What do you think would be best place for land future lunar mission? For me the best would be landing spot close to former Apollo sites :-)?

[Pawelk198604]

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20171209232506AA3Y4bp

 

[Canopus]

South Pole definitely.

[Scotius]

Accesible place with highest available concentration of useable elements for ISRU. Science in further away regions can be done by surface expeditions or suborbital hops.

[NSEP]

South pole, because people say there is water there. I don't think its necessary to go back to the Apollo sites, sure, its cool and pretty to go to a historical landing site but we already got all the science points from that area so why go back.

Also, the dark side would be interesting. We never really went there, heck, we never even walked well outside the mares.

[DDE]

30 minutes ago, Canopus said:

South Pole definitely.

Targeted for Luna-25.

[Nibb31]

Yes, there isn't much point in visiting places that have already been explored. Given the cost of a mission, the best ROI is from going where Apollo didn't go.

However, if there was one mission to revisit the Apollo sites, it would be great to visit the Apollo12/Surveyor 3 site.

Edited December 10, 2017 by Nibb31

[YNM]

1 hour ago, Nibb31 said:

... It would be great to visit the Apollo12/Surveyor 3 site.

"We really like this bit of the Moon..."

 

 

But yeah. I guess nearby a cave, the poles, farside, or somewhere they really like.

Edited December 10, 2017 by YNM

[KG3]

 

2 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

Yes, there isn't much point in visiting places that have already been explored. Given the cost of a mission, the best ROI is from going where Apollo didn't go.

However, if there was one mission to revisit the Apollo sites, it would be great to visit the Apollo12/Surveyor 3 site.

I had thought that the Apollo landing sites were protected somehow as historic landmarks and that tampering with them might be considered some sort of a crime but it looks like that is not the case.    

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tranquility_Base#Status

"The U.S. National Park Service has declined to grant it National Historic Landmark status to avoid violating the Outer Space Treaty's prohibition on any nation claiming sovereignty over any extraterrestrial body. It has not been proposed as a World Heritage Site since the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), which oversees that program, limits nations to submitting sites within their own borders."

 

But I would like to see some of those lava tubes explored!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_lava_tube#Observational_evidence

"Gravitometric observations by the GRAIL spacecraft suggest the presence of lunar lava tubes with widths of over one kilometer. Assuming a width-to-height ratio of 3:1, such a structure can remain stable with a ceiling that is 2 meters thick. Lava tubes at least 500 m underground can theoretically remain stable with widths of up to 5 km."

[_Augustus_]

South pole or near a lava tube.

[Zeiss Ikon]

Given that those (huge) lava tubes have the same kind of conditions that have led to ice accumulation in the sunless craters of the south polar region (i.e. never seen the sun since the rock solidified), they have similar likelihood of having collected ice.  I'd say that makes them target number one -- check for ice, verify conditions in which we might build a base or colony inside one (radiation and meteorite shielding already constructed for us, if it has ice as well, it's got most of the hard work already done).

[kerbiloid]

If I were a Dark Scientist Dark Scientist with lunar rocket, I would build my secret lunar base somewhere near the center of the far side of the Moon.
This would allow me to strike suddenly the mentioned bases near th South Pole or lava tubes, and nobody could see my troops and launches.

[cubinator]

Near the monolith for sure.

[kerbiloid]

1 minute ago, cubinator said:

Near the monolith for sure.

And Atillan. Wiki says, it's destroyed, but just two months ago we could see, it's there.

[kerbiloid]

ice-spice, hee-hee.

https://translate.google.ru/translate?hl=ru&sl=ru&tl=en&u=www.interfax.ru%2Fworld%2F591239

[DDE]

3 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

ice-spice, hee-hee.

https://translate.google.ru/translate?hl=ru&sl=ru&tl=en&u=www.interfax.ru%2Fworld%2F591239

Speaking of PR disasters...

[Scotius]

Yeah, other countries (especially those with their own space programs) will love it. It's like Switzerland trying to impose ban on commercial fishing in international waters - "Why should you be free to catch fish if we can't?". Dear Russia - there are other ways to legalise and regulate exploitation of extraterrestial resources than blanket ban.

[magnemoe]

15 hours ago, Zeiss Ikon said:

Given that those (huge) lava tubes have the same kind of conditions that have led to ice accumulation in the sunless craters of the south polar region (i.e. never seen the sun since the rock solidified), they have similar likelihood of having collected ice.  I'd say that makes them target number one -- check for ice, verify conditions in which we might build a base or colony inside one (radiation and meteorite shielding already constructed for us, if it has ice as well, it's got most of the hard work already done).

Yes its an very interesting target also suitable for an small probe. 

South pole is another location also the backside as it has an different geology. 

[NSEP]

Maybe Tycho Crater and its rays would be interesting to look at. I think Apollo 18 was supposed to go to Tycho.

[DDE]

2 hours ago, Scotius said:

Yeah, other countries (especially those with their own space programs) will love it. It's like Switzerland trying to impose ban on commercial fishing in international waters - "Why should you be free to catch fish if we can't?". Dear Russia - there are other ways to legalise and regulate exploitation of extraterrestial resources than blanket ban.

Well, there has to be some justification for the Rudolph road-mobile surface-to-space missile.

[KSK]

On 10/12/2017 at 10:34 AM, Nibb31 said:

Yes, there isn't much point in visiting places that have already been explored. Given the cost of a mission, the best ROI is from going where Apollo didn't go.

However, if there was one mission to revisit the Apollo sites, it would be great to visit the Apollo12/Surveyor 3 site.

There would even be some scientific merit in it. If I remember rightly, the Apollo 12 crew brought bits of the Surveyor back home (Pete Conrad chose the Surveyor camera as his 'trophy fish') so that the effects of long term exposure of those bits to the lunar environment could be studied. 

Well now you've got quite a lot of extra data points to continue those studies if you could bring home samples from Surveyor (yay for time resolved samples), the Apollo 12 LEM descent stage and whatever gear (including ahem, surplus organic material) was left on the surface.

I can't see much merit in doing more than one of those sample return missions but that little corner of the Ocean of Storms would be the place to do it.

Edited December 11, 2017 by KSK