Returning to the Moon Heritage issues raised by the Google Lunar X Prize Dirk HR Spennemann Guy Murphy Returning to the Moon Heritage issues raised by the Google Lunar X Prize Dirk HR Spennemann Guy Murphy Albury February 2020 © 2011, revised 2020. All rights reserved by the authors. The contents of this publication are copyright in all countries subscribing to the Berne Convention. No parts of this report may be reproduced in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, in existence or to be invented, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without the written permission of the authors, except where permitted by law. Preferred citation of this Report Spennemann, Dirk HR & Murphy, Guy (2020). Returning to the Moon. Heritage issues raised by the Google Lunar X Prize. Institute for Land, Water and Society Report nº 137. Albury, NSW: Institute for Land, Water and Society, Charles Sturt University. iv, 35 pp ISBN 978-1-86-467370-8 Disclaimer The views expressed in this report are solely the authors’ and do not necessarily reflect the views of Charles Sturt University. Contact Associate Professor Dirk HR Spennemann, MA, PhD, MICOMOS, APF Institute for Land, Water and Society, Charles Sturt University, PO Box 789, Albury NSW 2640, Australia. email: [email protected] Spennemann & Murphy (2020) Returning to the Moon: Heritage Issues Raised by the Google Lunar X Prize Page ii CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 1. INTRODUCTION 2 2. HUMAN ARTEFACTS ON THE MOON 3 What Have These Missions Left BehinD? 4 Impactor Missions 10 Lander Missions 11 Rover Missions 11 Sample Return Missions 11 Human Missions 11 The Lunar Environment & ImpLications for Artefact Preservation 13 Decay caused by ascent module 15 Decay by solar radiation 15 Human Interference 16 3. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE LUNAR HERITAGE SITES 16 ApolLo Landing Sites 16 UnpiLoteD Mission LanDing Sites 17 Impactor Mission Sites 18 4. THE IMPACT OF VISITORS 19 The Google Lunar X Prize 23 Launch Contracts 24 Recent DeveLopments 24 5. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS 25 ReLevant Regulatory Context 25 Ownership of the objects 25 Jurisdictional issues 28 Strategies to Prevent or Mitigate the Risks 28 Site Register and Object Inventory 28 Practical Considerations 29 Broader Long Term Suggestions 31 Summary of Key RecommenDations 31 6. REFERENCES 32 Spennemann & Murphy (2020) Returning to the Moon: Heritage Issues Raised by the Google Lunar X Prize Page iii Spennemann & Murphy (2020) Returning to the Moon: Heritage Issues Raised by the Google Lunar X Prize Page iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Since September 1959, when the Soviet probe Luna 2 crashed into the Moon, humankind has left a wide array of space craft, mission equipment and paraphernalia on the Lunar surface. In total 63 different sites are known to exist. Of these, Tranquility Base, the site where the first human stepped onto another celestial body outside Earth, is of global and universal value to the history of humanity. Preservation conditions on the Lunar surface are so unique that in the absence of an atmosphere of note, even the boot prints of the astronauts and the tracks left by the rovers are preserved. Unless they are struck by micro- meteorites, or obliterated by subsequent visitation, they will remain visible in perpetuity. This paper discusses the extent, nature, significance and ownership of the space heritage sites on the Lunar surface. The sites are finite and unrenewable, and any modification of the sites, incl. visitation by humans or robotic rovers will impair a site’s integrity. Even unintentional spacecraft crash sites (due to orbital decay for example) retain significance to the scientific community and access to the sites needs to be managed wisely. In the absence of territorial, jurisdictional control over the Lunar surface, multi-lateral mechanisms need to be developed to ensure that humanity’s unique heritage on the Moon is not diminished or destroyed for short term gain. The key recommendations are: 1. The provisions of the Google Lunar X Prize be modified to exclude visitation of Lunar sites of cultural heritage, voiding any entry that does so. 2. A Register of Lunar Heritage Sites should be established. 3. The condition of Lunar heritage sites should be regularly monitored using orbital photography. 4. A global heritage convention governing the protection of space heritage should be put in place. 5. A multi-national technical advisory committee, ideally under the auspices of UNESCO, should evaluate pro- posals affecting space heritage sites on the Moon and other planetary bodies. 1. INTRODUCTION robotic Lunar exploration. Amongst the goals pro- The concept of heritage futures deals with trajecto- posed by Google Lunar X Prize were proposals to ries of cultural heritage management beyond the im- visit human artefacts on the Moon, including those mediate planning horizons. It encompasses both a which are legacies of the Apollo Missions. Human ar- critical analysis of the rhetoric (Spennemann, 2007b, tefacts in space are increasingly being recognised as 2007c) and speculative projections that expand the possessing historical as well as cultural heritage sig- horizon of the profession (Spennemann, 2007e, nificance for the story that they tell in the scientific 2007f). The future management of orbital extra-ter- and technological development of humankind. The restrial space heritage is one of these. collections of artefacts at the Apollo landing sites in The management of objects and places associ- particular are of unique significance as evidence of a ated with space exploration has gained significant seminal event in human history. Their preservation traction since the start of the new millennium. The and conservation is therefore considered paramount. growing body of literature considers the manage- From a cultural heritage perspective, any proposed ment of space craft in situ, both in orbit (Barclay & robotic missions to these sites are of concern for Brooks, 2002; Gorman, 2005a, 2005b, 2009; Gorman their capacity to diminish their integrity and signifi- & O’Leary, 2016) and on inter-planetary surfaces cance. (Capelotti, 2014; Gorman, 2014; Gorman & O’Leary, The original issues paper advanced policy guide- 2016; O’Leary, 2006, 2014; Spennemann, 2005b, lines to be considered for the Google Lunar X Prize 2006, 2009; Spennemann & Murphy, 2007, 2009), as with respect to heritage issues, with the objective of well as the management of associated sites and ob- supporting the inspirational goals of the prize while jects on Earth (Gorman, 2007; Spennemann, 2005b; ensuring sites of significance on the Moon are pre- Spennemann & Kosmer, 2005). In addition, con- served in trust for future generations. cerns are expressed at the possibility that space her- While the Google X Prize was terminated in itage sites on inter-planetary surfaces might be visited March 2018, the ethical and practical points raised in as attractions of future space tourism (O’Leary et al., the document remain valid. Some finalist entrants 2012; Spennemann, 2004, 2006, 2007g). Uncon- were given launch contracts, with one (SpaceIL, trolled access is a major concern, especially as this is ‘Beresheet’) reached the Lunar surface (albeit crash situated in a territorially, jurisdictionally and adminis- landing). tratively unregulated space. In addition, numerous private companies, pri- This document was initially produced in Novem- marily in the U.S.A. have been developing plans for ber 2011 as an issues paper for the Committee on landed missions to the Moon. In 2019 three compa- Space Research (COSPAR) of the International nies were contracted by NASA’s Commercial Moon Council for Science. At the time, the Google Lunar Landing Services (CMLS) scheme in preparation for X Prize, which had been announced in September the U.S. return to the Moon (as part of the NASA’s 2007 had attracted much attention and caused much Artemis program) (Chou & Kraft, 2019b). Selected concern. Following in a long tradition of awarding to deliver to the Lunar surface were Astrobotic, land- prizes to those who push the boundaries of explora- ing at Lacus Mortis in mid 2021 (Astrobiotic, 2019);1 tion, it seeks to encourage the private exploration of Intuitive Machines, landing on Mare Serenitatis in the Moon by awarding substantial prizes to private mid 2021 (Marshall, 2019);2 and Orbit Beyond, teams for achieving a series of benchmark goals in 1 The proposed Peregrine 1 mission is scheduled to The NASA payload was announced in January 2020 carry 28 payloads (from eight 8 different countries) (Chou & Kraft, 2019a) comprised of “resource development, scientific inves- 2 The NASA payload was announced in January 2020 tigation, technology demonstration, exploration, mar- (Chou & Kraft, 2019a), with Intuitive Machines keting, arts, and entertainment” (Astrobiotic, 2019).— Spennemann & Murphy (2020) Returning to the Moon: Heritage Issues Raised by the Google Lunar X Prize Page 2 landing on Mare Imbrium in September 2020.3 In ad- and reference prior research (e.g. Hanlon, 2019). In dition, other companies are also gearing up for pos- this document some data (e.g. Table 1) and sections sible missions, such as Moon Express, Blue Origin have been expanded with references updated to in- and ispace, leading to what some observers have la- clude additional and more recent literature. belled the ‘New Moon Rush’ (David, 2019; Wall, This document provides a summary inventory of 2019a). An expansion of the CMLS program was an- relevant sites and identifies how these are of signifi- nounced in July 2019 (Hautaluoma & Knotts, 2019) cance. It then considers how robotic or human mis- Given the ongoing topicality of the issues at sions to these sites could positively or adversely af- hand, this document (which draws on previous work fect them, including possible missions envisaged by by the authors) has been reissued in this format to be the Google Lunar X Prize and other projects. Finally, placed on record for wider dissemination.