PROTECTING & PRESERVING 

APOLLO PROGRAM LUNAR 

LANDING SITES & ARTIFACTS 

In accordance with the 

NASA TRANSITION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2017 

Product of the 

OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY 

MARCH 2018
PROTECTING & PRESERVING APOLLO PROGRAM LUNAR LANDING SITES & ARTIFACTS 

1 

Background 

The Moon continues to hold great significance around the world. The successes of the Apollo missions 

still represent a profound human technological achievement almost 50 years later and continue to 

symbolize the pride of the only nation to send humans to an extraterrestrial body. The Apollo missions 

reflect the depth and scope of human imagination and the desire to push the boundaries of 

humankind’s existence. The Apollo landing sites and the accomplishments of our early space explorers 

energized our Nation's technological prowess, inspired generations of students, and greatly 

contributed to the worldwide scientific understanding of the Moon and our Solar System. Additionally, 

other countries have placed hardware on the Moon which undoubtedly has similar historic, cultural, 

and scientific value to their country and to humanity. 

Three Apollo sites remain scientifically active and all the landing sites provide the opportunity to learn 

about the changes associated with long-term exposure of human-created systems in the harsh lunar 

environment. These sites offer rich opportunities for biological, physical, and material sciences. Future 

visits to the Moon’s surface offer opportunities to study the effects of long-term exposure to the lunar 

environment on materials and articles, including food left behind, paint, nylon, rubber, and metals. 

Currently, very little data exist that describe what effect temperature extremes, lunar dust, 

micrometeoroids, solar radiation, etc. have on such man-made material, and no data exist for time 

frames approaching the five decades that have elapsed since the Apollo missions. 

While some of the hardware on the Moon was designed to remain operational for extended periods and 

successfully telemetered scientific data back to the Earth, much of what is there was designed only for 

use during the Apollo mission and then abandoned with no expectation of further survivability. How 

these artifacts and their constituent materials have survived and been altered while on the lunar surface 

is of great interest to engineers and scientists. The Apollo artifacts and the impact sites have the 

potential to provide unprecedented data if lunar missions to gather and not corrupt the data are 

developed. These data will be invaluable for helping to design future long-duration systems for 

operation on the lunar surface. NASA has formally evaluated the possible effects of the lunar 

environment and identified potential science opportunities. For example, using Apollo 15 as a 

representative landing site, the crew left 189 individually cataloged items on the lunar surface, 

including the descent stage of the Lunar Module, the Lunar Roving Vehicle, the Apollo Lunar Surface 

Experiments Package, and a wide variety of miscellaneous items that were offloaded by the astronauts 

to save weight prior to departure. The locations of many of these items are well documented, and 

numerous photographs are available to establish their appearance and condition at the time they were 

left behind. 

What needs “protecting and preserving?” 

There are no legal definitions of “preservation” and “protection” precisely applicable to lunar sites and 

artifacts. However, the Secretary of the Interior has defined “preservation” as “the act or process of 

applying measures necessary to sustain the existing form, integrity, and materials of an historic 

property” (36 CFR 68.2.). For purposes of this Report, "preservation” refers to the fact of a site or artifact 

not being disturbed or harmed, using the Interior Secretary’s definition as a starting point.” 

Additionally, “protection” means preventing further damage, whether by nature or human activity. 

The U.S. Government (USG) recognizes that the increasing technical capabilities of other countries and 

of commercial entities throughout the world potentially increases the number of lunar missions in the 
PROTECTING & PRESERVING APOLLO PROGRAM LUNAR LANDING SITES & ARTIFACTS 

2 

near future. Several private companies are interested in landing spacecraft on the surface of the Moon 

and, through encouragement from public prizes, are seeking to approach USG space assets on the lunar 

surface. 

For example, shortly after the Google Lunar XPRIZE (GLXP) was announced in 2007, representatives of 

commercial entities planning to compete for the prize contacted NASA seeking guidance for 

approaching USG space assets on the lunar surface out of respect for hardware ownership and a sincere 

desire to protect scientific and historic aspects of these sites. Because there was no precedent for this 

situation throughout nearly 50 years of spaceflight, there were no USG guidelines or requirements for 

spacecraft visiting the areas of existing USG-owned lunar hardware. In 2010, NASA convened a Lunar 

Historic Site (LHS) team to address the query and assist the commercial community. The team included 

NASA personnel from flight operations, engineering, scientists, material specialists, legal, public affairs, 

and interagency and international affairs, and historic preservation representatives from state and 

federal governments, academia, and museums. 

In addition, NASA met with the developers of potential future missions (then GLXP contestants) to 

explain the work being done as well as the draft recommendations, and to obtain input from those flight 

teams before the recommendations were finalized. The LHS team assessed the lunar artifacts and 

activities on the lunar surface where humans, robots, or U.S. flight hardware have a presence and 

recommended notable U.S. government hardware, areas, and activities as worthy of protection and 

preservation for both historic and scientific reasons. Two critical locations are the Apollo 11 and Apollo 

17 sites—the first and, at present, the latest human missions to the lunar surface. 

The LHS team identified the following significant artifacts and USG activity: 

 Apollo lunar surface landing and roving hardware—the descent stage of the landing modules 

and associated equipment used in the Apollo 11, 12, and 14–17 missions. Three separate lunar 

rovers operated by astronauts to traverse the lunar surface in the Apollo 15–17 missions. 

 Unmanned lunar surface landing sites (e.g., Surveyor sites). 

 Impact sites (e.g., Ranger, S-IVB, LCROSS, lunar module ascent stage). 

 Experiments and operational equipment. Miscellaneous extravehicular activity hardware and 

various scientific instruments deployed through the Apollo Lunar Surface Experiment Package, 

including, among others, the Laser Ranging Retroreflectors. 

 Specific indicators of U.S. human, human-robotic lunar presence, including footprints and trails 

taken by astronauts, particularly the Apollo 11 mission, rover tracks, the American flags raised 

by astronauts, etc., (although not all anthropogenic indicators are protected as identified in the 

recommendations). 

 Various personal items (e.g., boots and life support systems) and trinkets (e.g., gold olive branch 

and silicon disk containing statements from leaders of 74 countries). 

White House Space Policy Directive 1, signed by the President in December of 2017, provides for a U.S.-

led, integrated program with private sector partners for a human return to the Moon, followed by 

missions to Mars and other destinations. The policy calls for the NASA Administrator to “lead an 

innovative and sustainable program of exploration with commercial and international partners to 

enable human expansion across the solar system and to bring back to Earth new knowledge and 

opportunities.” The effort will more effectively organize government, private industry, and 
PROTECTING & PRESERVING APOLLO PROGRAM LUNAR LANDING SITES & ARTIFACTS 

3 

international efforts toward returning humans to the Moon and should be leveraged when considering 

opportunities to preserve and protect lunar artifacts. 

Risks to the protection and preservation of sites and artifacts 

The primary risk to Apollo sites and artifacts is associated with potential future lunar missions. A visiting 

vehicle approaching a historic site can generate a significant amount of damage to the site in a variety 

of ways: 

 Landing on top of or too close to the site. A crash or off-nominal landing near a heritage site 

may produce an enormous amount of debris, dust, and chemical contamination. 

 Sandblasting effects from rocket thrusters as propellant gases dislodge and propel lunar soil 

(regolith) at high speeds in the local area (e.g., erasing footprints and treads, damaging nearby 

hardware). Due to a lack of atmosphere and low gravity, the regolith can travel many miles and 

at speeds exceeding two kilometers per second for the smaller particles. 

 Disrupting the local area with dust lofting or biological contamination. 

According to stated goals of GLXP teams and other private companies seeking to land vehicles on the 

Moon, near-term risks to Apollo lunar artifacts could be from probes, rovers, hoppers, and prospecting 

activities. Long-term risks are associated with future missions to mine and extract resources from the 

Moon and potential colonization. Although the GLXP expired at the end of March 2018 without a winner, 

several of the finalist teams and other commercial endeavors plan to continue their efforts to 

successfully send robotic missions to the Moon in the next few years. 

NASA has analyzed the effects of landing spacecraft near existing surface hardware on the Moon and 

other planets in previous work focusing on human and robotic missions to the Moon and Mars. The 

Apollo 12 crew landed very near Surveyor 3 to test precision landing capabilities and took samples from 

the robotic spacecraft back to Earth for regolith impact assessment. In addition, NASA has performed 

recent propellant/plume and lunar regolith impingement analyses to better understand the risks and 

concerns of damage to the heritage Apollo landing sites resulting from future spacecraft 

descent/landing and associated surface and low-altitude flight mobility. 

While commercial robotic missions create risks to the protection of lunar scientific and heritage sites, 

the U.S. Government fully supports commercialization of the space sector and commercial robotic 

missions to the Moon. Therefore, the risks to damage lunar heritage sites must be balanced against 

other national and international interests. The lunar heritage sites can be protected, at a reasonable 

cost, while still fostering commercial space activities and government-sponsored missions back to the 

Moon. There are approximately a dozen U.S. and foreign companies at various stages of planning lunar 

robotic missions. These include the five GLXP finalists and other companies from the United States, 

Japan, India, Israel Germany, and other countries.1

Measures to protect and preserve lunar sites and artifacts 

Future visiting vehicles landing near, flying over, or roving to the Apollo lunar landing sites could cause 

damage to scientific value of the artifacts, mar footprints left by our early explorers or damage ongoing 

science experiments. However, carefully approaching these sites is potentially beneficial and can yield 

                                                            

1

 For information about the five GLXP finalists, see https://lunar.xprize.org/teams. 
PROTECTING & PRESERVING APOLLO PROGRAM LUNAR LANDING SITES & ARTIFACTS 

4 

new science, capture new visions of historic events, and support the emerging commercial spaceflight 

communities. Analysis reveals that it is possible for the historic sites to be safely revisited by lunar 

spacecraft to both document their historic and inspirational nature as well as obtain additional and 

valuable science. 

NASA Recommendations 

To proactively identify lunar surface approach strategies and determine a safe method of visiting 

historic sites, NASA leveraged the LHS team to help guide the flight and surface planning of future 

visiting vehicles to those USG historic sites. Along with documenting a technical analysis of damage 

mechanisms, the NASA LHS team identified a small set of flight operations recommendations and 

surface mobility methods which, if followed, help protect the sites, while allowing robotic missions, 

including commercial ventures, to achieve their mission objectives. These measures are captured in the 

“NASA Recommendations to Space-Faring Entities: How to Protect and Preserve the Historic and 

Scientific Value of U.S. Government Lunar Artifacts,” (Technical Guidelines) published in 2011.2

 

Until more formal USG guidance is developed and perhaps a multilateral approach is established to 

reflect various nations’ views on lunar hardware of scientific and historic value, the Technical 

Guidelines developed by the NASA LHS team provide interim recommendations for lunar vehicle design 

and mission planning teams. While the Technical Guidelines do not represent mandatory USG or 

international requirements, they inform lunar spacecraft mission planners interested in helping 

preserve and protect lunar historic artifacts and potential science opportunities for future missions. 

Moon Express (U.S.), PTScientists (Germany), and Astrobotics (U.S.) have already announced 

their intentions to follow NASA’s LHS Technical Guidelines. 

Existing International Treaties 

International law relating to outer space includes several provisions that are relevant to the protection 

of lunar artifacts. Specifically, the 1967 Outer Space Treaty (OST) includes provisions relating to 

national jurisdiction and control, due regard and consultation, and liability. Specifically, Article VI 

provides that the appropriate State shall authorize and continue to supervise activities of 

nongovernmental entities. Article VII sets out a general rule of liability for damage, which is 

supplemented by the 1971 Liability Convention, and provides for fault-based liability for damage to 

space objects. Article VIII specifies that parties to the treaty retain jurisdiction and control over objects 

launched into outer space that are listed on their registries while they are in outer space, and that 

ownership of objects launched into outer space is not affected by their presence in outer space or by 

their return to Earth. Article IX specifies that nations are to be guided by the principle of cooperation 

and mutual assistance in lunar exploration and use, with due regard to the corresponding interests of 

other parties to the treaty; and states that international consultations must take place prior to the 

commencement of an activity that any party has reason to believe would cause potentially harmful 

interference with activities of other parties. 

Taken together, these existing provisions create a system in which other space-faring countries have an 

obligation to exercise control over their own activities in outer space as well as those activities of their 

private actors. Any activities in space that could interfere with U.S. space objects—including equipment 

on the Moon—should include advance consultation with the United States. The United States continues 

2 https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/heo/library/reports/lunar-artifacts.html.
PROTECTING & PRESERVING APOLLO PROGRAM LUNAR LANDING SITES & ARTIFACTS 

5 

to own and have jurisdiction over U.S. origin lunar equipment, and other states could be liable to 

damage to U.S. objects. Although not specifically about lunar artifacts, these provisions could be 

leveraged to discourage activities that would put those artifacts at risk. 

New Treaties 

Amending existing multilateral agreements, such as the OST, or drafting and negotiating an additional 

agreement specifically relating to preservation of lunar artifacts could provide explicit and detailed 

international legal protections. Depending on the content, new rules could protect artifacts in a variety 

of ways, such as by creating setoff zones, specifying particular liability rules, and/or creating whatever 

other protections might be warranted. However, the difficulties and risks of negotiating and bringing 

such an agreement or amendments into force would likely outweigh any benefits. 

First, negotiating any international agreement—particularly one involving such a high-profile issue as 

outer space—is inherently difficult. Similar agreements have taken up to 15 years to complete. It would 

be necessary to identify the substantive provisions desired, and then enter into negotiations with other 

countries in order to reach agreement on a text. The ultimate success of such an effort would depend 

on getting numerous states to join the agreement or amendment, but it is unclear whether space-faring 

nations or developing space-faring nations would agree to do so. 

More generally, some states might see a U.S.-led attempt to protect space artifacts as a subterfuge for 

securing indefinite rights over lunar territory, and perhaps even creating a mechanism to “plant the 

flag” and claim additional territory in the future under the guise of preservation and protection of lunar 

sites and artifacts. Regardless of the merit of these fears, the effort could lead to a backlash against any 

new international protections, and even undermine the existing legal protections described above. 

Finally, any attempt to create new legally-binding international law regarding space could undermine 

the longstanding U.S. argument that current space law is sufficient, and prompt other states to pursue 

their own initiatives, some of which might not be consistent with U.S. national interest, such as a 

prohibition on the extraction of space resources. 

Voluntary Guidelines 

Another possibility would be for the Department of State, NASA, other interested Departments and 

Agencies, and the U.S. private sector to work bilaterally and multilaterally with their counterparts in 

appropriate fora to consider development of voluntary mechanisms for cooperation among nations 

and between and with private companies to protect lunar heritage and scientific sites. This work could 

build upon the success of voluntary guidelines such as the Long-Term Sustainability of Outer Space 

Activities Guidelines, the first set of which was agreed upon by the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of 

Outer Space in June 2016, the Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee (IADC) Space Debris 

Mitigation Guidelines, and the 2002 Hague Code of Conduct against Ballistic Missile Proliferation (a 

multilateral transparency and confidence-building measure). 

Domestic Laws 

Pursuant to the U.S. Constitution (the “Property Clause”) and the Federal Property and Administrative 

Services Act of 1949, as amended, the U.S. Government continues to maintain ownership of NASA 

artifacts (hardware and other personal property) on the surface of the Moon. Legislation supporting 

Executive branch initiatives regarding the protection of lunar and scientific sites could be helpful but is 

not necessary.
PROTECTING & PRESERVING APOLLO PROGRAM LUNAR LANDING SITES & ARTIFACTS 

6 

Recommendations 

1. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Department of State, and other 

interested Departments and Agencies, with guidance from the National Space Council, should 

strategically look for opportunities to leverage lunar missions by and with other Governments 

and commercial entities to assist in preserving and protecting Apollo lunar artifacts. This effort 

should also include investigating opportunities to partner on missions with various entities to 

observe the effect of the lunar environment on different materials used in Apollo lunar artifacts 

and the artifacts of other States. 

2. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, in coordination with the United States 

Department of State and other interested Departments and Agencies and with guidance from 

the National Space Council, and other relevant U.S. entities should continue discussions 

regarding lunar heritage site preservation with foreign space agencies, as appropriate. This 

effort should include discussion of rights and responsibilities in the 1967 Outer Space Treaty as 

well as opportunities and challenges shared by space-faring and emerging space countries. 

Fora for these discussions include the annual International Astronautical Congress, future 

International Space Exploration fora, the International Space Exploration Coordination Group, 

the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space, and other multilateral and 

bilateral meetings. 

3. The United States Department of State, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 

and other interested Departments and Agencies, with guidance from the National Space 

Council, and other relevant U.S. entities should investigate the feasibility of working with the 

international community to develop non-binding best practices for preserving and protecting 

lunar artifacts on a “reciprocal, transparent, and mutually beneficial” basis. 

4. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Department of State, and other interested 

Departments and Agencies, with guidance from the National Space Council, and other relevant 

U.S. public and private entities, should discuss the pros and cons of beginning international 

dialogue on the best ways to mitigate risks presented by future human and robotic exploration 

to the lunar artifacts of the United States and other countries. 
PROTECTING & PRESERVING APOLLO PROGRAM LUNAR LANDING SITES & ARTIFACTS 

7 

About This Document 

This report is submitted in fulfillment of a reporting requirement contained in the National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration Transition Authorization Act of 2017 (Public Law 115-10). In addition to 

authorizing appropriations and outlining high-level policy direction for NASA in 2017, the law directs 

the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) to deliver a report on protecting and preserving 

historically important Apollo Program lunar landing sites and Apollo Program artifacts residing on the 

lunar surface. 

Specifically, Section 831 states: 

(a) Assessment. – The Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, in consultation with 

relevant Federal agencies and stakeholders, shall assess the issues relating to protecting and 

preserving historically important Apollo Program lunar landing sites and Apollo program 

artifacts residing on the lunar surface, including those pertaining to Apollo 11 and Apollo 17. 

(b) Contents. – In conducting the assessment, the Director shall include: 

(1) a determination of what risks to the protection and preservation of those sites and artifacts 

exist or may exist in the future; 

(2) a determination of what measures are required to ensure such protection and preservation; 

(3) a determination of the extent to which additional domestic legislation or international 

treaties or agreements will be required; and 

(4) specific recommendations for protecting and preserving those lunar landing sites and 

artifacts. 

Acknowledgement: Report prepared by OSTP Senior Policy Advisor Ken Wright. 

About the Office of Science and Technology Policy

The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) was established by the National Science and 

Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976 to provide the President and others within 

the Executive Office of the President with advice on the scientific, engineering, and technological 

aspects of the economy, national security, homeland security, health, foreign relations, the 

environment, and the technological recovery and use of resources, among other topics. OSTP leads 

interagency science and technology policy coordination efforts, assists the Office of Management and 

Budget with an annual review and analysis of Federal research and development in budgets, and serves 

as a source of scientific and technological analysis and judgment for the President with respect to major 

policies, plans, and programs of the Federal Government. More information is available at 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp. 

Copyright Information 

This document is a work of the United States Government and is in the public domain (see 17 U.S.C. 

§105). Subject to the stipulations below, it may be distributed and copied with acknowledgment to 

OSTP. Copyrights to graphics included in this document are reserved by the original copyright holders 

or their assignees and are used here under the government’s license and by permission. Requests to 

use any images must be made to the provider identified in the image credits or to OSTP if no provider 

is identified. Printed in the United States of America, 2018.