The sites of early lunar landings are of unparalleled significance in the history of humanity, and extraordinary caution should be taken to protect them. Armstrong's iconic footprint and the American flag placed by the astronauts may yet be intact -- there is no wind or rain on the moon to damage or destroy them.
NASA, the most experienced, successful and best-funded space agency in the world, has occasionally found it difficult even to place satellites in orbit. And those missions are far simpler than landing a robotic rover on the moon within a kilometer or two of a specific, and culturally important, location. Private groups operating on much smaller budgets and attempting such a project for the first time are likely to encounter failure. But far more catastrophic would be a near-success -- a crash landing, for example, in which a historic site was damaged or destroyed.
One team in the competition, Astrobotic Technology, plans to launch as early as December 2010, with Tranquility Base as its stated target. It is not too late for the sponsors to withdraw their bonus prize for approaching and imaging lunar landing sites. Indeed, they should ban competitors from targeting regions within 100 kilometers of prior lunar landings, with violators excluded from receiving any prize money. The bonus money could instead be offered as the award in a competition to design plans for studying, preserving and protecting sites such as Tranquility Base, and presenting them to the public.
We have no doubt that space tourism, perhaps even as envisioned by the X Prize Foundation, will be a reality someday. The competition itself has already inspired interest in the Apollo sites among the general public. Once lunar travel becomes easier, there will also be significant interest from scholars in the emerging field of space archaeology. The demands and desires of both groups must be respected. But in the absence of effective international agreements that treat space objects as heritage, it is necessary to take a step back and consider what the best strategy would be for permanent preservation of sites and objects of historic significance.
We have the opportunity now to ensure that there will still be something there to see when tourists eventually visit, and for our descendants to understand and appreciate.
