I'm going to make Preserving Tranquility Base 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 article 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.

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).

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.

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 others 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.”

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 )

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

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?

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 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?

"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

Except for pesky old reality....

“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 this post, 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...?

Salvage 1

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

Click to view attachment

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

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

... 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

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 comments 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.

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 - Alan Stern to join The Odyssey Moon project 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>

Click to view attachment


Cheers

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...

Click to view attachment

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