I'm supposed to be finishing an article for my organization's newsletter, but I'm on deadline, so I'm thinking of everything but my article. My long-suffering editor is used to such behavior, so I suspect that I get a special "Chairman's deadline" different from everyone else's.
Anyway, I got to thinking about HB's and how, even if we took them to the moon (Moon? - what's correct?) and showed them the landing sites, the footprints, the equipment left behind, hell, even if we could find Alan Bean's self-timer, they'd still cry hoax.
And somehow the thought of footprints got me to thinking about how, when we finally do settle and exploit the moon (something that was supposed to happen in my lifetime), we would have to preserve those first sites and footprints, at least the ones near the descent stages. And that got me to thinking about the tangible proof, visible from Earth, that we've been there.
Obviously, as Arthur C. Clarke pointed out in one of his stories, settlements would have the effect of putting stars where there could be none - lights between the horns of the crescent moon. But what about the trampling of the dust by humans, and, more likely visible, equipment around those settlements? Although no details would be visible, would the surface around those settlements be noticeably brighter or darker? My own guess is that it would be brighter, based on nothing more than the famous wheel trail photograph from Apollo 14. But then, it might be sun-angle dependent, if there's an effect at all, as I've taken lot's of pictures of snow trails being lighter or darker, depending on the how the light hits them.
Anyway, I'll turn this over to people lots more knowledgeable than me here. I'm going back to mulling over how to make young flight instructors understand their professional responsibilities...
