What to do with Lunar landing sites?

[Giugiaro]

Good evening.

Today, Paul Shillito of Curious Droid published a video asking what could happen to the landing sites of probes and the Apollo missions on the moon.

At the end the host asks what would we do in this case. Mind that this question doesn't just apply to the moon, but also to Mars and beyond.

Personally I think that the site of the first landings (Luna, Ranger, Apollo, MIP and Jade Rabit) should be protected as UNESCO World (or Lunar) Heritage Sites, while the others could be open for scientific investigation, mainly for studying the effects of long term exposure to cosmic radiation, space debris and moon dust.

I think the UNESCO World (or Lunar) Heritage Sites would solve the issues of governments trying to protect theses sites could be taken as claiming territory on the moon, something that is prohibited by the Outer Space Treaty.

The same could apply to Mars.

What do you think should be approach? Should all the places be protected? A few? None? How and why?

 

[nlogax]

Good evening.

Today, Paul Shillito of Curious Droid published a video asking what could happen to the landing sites of probes and the Apollo missions on the moon.

I always like Curious Droid's videos though I've never been quite sure about those shirts..

If you've read Artemis by Andy Weir you'll see he decided to use a bit of reasonable invention and come up with a visitor centre. Visitors would be able to get close(r) and personal with the landing site itself by doing excursions in 'hamster balls' which avoided the need for teaching space tourists how to do use spacesuits.



Hamster balls aside, I could definitely see a visitor centre happening in future years.

 

[najaB]

What do you think should be approach? Should all the places be protected? A few? None? How and why?

I would say that the 'first' sites should be protected - e.g. Luna 9, Apollo 11, Mars 3 and/or Viking 1, etc. The rest should be semi-protected (restricted access for scientific purposes).

 

[DarloRich]

pop me up there and i will take a look and let you know

 

[HumberSprinter]

Why should the Apollo 11 site be protected? It's just a film studio in Navada (joke ).
Anyway the Moon is large enough that there's no need to go within 10 miles of them ever again.
The UN has an International Space Treaty in operation, all of space including the Moon can only be used for peaceful scientific purposes it says, also that no nation can claim the Moon (despite the US flag).
Personally I think us Earthlings should stop littering pristine worlds.

 

[Cowley]

pop me up there and i will take a look and let you know

I’ll go with you as long as B&Q don’t supply the parts for the spaceship.

 

[najaB]

I’ll go with you as long as B&Q don’t supply the parts for the spaceship.

That's at least two B&Q references for the night - is there something you want to get off of your chest?

 

[Mutant Lemming]

If a railway did link the sites how long would it take to cover distances ? How would speed be measured on the moon?

 

[HumberSprinter]

If a railway did link the sites how long would it take to cover distances ? How would speed be measured on the moon?

The face of the Moon we see is not as big as most would think, a little smaller than North America.
An electric train would have no air resistence so would speed up faster than on Earth, weight wouldn't matter either, I'm guessing 5 hours would be possible to cross between the furthest Apollo landing sites... It would have to be like a roller coaster to avoid bouncing into space.

 

[najaB]

An electric train would have no air resistence so would speed up faster than on Earth

Think Hyperloop without the tube.

 

[DarloRich]

I’ll go with you as long as B&Q don’t supply the parts for the spaceship.

‘I felt exactly how you would feel if you were getting ready to launch and knew you were sitting on top of 2 million parts — all built by the lowest bidder on a government contract.’
attributed to John Glenn

Or we could go for the Russian rocket - which is the only way for man to travel to space at present - t is based on 1950's technology.

it isnt so much as boldly go as boldly went for a short walk then gave up. It is as they say in Apollo 13. Columbus reached the new world. We all gave it up as too much trouble.

 

[najaB]

Or we could go for the Russian rocket - which is the only way for man to travel to space at present - t is based on 1950's technology.

Not the only way, there's also Shenzhou. And while superficially similar to the Soyuz, it's most definitely a modern vehicle.

 

[DarloRich]

Not the only way, there's also Shenzhou. And while superficially similar to the Soyuz, it's most definitely a modern vehicle.

can that dock with ISS? Do the Chinese accept non Chinese astronauts onto their spacecraft?

 

[najaB]

can that dock with ISS?

Physically: yes.
Politically: no.

Do the Chinese accept non Chinese astronauts onto their spacecraft?

Not yet. But then neither the USA or USSR did at this stage of their manned spaceflight programs (5 flights).

 

[Giugiaro]

... no nation can claim the Moon (despite the US flag).

We could argue that the flag is just claiming an achievement, rather than land. Still, by now the flag must be completely white.

An electric train would have no air resistence so would speed up faster than on Earth, weight wouldn't matter either...

Experience playing around with gravity in BeamNG.drive has taught me it can actually be the complete opposite. Because there's less gravity, there's less grip, thus being harder to transfer torque into the surface. And if that wasn't enough, understeering would be the law, flipping over the norm, and jumping endlessly the rule.

Like HumberSprinter and najaB said, something like a rollercoaster/hyperloop would be the best solution to make a vehicle travel fast without going all over the place, figuratively and literally.