4.3 Article Proceedings Paper

Back to the Moon: The scientific rationale for resuming lunar surface exploration

期刊

PLANETARY AND SPACE SCIENCE
卷 74, 期 1, 页码 3-14

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pss.2012.06.002

关键词

Moon; Lunar science; Lunar geology; Lunar geophysics; Lunar astronomy; Space exploration; Astrobiology; Space life sciences; Space medicine

资金

  1. Science and Technology Facilities Council [ST/I001298/1, ST/I001964/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  2. STFC [ST/I001964/1, ST/I001298/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The lunar geological record has much to tell us about the earliest history of the Solar System, the origin and evolution of the Earth-Moon system, the geological evolution of rocky planets, and the near-Earth cosmic environment throughout Solar System history. In addition, the lunar surface offers outstanding opportunities for research in astronomy, astrobiology, fundamental physics, life sciences and human physiology and medicine. This paper provides an interdisciplinary review of outstanding lunar science objectives in all of these different areas. It is concluded that addressing them satisfactorily will require an end to the 40-year hiatus of lunar surface exploration, and the placing of new scientific instruments on, and the return of additional samples from, the surface of the Moon. Some of these objectives can be achieved robotically (e.g., through targeted sample return, the deployment of geophysical networks, and the placing of antennas on the lunar surface to form radio telescopes). However, in the longer term, most of these scientific objectives would benefit significantly from renewed human operations on the lunar surface. For these reasons it is highly desirable that current plans for renewed robotic surface exploration of the Moon are developed in the context of a future human lunar exploration programme, such as that proposed by the recently formulated Global Exploration Roadmap. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据