GOLDEN, Colorado — The moon is in need of good and accurate artists!
As NASA’s Artemis program hits its stride, and in a few years “reboots” our moon with a human presence, there’s an urgent need to guard against artistic misrepresentations of the lunar landscape, experts say.
We’ve all seen those alluring lunar renderings of vehicles and astronauts bounding about while setting up equipment and putting in place a moon base.
Reality versus depictions
“We are telling the public the moon is easy — it is not!”
That’s the matter-of-fact warning from Daniel Britt, the Pegasus Professor of Astronomy and Planetary Sciences in the Department of Physics at the University of Central Florida. He’s also the director of the Center for Lunar and Asteroid Surface Science.
Britt spoke about and showcased artists’ misconceptions during a “reality versus depictions of the lunar surface” talk here at a Space Resources Roundtable, held from June 2 to June 5 on the campus of the Colorado School of Mines.
“I wish I could say that engineers and managers know better, but they don’t. We are training a generation of engineers to not worry about terrain. If the artists are getting it wrong, it is our fault. Let’s stop fooling ourselves,” Britt said.
Well versed in what the lunar surface truly offers, Britt scolded a number of arty accounts of lunar territory promulgated by both NASA and commercial space ventures. He spotlighted what’s wrong with those pictures — for starters, small craters and ever-present lunar dust, along with dirty astronauts, dirty equipment and dirty habitats.
Facts of life
A flat, dustless moon is not the one we are sending Artemis astronauts to, said Britt. Crews will experience coarse terrain, pervasive dust, and a surface unlike anything here on Earth. These are the facts of life on the moon, he said.
The Apollo moon-landing missions learned this first hand. But those astronauts explored equatorial areas. The Artemis program is targeting the lunar south polar region, which will be tough to deal with thanks to the low angle of the sun.
“When you look into the sun, it will be blasting into your face. But at least you’ll see the shadow of that crater you are about to trip into,” said Britt. “But looking down-sun, you won’t see diddly squat.”
“There’s need to stop deluding ourselves,” Britt told Space.com, advocating the creation of a 1-to-10 scoring system for lunar art, with prizes for the worst and best visualizations
“What I want to do is land on the moon way safer and easier,” he added, “so you need to ask yourself what’s missing from these depictions. We are training the public to think this is easy.”
False impression
To support his concern, Britt spotlighted both Apollo moonwalker-taken imagery and the scenery as projected by artists, be it using paint brush or artificial intelligence-guided computer work.
“The sun angle washes out the rough terrain. Almost all the pictures taken from the surface give the very false impression of a flat, gentle terrain,” Britt said. “The reality is that the lunar surface is heavily cratered, rough, very dusty and covered in regolith.”
Most Apollo surface images were taken “down-sun” because looking “up-sun” was hard. “This leaves a very false impression of a flat moon with gentle terrain,” Britt said.
Tilt problems
Apollo was pretty lucky, Britt said, observing that several of the six human moon landings experienced tilt problems. For instance, Apollo 14 experienced a 7-degree tilt on landing, and Apollo 15 had an 11-degree tilt on touchdown.
Apollo 11 had to dodge a boulder field. Apollo 12 and Apollo 16 landed on the edge of big craters. “Even small craters can be meters deep,” said Britt, recalling problems encountered by astronauts on their descent to the moon.
“The dust went as far as I could see in any direction and completely obliterated craters and anything else … I couldn’t tell what was underneath me,” astronaut Pete Conrad said during an Apollo 12 debriefing. “I knew I was in a generally good area, and I was just going to have to bite the bullet and land, because I couldn’t tell whether there was a crater down there or not.”
Similarly, Apollo 16 commander John Young said: “I couldn’t judge slope out the window worth a hoot, and that’s the truth. Even down low. The ground looks flat, but I’m sure it would look flat if it had been a 6-8 degree slope, too. I don’t see any way around that.”
Getting it wrong
A flat, crater-free, dustless moon is a staple of imagery issued by NASA, the European Space Agency, other space agencies, and even private space firms, said Britt.
“Yes, these are artists’ impressions,” Britt said, “but somebody is telling the artists what to draw. I love the idea of landing and operating on a moon without dust, small craters, and rough terrain. However, we see the misconception of a flat, gentle moon everywhere.”
“Commercial providers are just as bad. No dust, almost no small craters, no tipping problems. Yes, these are artists’ impressions, and they are getting it wrong,” said Britt. “NASA knows better. All these people should know better, but don’t. Let’s not fool the public. We owe them better data.”