Hoax "theorists" becoming scarcer?

[Noldi400]

Following on from the camera discussion, there's an interesting side issue here given NASA's reported requests for private ventures to stay away from Apollo sites in order to avoid disturbing their historical value.

In my view, they represent valuable research sites, given that we know exactly how long the objects have been there. The condition in which they exist now would give important insights into the behaviour of materials in the lunar environment. Apollo 12's site in particular would be useful as we already have a record of the Surveyor 3 probe's condition after just a few years.

I don't think we should be pandering to the idiots by deliberately picking out Apollo sites to go "See? Told ya", but their value as sources of data is huge.

I remember reading that on... Apollo 17, I think it was, they deliberately made provisions for long term study. They made microscopic and other very detailed studies of the surface of several of the instruments - I think there may even have been special coatings involved - and put the information into archives, hoping that it would still be around when those instruments were someday recovered and could be compared with the original data to determine the effects of long-term exposure.

Yeah, that's really specific, I know. I'll try to find that source and fill in the blanks a little.

[ka9q]

As I understood it, the A11 & A17 sites are the ones NASA really wants to protect. A11 for its obvious historical significance, and A17 because it contains numerous long-term environmental exposure tests that should be examined in a carefully controlled way when the opportunity comes. The other sites are open, but you should still not touch individual artifacts.

I think that if a robotic lunar mission starts to become real, you'll see some serious discussions between them and NASA over which Apollo site to visit and exactly how to visit it. NASA won't want to give up the opportunity to see what has happened to those sites either.