Let’s Send Neil Back To The Moon ?

[ngcles]

Hi All,

If the moderators feel this item would be better in the Astronomy Books and Media section, by all means feel free to move it.

This article:

http://www.universetoday.com/97113/lets-send-neil-back-to-the-moon/

published by Universe today on 29th August proposes (inter alia), as a monument and memorial to the life and accomplishments of Neil Armstrong:

"I’m proposing a monument to be built on the Sea Of Tranquillity, on the spot where Neil and Buzz walked and, if there’s no national burial planned, place his ashes there. An eternal symbol and testament to human accomplishment – as Neil put it, the place where men from planet Earth first set foot on the Moon, and came in peace for all mankind.

Let it be slated for the first Moon return mission, by any country or private consortium. A stone minimally inscribed with a simple message telling the story for future generations. The blood, sweat, tears and spirit of countless thousands who worked on the Moon missions would be indelibly imprinted on it. Even the words ‘Neil and Buzz were here’ would satisfy me ..."

What are your thoughts on this idea?

In the comments section there is some vitriol pro and con -- best to exclude that from your own conclusion.

Best,

Les D

[TrevorW]

I'd vote for that and even contribute

[astroron]

To save the American tax payer some money, they could ask the Chinese or the Indians to place their mission to the Moon on the Sea of Tranquillity
and go and give the plaque that Neil and Buzz left behind a bit of a polish.
I am sure that those two countries will be on the Moon before the USA returns.
I really think that it is not a very good idea that this person has suggested,
Not very well thought through at all.:rolleyes:
Cheers:thumbsup:

[Hans Tucker]

When I first read this on another site seperate from Universe Today I had mixed feelings and found the article disrespectful to Armstrong and his family. I don't believe the public and the author of these articles should presume how this pioneer wanted to be remembered. The idea of this monument goes against the character of the man and I am sure if the idea was put to him before he died he would be against such suggestion. Armstrong was a humble private man (opposite the Aldrin) and he was laid to rest in a private manner. The foot print he left on the Moon and the remnants of the LM are the monument to not only Armstrong but the thousands of men & women whom contributed to get the men there and back safely. Armstrong didn't believe that one man (himself) should be singled out for this accomplishment and in respect of that neither should we.

Just my view, no doubt I will be crucified for such an opinion.

[Forgey]

Well said Hans, I totally agree, you took the words right out of my mouth.

[Auspom]

agree completely

[Waxing_Gibbous]

ooooh.
I agree with both opinions.
He should have a monument, but it's his family who should really decide.

Personally, I think he belongs to history and the idea of even just a small plaque or disc or whatever, honouring his / their accomplishment is well within the bounds of good taste.
Furthermore, should we ever stop shooting at everyone and eventually make it back to the moon, it might provide a sobering reference and reminder of the effort and spirit that got us there.

[ngcles]

Hi All,

Many thanks for your replies everyone and taking the time to give your thoughts.

Most probably noticed I didn't place my opinion up front. That was mainly because I didn't merely want a bunch who would agree with my thoughts and others then be afraid to comment -- I really wanted to know what others thought.

Here's my thoughts: I think it is a poor idea -- at first glance the proposal seems a sensible and appropriate way to commemorate the accomplishments of a great man -- Armstrong himself and the mass of people that all made contributions to the Apollo programme but just a few minutes thought provides a host of reasons that I think argue convincingly against it.

(1) There's already a memorial there. Most people don't realise it, but a plaque exists, attached to the lander that remains that commemorates the three astronauts who were part of the mission. Here's a picture:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:A11.plaque.jpg

and it has on it already most things the proposal for the new monument outlines.

(2) It would involve disturbing the site. The proposal calls for it to be erected on site -- at the exact place they landed. Already there are well-developed proposals to make the Apollo mission artefacts, the material left on the Moon by the astronauts and landing sites protected from disturbance by future generations. And rightly I think. These are incredibly important historical sites in the history of the human race --they should be preserved from further human interference for as long as we are able. That includes more footprints, rocket-motor blasts, additional material etc etc. They should be left preserved for eternity -- so far as humanity can manage anyway.

(3) What is the point in a memorial that in all likelihood, no one will ever see again? Surely we are better off with a memorial here, with (if appropriate and the families approve) some of the remains of Armstrong and Aldrin (when the time comes) that also incorporates some of the rocks and regolith they returned from Mare Tranquillitatis. Instead of interning Armstrong on Mare Tranquillitatis, let's intern a little bit of Mare Tranquillitatis with him. People can then actually access the memorial, see the material and perhaps be inspired by it, rather than having a memorial no one in all probability will ever see again. How can a memorial on the Moon, inspire people here to emulate Armstrong's accomplishments?

(4) Cost. Yes I know standing there all by itself that word seems crass when we talk about a memorial, but think seriously about about the real cost here. It will probably, in real terms, cost more to return a bit of Armstrong to Mare Tranquillitatis than it did to send him as part of Apollo in the first place. The cheapest way it could probably be accomplished is from a Moon base (assuming we ever have one) a decade or two in the future and a journey of probably over 1000km (plus return) from the base to the Apollo artefacts. Cost -- at least many 10's of millions of dollars. If it were done as a a part (a component) of a mission from Earth, you can probably multiply that figure 10 fold at least -- maybe even more than 1 billion dollars -- to put a small stone and a part of his ashes at the site. Cost effective ?? No I don't think so.

Yes they sent a little of Clyde Tombaugh to Pluto but that was on a mission that was already going, not a new mission just to accomplish that. Yes they sent a bit of Gene Shoemaker to the Moon (more correctly crashed it on the Moon) but again, that was on a mission that was on the way anyway. Do we want to destroy or damage the Apollo artefacts in situ by crashing a bit of Armstrong wrapped in a rock into it ? No I don't think so. Bit counter-productive I think!

I seriously believe Armstrong would be appalled by any cost being incurred to put a memorial there -- even if if it could be done without disturbing the scene. He knew as well as any of us the severe budget constraints NASA is under and I think he would want the money spent on ... actual science. Not doing some stone-masonry on Mare Tranquillitatis.

Sure, name the first Moon base for Armstrong, create some engineering scholarships in aeronautics in his name, there's a plethora of other things to do with that money that is much better than spending a huge sum of money to put a small commemorative item on the Moon, where no one will ever see it again -- and when there's already one there.

'Nuff said.

Best,

Les D

[goober]

There are six eternal monuments there on the moon.... the six manned landing sites. Anybody can go and view the sites themselves. The photographs taken from the orbiter are stunning. Just google LRO and Apollo.

[Hans Tucker]

Neil Armstrong to be buried at sea

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-07/neil-armstrong-to-be-buried-at-sea/4247830