PM

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.

Posted by: Phil Stooke May 3 2008, 05:18 PM

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

Posted by: nprev May 3 2008, 05:22 PM

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...

Posted by: Phil Stooke May 3 2008, 05:25 PM

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

Posted by: nprev May 3 2008, 05:30 PM

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.

Posted by: tedstryk May 3 2008, 11:05 PM

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.

Posted by: Stu May 3 2008, 11:06 PM

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.

Posted by: djellison May 3 2008, 11:29 PM

Too late on both counts. A big fat chunk of the titanic was actually raised - you can buy coal, cutlery, crockery, from Titanic. - and I believe pieces of Liberty Bell 7 were sold after it was recovered. (unless you mean the bell, not the mercury capsule)

In the very grand scheme of things, Tranquility Base will be reduced to nothing my micrometeorites given long enough (a few tens of millions of years for footprints iirc) - who knows what the state of them is after a LEM launch. But in the meantime, a 50m radius centred on the LEM decent stage as a keep out zone would be a wise step.

Doug

Posted by: Stu May 3 2008, 11:37 PM

Actually I did mean the ring-ding bell, not the capsule... I can just imagine the reaction if someone suggested teams be allowed to compete to chip pieces off that bell with robots...

As for Titanic, yes, I knew that too; I said "spray a message on", as in deliberately ruining and defacing it. And if I remember correctly the Titanic bits raised so far have all been loose pieces or chunks lying around the main wreck; I don't think anyone's actually cut sections off the main hull, tho I could be wrong about that.

I just can't get my head around the idea that the landing site of the first human expedition off planet Earth to land on another world might be ruined by robots, for money. It's ridiculous, and shaming.

Posted by: nprev May 3 2008, 11:44 PM

True...but hopefully we'll have some permanent lunar denizens in place long before then to put some sort of protective structure over the site. As far as the lift-off damage, gotta consider that as part of the event; I wouldn't restore any of it, not even right the flag if it was indeed blown over per Aldrin's account.

Posted by: Stu May 3 2008, 11:49 PM

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

Posted by: Phil Stooke May 4 2008, 12:10 AM

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

Posted by: nprev May 4 2008, 03:08 AM

I'm betting, though perhaps very optimistically, that within a century or two someone will see them...hopefully hundreds of thousands if not millions of people over the next few thousand years or so. Tranquility at least should be protected and preserved at the same level as a UN World Heritage site. Really, if you look at it over an even greater time frame then I just spoke of it will forever be a priceless archeological site...the very first time "early" Man (by then!) left Earth for another place...

I don't have a problem with a rover getting within observing distance of TB, but would not advocate it disturbing the artifacts of any of Armstrong & Aldrin's activities (yep; that means footprints, to say nothing of the hardware.) We'll set foot on other worlds someday, but there's only one first time ever, and this is it. We gotta leave it alone until we're capable of protecting it from the elements for posterity and future appreciation.

Phil, thanks for the link; registered for the forum, will post my opinions shortly.

EDIT: http://www.googlelunarxprize.org/forum-glxp/viewtopic.php?p=1017#1017, if anyone else would like to chime in.

Posted by: Stu May 4 2008, 09:38 AM

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.

Posted by: nprev May 4 2008, 12:13 PM

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...

Posted by: Stu May 4 2008, 12:27 PM

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.

Posted by: ilbasso May 5 2008, 02:23 AM

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?

Posted by: nprev May 5 2008, 10:35 AM

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.

Posted by: ugordan May 5 2008, 11:57 AM

A way to mitigate this would be for example the use of airbags so you cutoff descent engines at some point above the ground. In any case, we're talking really fine dust here and when the engine nozzle gets down low enough to significantly blow dust everywhere (in a vacuum, any exhaust is significantly underexpanded so it basically exits the nozzle in a hemispherical pattern, though most of the exhaust mass flow is downward-pointed), that's when terrain configuration becomes really important - a smallish hill could provide significant shielding to distant objects. Even at higher altitudes, terrain would play a big role, I imagine dust particles that get accelerated the most would be travelling radially away from "ground zero" so would have the greatest chance of re-impacting the ground soon.

Also, keep in mind any small rover landing several hundred meters from an Apollo site would produce less sandblasting than the LEM ascent stage did (apart from effects suffered by the descent stage itself, of course which just got blasted by severe exhaust).

Posted by: nprev May 5 2008, 12:35 PM

Good analysis, Gordan. I don't think it's a show-stopper at all for GLXP, and of course TB and the other sites have to be pretty sandblasted from the ascent events, but I consider that to be part of the history of each site.

Posted by: tedstryk May 5 2008, 12:41 PM

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.

Posted by: Stu May 5 2008, 03:33 PM

Looks like http://www.space.com/news/spacehistory/save_footprints_000418.html feel the same about preserving TB, too...

Posted by: jasedm May 6 2008, 01:31 PM

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.

Posted by: Stu May 6 2008, 01:49 PM

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.”

Posted by: imipak May 6 2008, 07:37 PM

Forgive a lazy[1] question - I haven't really been following this, and don't know how advanced any of the announced project teams are - but do any of them have a realistic chance of launching metal within, say, five years? If so, things are more urgent than my lazy assumptions, uh, assumed. In that case I'd be happy to provide polite, reasoned email for application where there's a chance it would help. I'd be very very surprised if someone managed a targeted sample return from an Apollo site in my lifetime, but I've been surprised before and no doubt I'll be there again...

I suspect the case for preserving all the Apollo sites is self-evident, if you were to ask the average person in the street. That's the sort of issue real-world politicians tend to support... uncontroversial ones.

It also sounds like the sort of thing the Planetary Society might get involved with. I'm a member (thanks to umsf!) but a very passive, armchair sort, not subscribed to any mailing lists where this could be brought up, etc. I'm sure many others here have more clue in that direction..?


( [1] *embarrassed cough*, to be fair there's a bit of a crunch on at work. And the dog ate my homework )

Posted by: Stu May 6 2008, 09:29 PM

Astrobotic are planning on their landing taking place July 2009, to coincide with the 40th anniversary of Apollo 11.

Posted by: mcaplinger May 6 2008, 11:02 PM

Glendower:
I can call spirits from the vasty deep.

Hotspur:
Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them?

Posted by: Stu May 7 2008, 05:27 AM

Good point, but it does suggest an element of "dashing for the prize" don't-spare-the-horses thinking, dontcha think?

Posted by: imipak May 7 2008, 06:49 PM

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?

Posted by: Phil Stooke May 7 2008, 07:46 PM

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

Posted by: tedstryk May 8 2008, 01:16 AM

What is the other one?

Posted by: Phil Stooke May 8 2008, 02:16 AM

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

Posted by: imipak May 8 2008, 07:23 PM

I stand corrected on the launch cost - thanks! However, I still don't see how it can be done without huge amount (say $80m) of corporate charity, and that seems like an awful lot, especially these days. Then again they don't appear to be idiots, so I guess it's just possible they know something I don't! As always, I'll be happy to be proved wrong by events... as usual.

Anyway, returning to Stu's original point - is there anything useful I/we can do that might reduce the risk to the Apollo 11 site? Or are we worrying unnecessarily?

Posted by: Phil Stooke May 8 2008, 07:57 PM

"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

Posted by: tedstryk May 8 2008, 08:12 PM

Except for pesky old reality....

Posted by: DDAVIS May 10 2008, 09:21 PM

“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

Posted by: nprev May 10 2008, 11:42 PM

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.

Posted by: Phil Stooke May 11 2008, 07:55 PM

That is exactly the rationale of Odyssey Moon.

Phil

Posted by: nprev May 11 2008, 08:29 PM

I wish them luck; seems as if my opinions & theirs are fairly congruent.

Posted by: Betelgeuze May 11 2008, 10:23 PM

heh nprev thats the point I've been trying to make, look how that turned out

Posted by: nprev May 11 2008, 10:53 PM

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.

Posted by: dvandorn May 12 2008, 12:20 AM

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

Posted by: nprev May 12 2008, 12:26 AM

Okay, NOW I have to go get my brain flashburned to purge the mental image...thanks, oDoug!

Posted by: dvandorn May 12 2008, 01:45 AM

You can always add to that "Poor Neil -- he did have such an awful cold..."



-the other Doug

Posted by: nprev May 12 2008, 01:59 AM

<removes creaking 386 space-certified processor from cranium, reluctantly dips it in a concentrated HCL bath....>

Okay. Better now. What just happened?

Posted by: Mongo May 13 2008, 01:35 AM

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

Posted by: nprev May 13 2008, 01:52 AM

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!!! )

Posted by: Phil Stooke May 15 2008, 02:22 PM

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

Posted by: Stu May 18 2008, 12:25 PM

A terrifying glimpse into the future...?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=HODkJABWo08

Stop that nostalgic, wistful sighing at once...!

Posted by: nprev May 18 2008, 12:42 PM

...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.

Posted by: Phil Stooke May 23 2008, 11:41 AM

Four new GLXP teams announced, and one new landing site at Apollo 12. I've updated my landing map.

Phil

Posted by: SFJCody May 23 2008, 04:54 PM

Maybe we'll finally get colour film from the Ocean of Storms...

Posted by: DDAVIS May 23 2008, 05:33 PM

My recollection is that all the color photography from the surface on Apollo 12 was brought back, and that the color film magazine left behind contained 'only' earthrise and orbital shots.

Don

Posted by: Phil Stooke May 25 2008, 12:55 AM

... 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

Posted by: Astroblogger Jun 18 2008, 03:22 PM

Glad to see someone watches our videos - I'm tasked with making most of those.

As Phil mentioned, we plan to use a Telephoto Lens. Our closest approach would be at 15m. From that distance, using a 350-400mm Focal Length Lens on one of our 720p cameras atop our mast, we've shown that we can image something in focus on the LM's legs at about 10-20cm across. If you look at the image of Apollo 11 below, that means that our ideal mission situation would be approaching from the North East above Armstrong's Path. If we think we can navigate the crater to the South-West of the LM, we may approach from there as well.



As our launch approaches, we'll have an open ear to the forums of discussion about what safety precautions should be taken. One of Astrobotic's founders, David Gump made http://www.space.com/news/spacehistory/save_footprints_000418.html about these issues back in 2000. Keep in mind that we are all big space enthusiasts as well, and the strict precautions we will have with the perception capabilities, dead-reckoning, and control of our robots will probably be more advanced than most would expect.

Posted by: Stu Jun 18 2008, 03:40 PM

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.

Posted by: helvick Jun 18 2008, 08:13 PM

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.

Posted by: Phil Stooke Jun 19 2008, 01:10 AM

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

Posted by: dvandorn Jun 19 2008, 04:43 AM

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

Posted by: PDP8E Jun 20 2008, 03:17 AM

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>

Cheers

Posted by: Phil Stooke Jul 8 2008, 08:53 PM

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...

Posted by: nprev Jul 8 2008, 09:22 PM

Looks great, Phil! Very honored by your acknowledgement; thanks, happy to help!

Posted by: dvandorn Jul 9 2008, 05:58 AM

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

Posted by: AndyG Jul 9 2008, 09:01 AM

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

Posted by: Phil Stooke Jul 9 2008, 11:14 AM

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

Posted by: Phil Stooke Sep 8 2008, 09:11 PM

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

Posted by: ilbasso Sep 9 2008, 01:39 AM

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.

Posted by: Phil Stooke Sep 9 2008, 10:50 AM

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

Posted by: ugordan Sep 9 2008, 10:51 AM

That's a keeper, Phil!

*looks around for a high quality printer*

Posted by: Phil Stooke Sep 9 2008, 04:41 PM

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

Posted by: Phil Stooke Oct 30 2008, 04:11 PM

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

Posted by: mcaplinger Oct 30 2008, 04:25 PM

So much so that it would frankly amaze me if any of these teams fly any hardware of any kind, ever.

Posted by: Phil Stooke Oct 30 2008, 08:55 PM

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

Posted by: mcaplinger Oct 30 2008, 09:43 PM

The Discovery MOO seems like a stretch, as the program is really designed to fly on missions that would exist for some other reason: funding a mission by flying a MOO on it is sort of the tail wagging the dog. And NASA's interest in COTS is rather notoriously fickle. This, and the fact that the X PRIZE Foundation retains media rights for all of the data obtained in order to win the prize, makes things pretty tough (admittedly you can have separate data/instrumentation, but that just makes things that much harder.)

That said, Phil, I have to admire your optimism for assigning any credibility to GLXP at all.

Posted by: Phil Stooke Oct 31 2008, 02:38 AM

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

Posted by: mcaplinger Oct 31 2008, 03:22 AM

Knowing several people who worked for BlastOff! ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BlastOff!_Corporation ) I'll believe it when I see it.

Posted by: Phil Stooke Oct 31 2008, 03:35 AM

Quite - I wouldn't have invested in that!

Phil

Posted by: Phil Stooke Feb 6 2009, 03:29 PM

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

Posted by: Phil Stooke Apr 24 2009, 03:39 AM

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

Posted by: NMRguy Aug 16 2009, 03:24 PM

For those interested, Spaceflight Now has an update on the Odyssey Moon project:

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0908/12beagle/

Posted by: Phil Stooke Oct 20 2009, 03:53 AM

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

Posted by: stevesliva Oct 20 2009, 04:48 PM

And the etymology of the word Loony is appropriate once again.

Posted by: Phil Stooke Mar 15 2010, 05:13 PM

Astrobotic offers to fly your experiment... (for a price)

http://www.googlelunarxprize.org/lunar/teams/astrobotic/blog/expanded-payload-opportunities-now-available

Phil

Posted by: Phil Stooke Oct 23 2010, 03:57 PM

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

Posted by: nprev Oct 23 2010, 05:39 PM

Thanks for the update, Phil; was wondering what the latest & greatest was with GXP.

Posted by: Phil Stooke Oct 23 2010, 06:50 PM

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

Posted by: Phil Stooke Feb 6 2017, 03:47 PM

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:

Phil

Posted by: nprev Feb 7 2017, 12:24 AM

Interesting re SpaceIL's site selection strategy. They looking for large iron-nickel meteorites?

Posted by: mcaplinger Feb 7 2017, 01:45 AM

Maybe buried black monoliths.

Posted by: Phil Stooke Feb 7 2017, 01:53 AM

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