Heritage sites on the moon

[selvaarchi]

NASA has proposed, the manned landing sites by NASA Apollo missions, not be disturbed by future landings. In fact they recommend no landings within two kilometers of Apollo sites.

Is it up to NASA to set the parameters? Should it not be the UN body that decides? What about other sites like the 1st rocket to crash land on the Moon (Russian) or the Chines Chang'e mission on the far side of the Moon!

https://www.moondaily.com/reports/Lu...asure_999.html

Now that NASA is leading the development of the Artemis lunar habitation program that will send men and women to the Moon within the next few years, this may be a good time to preview at least one aspect of the environment that the astronauts will experience when they arrive, i. e., trash from Earth.

Since 1959, the lunar surface has experienced a barrage of man-made attacks of various kinds. It all began on September 13th with Soviet probe Luna 2 when it smashed into Mare Imbrium and all but vaporized on impact. This was the beginning of a series of Luna probes. Beginning in 1960, NASA's Ranger Program planned to send nine spacecraft to the Moon for the purpose of taking close-up photos of the lunar surface. Each launch was to terminate in a crash.

In summary, the lunar surface has about a hundred sites where humans have left their mark. Protecting these sites is one goal of For All Moonkind, a non-profit that seeks to preserve human heritage in space. In total there are roughly 167 metric tons of material, but no legal structure in place to protect these objects or their historical sites.

Nevertheless, NASA recommends that future expeditions not land within two kilometers of Apollo sites. But the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 states: "Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, by means of use or occupation, or by any other means." The implication is that there should be an international body overseeing priority rights, without granting sovereignty, as is done to manage satellites in geostationary orbits.

[Van Rijn]

NASA has proposed, the manned landing sites by NASA Apollo missions, not be disturbed by future landings. In fact they recommend no landings within two kilometers of Apollo sites.

Is it up to NASA to set the parameters?

NASA made a recommendation. NASA doesn’t have the means yet to enforce it.

Should it not be the UN body that decides?

Only if that is set forth in a future treaty and the various space capable countries agree to it. A less effective option, but perhaps still useful is to float the idea and come up with an agreement that if other countries keep their hands off our stuff, we will keep our hands off theirs.

What about other sites like the 1st rocket to crash land on the Moon (Russian) or the Chines Chang'e mission on the far side of the Moon!

Repeating part of what you quoted from the article:

In summary, the lunar surface has about a hundred sites where humans have left their mark. Protecting these sites is one goal of For All Moonkind, a non-profit that seeks to preserve human heritage in space.

(Emphasis added) That’s not just American missions. They’re arguing they all be protected. Incidentally, the Apollo 12 crew were the first example of visiting the landing site of another mission (Surveyor 3) and bringing back souvenirs. (Of course there was a good argument for doing it, to see how it had held up under lunar conditions).

[Superluminal]

Incidentally, the Apollo 12 crew were the first example of visiting the landing site of another mission (Surveyor 3) and bringing back souvenirs.
Also, Surveror 3 was a US probe. Not like it was a Soviet probe. What about removing certain artifacts for scientific study? Or cleaning up a landing site of trash? Like bags of astronaut poop?

[Roger E. Moore]

The novel/movie "The Martian" brings up a point, that wreckage or left-behinds on the Moon or elsewhere might be salvaged to aid stranded astronauts. Or treasure hunters could move in to get artifacts. Or the curious might try to restart a Lunakhod or Moon rover. Or an abandoned lunar base might be restarted by astronauts from another country able to use the resources.

I assume but cannot be sure that active sites with still functioning instruments would be left alone, but you never know. Investigating or salvaging a lunar site would not be secret, as satellites send images that can pick up rover tracks on the Moon.

[Garrison]

NASA has proposed, the manned landing sites by NASA Apollo missions, not be disturbed by future landings. In fact they recommend no landings within two kilometers of Apollo sites.

NASA is simply putting forward a proposal that these historic sites be protected, they are not demanding or insisting and I have to wonder why you so consistently characterize simple agreements or proposals from NASA as being demands or diktats? NASA is simply raising the question of how those historic sites should be protected and offering ideas about how US/NASA in particular should be protected.

[selvaarchi]

NASA is simply putting forward a proposal that these historic sites be protected, they are not demanding or insisting and I have to wonder why you so consistently characterize simple agreements or proposals from NASA as being demands or diktats? NASA is simply raising the question of how those historic sites should be protected and offering ideas about how US/NASA in particular should be protected.

If the proposal had more examples of historic sites like Russian rocket that 1st touched (crashed) the moon, instead of only having US examples, I would have less of a problem.

[Garrison]

If the proposal had more examples of historic sites like Russian rocket that 1st touched (crashed) the moon, instead of only having US examples, I would have less of a problem.

So you complain about NASA overstepping some imaginary boundary suggesting these terms, but think they should have explicitly included the sites of other nations they have no responsibility for or control over in their suggestions, because that would some how be less high-handed?

[PetersCreek]

If the proposal had more examples of historic sites like Russian rocket that 1st touched (crashed) the moon, instead of only having US examples, I would have less of a problem.

Are you talking about the actual NASA proposal or the linked article? As for the article, it's not a NASA publication, it's quite brief and it's not exhaustive by any means. Still, it manages to mention the Soviet Luna missions in general and Luna 2 in particular.

As for the accords themselves, "Apollo" appears only twice in the entire document, in the preface and not at all where it comes to talking about the preservation of heritage sites:

SECTION 9 – PRESERVING OUTER SPACE HERITAGE

1. The Signatories intend to preserve outer space heritage, which they consider to comprise historically significant human or robotic landing sites, artifacts, spacecraft, and other evidence of activity on celestial bodies in accordance with mutually developed standards andpractices.
    
2. The Signatories intend to use their experience under the Accords to contribute to multilateral efforts to further develop international practices and rules applicable to preserving outerspace heritage.

...so I wouldn't expect an exhaustive list of named heritage sites there, either. However...and though it may be a bit out of date...I did find this: Lunar Heritage Sites at moon.nasa.gov. The Luna, Lunakhod, Surveyor, and Apollo missions are mapped...and are named in that order in the legend, I might add.

[Nicolas]

You can't preserve anything and everything forever, but at the very, very least the Luna 2 and Apollo 11 sites should be preserved. They're only original once. Luna 9 is very significant too. And it's not farfetched to just take everything up to and including Apollo missions as historically significant. Add the first manned lunar base to that in the future.

[Superluminal]

The novel/movie "The Martian" brings up a point, that wreckage or left-behinds on the Moon or elsewhere might be salvaged to aid stranded astronauts.

I assume but cannot be sure that active sites with still functioning instruments would be left alone, but you never know. Investigating or salvaging a lunar site would not be secret, as satellites send images that can pick up rover tracks on the Moon.

I would think that if stranded astronauts needed tools or parts from an abandoned site. No one would blame them for doing what they needed to survive.
Is Tranquility Base still considered functioning? The reflectors there, and other sites, including a Soviet rover, are still used by Earth based observatories.

[schlaugh]

Is Tranquility Base still considered functioning? The reflectors there, and other sites, including a Soviet rover, are still used by Earth based observatories.

Good question. Apparently the Early Apollo Surface Experiments Package (EASEP) is not working, other than the laser reflector. According to NASA the seismometer failed after 21 days.

ETA: I saw a comment in the Wikipedia article about the Apollo experiments that "the LRRRs are the only experiments still in use today."

[Van Rijn]

Good question. Apparently the Early Apollo Surface Experiments Package (EASEP) is not working, other than the laser reflector. According to NASA the seismometer failed after 21 days.

This is a case where they do make ‘em better than they used to. It’s almost embarrassing for NASA hardware to fail that quickly.

[docmordrid]

NASA made a recommendation. NASA doesn’t have the means yet to enforce it.
>

US law enforcement, regulatory agencies and Federal courts now have jurisdiction under the recently passed 'One Small Step to Protect Human Heritage in Space Act,' introduced by Sens. Gary Peters (D-MI) and Ted Cruz (R-TX), and passed by both US Houses. President Trump signed it into law.

[Van Rijn]

US law enforcement, regulatory agencies and Federal courts now have jurisdiction under the recently passed 'One Small Step to Protect Human Heritage in Space Act,' introduced by Sens. Gary Peters (D-MI) and Ted Cruz (R-TX), and passed by both US Houses. President Trump signed it into law.

But what are they going to if China, Russia, India, or a company based outside of the US decides to land a rover next to an Apollo site, and have it wander around the site taking images, or retrieving a sample? I can imagine it might cause a diplomatic incident after the fact, but it would be better if there was an international agreement not to do it and consequences if you do.