Book Reviews
Recent reviews from Slashdot readers:
- Advanced Excel for Scientific Data Analysis Learn to turn Excel into something that rivals Mathematica using VBA, brains, and a heaping helping of fortitude.(Jack Herrington's review.)
- Nagios 3 Enterprise Network Monitoring A great book for anyone using Nagios as more than a casual user.(jgoguen's review.)
- Schneier on Security Schneier argues that security is not something you can buy; it is something you must get.(Ben Rothke's review.)
Submitting a review for consideration is easy; please first read Slashdot's book review guidelines. Updated: 2008114 by samzenpus
4751911
story
Comments: 339 +- Science: Protecting the Apollo Landing Sites From Later Landings on Friday June 05 2009, @01:46AM
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicmoon.gif); width:46px; height:51px;
moon
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicspace.gif); width:73px; height:59px;
space
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicscience.gif); width:62px; height:75px;
science
R3d M3rcury writes "The Lunar X-Prize is a contest offering $20 million to the first private organization to land and maneuver a robotic rover on the moon. There is also a $1 million bonus to anyone who can get a picture of a man-made object on the moon. But one archeologist believes that 'The sites of early lunar landings are of unparalleled significance in the history of humanity, and extraordinary caution should be taken to protect them.' He's concerned that we may end up with rover tracks destroying historic artifacts, such as Neil Armstrong's first bootprint, or that a mistake could send a rocket slamming into a landing site. He calls on the organizers to ban any contestant from landing within 100KM of a prior moon landing site. Now he seems to think this just means Apollo. What about the Luna and Surveyor landers? What about the Lunokhod rovers? Are they fair game?"
Related Stories
One person's error is another person's data.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.
That's retarded (Score:5, Insightful)
We have a picture of it right? Seriously what if every time somebody did something new that spot was forbidden to be stepped on again? asinine. What if nobody as allowed to visit the beach of Columbus's first landing sites? BFD, send a plaque or something and stop wasting your time worrying about whether a footprint is going to disappear someday. It will.
Re:That's retarded (Score:5, Insightful)
There's already a plaque attached to the base of the Eagle Lander, so... all set.
I say the rovers should drive wherever the hell the operators want. Besides, it's stupid to think that Armstrong and Aldrin wouldn't have messed up the first footprint since it was, you know, right at the bottom of the ladder and in a high traffic area.
Parent
Re:That's retarded (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:That's retarded (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:That's retarded (Score:5, Insightful)
I know it is cliche and all, but I'm still impressed by NASA's achievements in the 60s and 70s. That photo, for instance -- fly 240,000 miles (give or take a few orbits) one way, and park within walking distance of a rover sent up 3 years earlier.
Now we piddle around in low earth orbit with tremendously expensive and fragile craft, while the bureaucracy can't make up its mind about what NASA should be doing. Sigh.
Parent
Re:That's retarded (Score:4, Interesting)
Besides, it's stupid to think that Armstrong and Aldrin wouldn't have messed up the first footprint since it was, you know, right at the bottom of the ladder and in a high traffic area.
To say nothing of being right underneath a rocket that was launched less than 24 hours later! Doesn't anyone remember the images that came back from a camera left on the moon during one of the later missions, with dust blowing everywhere as the ascent stage engine of the LM fired? The whole area around the site will almost certainly be scoured clean.
I can see some scientific value in the sites: having pristine stuff exposed to lunar conditions for fifty years will probably provide a wealth of data on materials behaviour in space. But anyone who talks about Armstrong's first bootprint as if it's still there is preaching unicorns.
Parent
Bletchley Park (Score:5, Insightful)
So, do you feel the same about Bletchley Park? It's not a simple question. There ARE things we sometimes like to see preserved for the awe inspiring value they have for posterity. I don't know about all the sites on the moon but I'd vote for the first landing site of anything ever (Russian?) and the spot where a human being first walked.
Parent
That's retarded, and more than you think (Score:5, Insightful)
If it hasn't been already destroyed. Wasn't the photo of where he first stepped on the moon next to the lander? Wouldn't the lander module have toasted the ground around it when it fired it's engines up to re-enter lunar orbit?
Of course, what is the point of preserving a site that nobody can really go to anyway? Sure, if someone went there, they could 'ruin' the artifacts that remain, but who cares? It's not like anyone can visit the site and appreciate it. The best you could hope for would be to preserve it for future generations' camera equipped robotic lunar rovers.
Parent
Re:That's retarded, and more than you think (Score:4, Funny)
It's about tourists in a future a thousand years from now. You obviously never watched Futurama, right? :)
Parent
Re:That's retarded, and more than you think (Score:5, Funny)
Fry: Look! It's the moon landing site! We found it!
Leela: Fry, get in here.
Fry: It's that flag from MTV, and Neil Armstrong's footprint!
[Puts his foot over Armstrong's footprint, leaving a Nike footprint in its place]
Fry: Hey, my foot's bigger. Leela, isn't this the greatest thing you've ever seen?
Leela: Fry, look around! It's just a crummy plastic flag and a dead man's tracks in the dust. Now get in here before you freeze.
Parent
Re:That's retarded, and more than you think (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:I counter your counter argument. (Score:4, Informative)
True, but you also have weaker gravity, which will allow pressure from a rocket motor to have a greater effect than on earth
Pressure? I thought we were talking about a vacuum.
Also, debris will fly farther.
What debris?
The only debris is actually the crap coming out of the back of the rocket in gaseous form. I know you could try and make argument that this constituted pressure but since these are occasional particles wandering about in a complete vacuum you might as well model them as such since there are few enough to deal with.
As to whether they would disturb enough dust when the hit the moon surface to erase someones footprint that is any bodies guess as:
1) The module would have to get to certain height before the exhaust gasses could have a clear path to the ground due to the base section of the lander left in situ.
2) I have no idea as to how deep and well formed Neil's footprints were. The dust up there had not been touched so may have allowed his boot to sink quite deeply into the surface.
3) I have no idea of the relative mass of the exhaust gasses to the particulate dust that makes up the moons surface.
Basically, the only way to know for sure is go back and see. Unfortunately this may well result in discovering that the human races first footprint on the moon was perfectly preserved until we trashed it finding out if it was there. Why risk this outcome when the moon is plenty big enough for us to land somewhere else until we have the ability to build a museum around the area without disturbing it.
Disclaimer - Sorry, for being so nitpicky, but several years of Physics with Space Technology will do that to you.
Parent
Re:I counter your counter argument. (Score:4, Informative)
Pressure? I thought we were talking about a vacuum.
We're also talking about a rocket motor. The mass ejected from the motor nozzle exerts pressure on whatever it hits.
What debris? The only debris is actually the crap coming out of the back of the rocket in gaseous form. I know you could try and make argument that this constituted pressure but since these are occasional particles wandering about in a complete vacuum you might as well model them as such since there are few enough to deal with.
Observe the dust cloud [youtube.com]
this may well result in discovering that the human races first footprint on the moon was perfectly preserved
The first footprint was at the bottom of the ladder. How many times did Armstrong and Aldrin go up and down that ladder? Face it, the first footprint is gone.
Parent
Re:That's retarded (Score:5, Informative)
Since the first footprint was at the end of the lunar-lander ladder, the same ladder that was used to get out and get in the Eagle again by Aldrin and Armstrong, my guess is that the very first footprint was already pretty messed up, even before they left the place...
And don't forget the blast from the rocket engine at take of.. that one was sure to wipe it of the face of the moon...
Parent
Re:That's retarded (Score:5, Insightful)
I can't believe the current trend of comments regarding this story. Of course it should be fucking preserved. Yes, one day the footprint will disappear. I don't see any reason to accelerate natural processes though. It's kind of the same as graffiti artists (vandals) spray painting their names all over the Grand Canyon. Why should we waste our time trying to stop them, it's going to erode away anyway?
What if nobody as allowed to visit the beach of Columbus's first landing sites?
What if they did? Your sheltered life would probably be no worse off.
Parent
Re:That's retarded (Score:4, Insightful)
People who spray paint anything on the Grand Canyon should be shot on sight. Several times, just to be sure. It's bad enough they ruined all vertical and non-vertical walls in our cities, but willfully damaging natural monuments as important and incredible as the Grand Canyon for no reason other than pure asshattery is over the line.
Graffiti sprayers should be incarcerated for decades anyway, but in the case of natural world wonders of this scale I have zero tolerance for them using up any more of our oxygen. Graffiti sprayers are worse than thieves, because the results of their actions are visible years from now and their damages may be much higher than that of even professional shoplifters. And their actions are done for really no reason other than to imprint their name on everything they see. Which only a small circle of their fellow jerks can even read or recognize.
Anyone who's ever been to an Asian country will instantly recognize how large the effect and impact of widespread graffiti in any environment really is, because there's absolutely no Graffiti to speak of, only some sprayed rogue advertisements. Visible graffiti means law enforcement is far or ineffective and there's people around who don't respect others or others property. That feels less safe and emboldens others that law enforcement really IS ineffective and/or nobody cares about their wrongdoings.
It's becoming impossible to uphold even the most basic laws fifteen to twenty years after social norms are not enforced anymore.
Parent
Re:That's retarded (Score:5, Funny)
People who spray paint anything on the Grand Canyon should be shot on sight.
Great, then you get partially-finished graffiti _and_ blood stains on the walls.
Parent
"People who spray paint..." (Score:5, Informative)
So that's what happened to the Anasazi [jqjacobs.net]. Now, somebody just needs to go clean up the mess they left.
Parent
Re:That's retarded (Score:5, Insightful)
Ever read _A Canticle for Leibowitz_? It's one of my favorites, particularly because it pokes fun at our tendency to sanctify the innocuous. In the book an ancient relic is found, something from antiquity. Turns out to be a shopping list from a guy who works a 9 to 5 job. There's another short story called "Motel of the Mysteries" that does a similar thing, except that toilet seats become some ancient religious headdressing.
The knowledge is what we need to hold dear, not the artifacts created in search of that knowledge. It's nice in a saccharine sort of way to have tangible evidence of where someone stood, but the real treasure is what that person did. If we sanctify the artifacts we tend to lose sight of the knowledge.
Parent
Re:That's retarded (Score:5, Funny)
Are we gonna freeze Lance Armstrong when he dies?
What does some bicyclist have to do with preserving the moon?
Parent
100km is excessive (Score:5, Funny)
How many places would remain if all those spots are banned? There are only so much good landing sites on the Moon.
Re:100km is excessive (Score:5, Insightful)
How many places would remain if all those spots are banned? There are only so much good landing sites on the Moon.
At the current rate there are enough landing sites to keep us busy for a couple of thousand years.
Parent
Re:100km is excessive (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah, but 640K landing sites ought to be enough for anybody.
Parent
Why Worry? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Why Worry? (Score:5, Informative)
Erosion Requires an atmosphere doesn't it?
No. They can be eroded by micrometeorites and thermal changes. But that would take millions of years.
Parent
Re:Why Worry? (Score:5, Funny)
Fry will slap nike all over it long before then anyway.
Parent
Re:Why Worry? (Score:5, Interesting)
Other posters have already mentioned erosion via the expansion and contraction of the monthly day/night cycle's heating and cooling, and erosion by micrometeors. There's also moonquakes and electrostatic levitation of moon dust that come to mind as other natural sources of erosion.
On top of all that, there's artificial sources of erosion. Bear in mind that the footprint was made at the base of a ladder that a couple of astronauts spent hours coming and going from; it probably got stepped on a few times. And then the lander took off again by firing a powerful rocket engine, directly blasting the area with high-velocity gases. You can see in a video of Apollo 17's lander launch that quite a lot of dust and debris gets blown about in the process. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXs4tncQcAE [youtube.com]
But frankly, even if that first footprint was still magically pristine, I don't think returning there and putting down new footprints would somehow "ruin" the historical significance. It would add to the historical significance. The site would no longer be just the site of the first manned lunar landing, it'd be the site of the first manned lunar landing and the first return to the site of the first manned lunar landing. That's pretty neat too.
Parent
if man ever sets foot on the moon again (Score:3, Interesting)
it will darn near be just as special as the first time. it's been SO long since we've been there, in person.
the next footprint should be just as protected.
Re:if man ever sets foot on the moon again (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
The Consipiracy Continues (Score:5, Funny)
And keeping people away from the original "landing site" will keep them from figuring out that the first moon landing was faked by the government. (Or was it faked by our evil reptilian overlords? I can never keep that straight.)
Chinese Policy (Score:4, Interesting)
I remember reading long ago, forget where, that official CCP policy was that if they were to arrive on the moon before the US returned, their first goal was to remove as much evidence of American landing sites as possible so as to claim the US had lied and in fact China was the first on the moon.
Probably some wharrgarbl from the intertubes stuck in my head, but who knows.
Ugh (Score:4, Insightful)
Great, now we'll need to deal with the lunar version of NIMBYs. I was personally looking forward to Hydrogen 3 and titanium surface mining on the Moon. I want vast robotic factories on the Moon so we can start mass producing segments for cylinder-type space colonies. I want to be able to retire in one of those space colonies.
It is a shame that some people exist merely to hold the rest of us back from our ideal Star Trek future with green alien babes.
Re:Ugh (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah.... and you know who was the best example of that? Captain Fucking James T. Kirk.
You think one of the "red shirts" got to do it with a green alien babe? Of course not. It was Captain Kirk nailing all the Intergalactic Strange throughout the Alpha Quadrant.
If we had that future, you would still be bitching. Your best option would be the overweight Bolian chick down in engineering. You would NOT want to go down to the planet. All you would ever hear about it is how Captain Kirk made it up back up with just a few seconds to spare, shirtless with sucker marks all over him, but Steve the poor S.O.B that transferred last week died a horrible death on the planet while some strange alien animal was sodomizing his corpse. Steve's parents would have to get a message about how his cause of death was "mauling by alien genitalia on Rontos 5".
Parent
Depends on who gets there next (Score:4, Funny)
I can't imagine the bootprint lasting long if North Korea make it up there.
You think those were nuclear missiles they were firing? North Korea are planning the worlds first single stage rocket 'landing' on the moon, with their great leader strapped to the front because he is so awesome he can actually reduce drag.
translation (Score:5, Interesting)
"The sites of early lunar landings are of unparalleled significance in the history of humanity, and extraordinary caution should be taken to PREVENT EVER BEING ABLE TO PROVE THEY EVEN EXIST"
Idolatry (Score:5, Insightful)
This is ridiculous idolatry. It's not like there is something we *don't* know about these events, there is nothing to discover there, and hence nothing to protect, as opposed to an archeological site.
Re:Idolatry (Score:5, Insightful)
This is ridiculous idolatry. It's not like there is something we *don't* know about these events, there is nothing to discover there, and hence nothing to protect, as opposed to an archeological site.
I would vote for preserving the apollo 11 landing site. The first footsteps on the moon represented a fundamental advance for our species. Maybe in 100000 years people will argue about when and where it happened. Much as we debate the migration out of africa.
Parent
Uhhh.... (Score:4, Insightful)
The first bootprint was likely obliterated by the lunar ascent engine exhaust on the way out. Hello!
Re:Uhhh.... (Score:5, Informative)
Apollo 17 lunar module ascent. [youtube.com]
Parent
Sea of Tranquility National Park (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not? I personally think that preserving the artifacts of the first moon landing should be considered important.
Though realistically.... Neil Armstrong's first boot print was most likely obliterated when the LEM blasted off.
There's a lot of moon up there. I see no reason to disturb the existing landing sites until we have the means to preserve them properly.
Here we go again (Score:4, Interesting)
I hope that I'm not the only one that is fed up with this modern approach to trying to preserve everything we ever do. Why can't we be happy with the knowledge that we did it? If I got a chance to see the first boot print on the moon I'd jump at it but would my life be any worse if that boot print accidentally got driven over, hardly. I'm not advocating that we should go out of our way to erase history just let it take care of itself.
I'd bet that 99.999% of the population probably didn't even realize that there was a first boot print still up there and now they will get all up in arms because it might at some point in the future get erased. Sigh. Give me a solution to world hunger, fusion power and a decent internet connection first and then I'll care.
Footprints? meh! keep the tech? yes (Score:5, Interesting)
After all we explore wrecks on the ocean floors, the landers should be afforded the same status for scientific investigation.
As it is, We've still got Neil's boot, so we can make more footprints anytime.
Re:Footprints? meh! keep the tech? yes (Score:5, Insightful)
In a way this argument reminds me of Bill Gates about ten years ago talking about how some day people would have wall that could display art work from the great masters. Now, I think that's the good thing, but it's not the same as having an actual Picasso on your wall. Would you feel different about owning a baseball used by and signed by Jackie Robinson, or one that had his signature printed on it? Would you feel the same about touching an Apollo specification moon boot and touching the actual one used by Neil Armstrong?
Once in a college class I got to handle a human brain. It was, to me at least, an awe inspiring experience. The thing was pickled and pre-dissected so it came apart like a puzzle block. So far was we knew, the information that was once in it was gone forever. Yet somehow I had the feeling I was holding an entire universe in my hand, even though now it was only a thing.
That's the crux. We feel that things, authentic things connected to an event or person somehow connect us.
It's not a rational feeling.
But then again, it's not really an irrational feeling either. It's arational. It needs no justification other than it exists. It's a fact of life, a facet of human experience, one of the things that makes life worth living.
Where we run into trouble is when we have to put this human value into the scales with other kinds of values. Is a Jackie Robinson baseball worth a human life? Of course not. Is the Apollo 11 site worth sacrificing future human technological process? No.
But that's not what we have here.
We have a proposal to send a rover to one of the historic landing sites. Why? Because they're cool. The value in this proposal is predicated on the connection value of the place. But the ethical question is this: in exploiting that value, how much of it do they destroy? How much of it do they leave for the rest of the human race?
I think if scientific value is our touchstone, the rovers should go where no observers have gone before.
Parent
Re:The bootprint is might be getting fuzzy by now (Score:5, Interesting)
If you want to preserve Neil Armstrong's boot print, perhaps it's better to send a mission exactly there and put a pane of plexiglas over it.
Parent
Re:The bootprint is might be getting fuzzy by now (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Heating and cooling once a month would expand and contract the soil, obliterating footprints eventually.
That must be what erased all the craters. Oh wait...
To be fair you did say "eventually"... but then our sun will burn out eventually too, that doesn't mean we shouldn't make wildlife preserves in the meantime.
Re:The bootprint is might be getting fuzzy by now (Score:4, Funny)
oh yeah? name one.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Obviously, we must protect the moon from this heating and cooling at all costs! I propose a tin foil wrapping suspended above the entire surface to block the sun.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Heating and cooling once a month would expand and contract the soil, obliterating footprints eventually."
Unfortunately that same process will never have an effect on your nick.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I hope you remembered to tell your children, not to do as I have done ?
Me, I've got one foot on the platform, the other foot on the train. The train left 5 minutes ago, and now I have a severe crotch pain.
Thankfully, my mother is a tailor, and will be able to sew my ripped blue jeans. As for Father, he's either in a gambling house, or lying on top of a drunk (always confused me too, but listen to the original lyrics .. he does say "the only time he's satisfied is when he's *on* a drunk".