Various possible landing sites were discussed in early planning. Among these were Copernicus, Gassendi and Tycho, large impact craters containing central peaks that were thrust upward at the time of impact, bringing material from deep within the lunar crust to the surface. Such craters provide a record of the solar system's early history; a similar record on Earth has long since been obscured by plate tectonics, erosion and other processes. "The moon," Schmitt says, "is where we're going to get the information ultimately on what kind of environment existed on Earth at a time when the precursors to life were actually forming."
For both Apollo 17 and the canceled missions, Schmitt pressed NASA officials to consider a particularly ambitious objective: the Tsiolkovsky crater, located on the moon's far side. "None of the Apollo missions were planned to land on the far side, and that is an awfully large area to leave unexplored," Schmitt says. His proposal, perceived as too costly and risky, made little headway. Among its requirements would have been placing a communication satellite beyond the moon to maintain a radio link with Earth.
Other sites considered included the Marius Hills, Hyginus Rille and Schroter's Valley, the latter noted for its variety of geologic materials. Whereas some areas were more scientifically attractive than others, "anyplace you land on the moon and collect samples intelligently would've been valuable," says Don Wilhelms, a retired U.S. Geological Survey geologist who during Apollo was part of an interagency group vetting possible landing sites. Canceling the missions was "a missed opportunity," Wilhelms says. "You had existing technology at the peak of its effectiveness. So it was a waste."
In Schmitt's view, the greater error was terminating the Apollo program, not just its last three missions. "We never should have stopped building Saturn 5s and Apollo spacecraft," Schmitt says. "Everything that's happened since, including space stations, could have been done with that technology base. In addition, you would have continued to have the ability to reach out into deep space, a capability that included being able to divert asteroids in case one looked like it might be on a collision course with the Earth. For a brief, shining three or four years, we could do that with the Saturn 5."
See what we're tweeting about
15 Comments
Add CommentSounds like perhaps NASA was told not to return to the moon... by?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo answer your question: The general public.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere was a growing consensus that moon missions were among the many ways the government was wasting money. Politicians responded to the public opinion by cutting back on NASA's budget.
The simple fact is that no saturn 5 was lost,and the goverment wasn't going too,after the great success of mission #17,the oldest rock had been found, and 100,s of pounds of rocks,many of which have yet to be studied,are in the bank,it wasn't worth the risk as we now know how risky it was.We should maybe, observe the same caution, and make this the last shuttle mission before we lose another.We are well on the way with the next heavy launch vehicle ,and finishing the space station would be a good test for it, even if some time is lost.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisand we beat those pesky Ruskies to the moon,so what else mattered....while on-going lunar geology was not my first choice for use of Saturn 5 boosters and other NASA resources, it is a predictable shame that when science piggybacks on political motives, science may not be well served.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPolitics triumphed over Human endeavors! Instead of pursuing space exploration, the senators and congressmen decided we needed to give away money to fight hunger and poverty, which all still exist, instead of provide good paying jobs and satisfy the human thirst for knowledge. A lot of well-educated and productive people were cast aside for a bunch of losers who would not even attempt to contribute to society. We should have continued with manned exploration of the moon and beyond. If we did that today, the United States would be much better off than we are right now.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thistsconway sounds like a bitter old conservative. I suspect that the money going to Apollo wasn't spent feeding the hungry or helping the poor (as that anti-capitalist fool Jesus would have demanded) but rather was spent for military equipment, wars and nuclear weapons ... all high technology stuff which keeps well educated people employed with bloody hands.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't imagine that manned exploration of the moon would have actually accomplished any further benefit to humankind, nor would manned exploration of Mars do so either. Don't worry, though, the Military-Industrial complex still gets its $500+ billion a year to drop bombs on the hungry and impoverished people of the Third World.
wars, starvation and disease all suck....but manned space exploration is the ultimate science. It combines all other disciplines. That may not directly help those suffering from some natural disease immediately, or alleviate some child's hunger today, tomorrow or even next year and longer. BUT....BUT.... it may save a life 50-100 years from now as a result of the system of knowledge and information built up BECAUSE of a manned space program. oh yes and money sucks to.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is time to fully internationalise space exploration. No single country can afford it, and mankind needs a positive goal in the face of possible environmental and economic collapse. The 'developing ' nations such as China and India are gung ho with programs that repeat what has already been done: international leadership is needed to direct the resources we have available to worthwhile goals, and create a template for international cooperation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you really want to help the poor and the sick, don't start complaining about the cost of spacetravel, just cut costs on something you do yourself and donate the money to medical and helpprojects. Start with yourself!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy spend tax dollars on exploring the moon/space when we can build $2 billion dollar bombers to go blow up a $400 grass hut.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHarrison Schmidt for president
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHarrison Schmidt for president
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJack, I am perplexed by your reasoning: you risked almost nothing in the adventures to the moon, yet you now personalize, analyze, and reject the risks willingly embraced by others as if you were the protective Mother-of-Us-All. What are you "scared of"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAbsent a profitable business model, there will be no sustainable human presence in space. Had Columbus discovered Antarctica (by analogy, the moon) instead of the Americas, no-one would have gone back. For a viable profit motive, look at all the communications satellites.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI hope we do attain self-sustaining lunar, asteroidal or Martian colonies for the resulting technological breakthroughs and to avoid keeping all our eggs in one basket in case there's a planet-wide catastrophe.
They never went to the moon. The missions were faked in a studio. Here's a link to some of the evidence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisspurstalk (dot) com/forums/showthread (dot) php?t=144487