How would you write a Lunar Cultural Heritage Management Plan (LCHMP)?

This is Appendix 8 from a reference document prepared for the Global Expert Group on Sustainable Lunar Activity (GEGSLA). 

Gorman, A.C. 2023 The Sustainable Management of Lunar Natural and Cultural Heritage: Suggested Principles and Guidelines. Reference document, Global Expert Group on Sustainable Lunar Activity 

The full document can be downloaded here. 

Apollo 17 panorama. Credit: NASA

This draft has adapted standard components of terrestrial Cultural Heritage Management Plans with a view to their applicability to the unique circumstances of lunar activities. It is intended as a first approximation which could be further developed. 

Standard components of a Lunar Cultural Heritage Management Plan (LCHMP) could include the following: 

Introduction 

• The reasons for preparing the Management Plan (eg voluntary, required by regulation) 

• A brief description of the location of the activity area or safety zone, including relevant coordinates 

• The time frame for application of the LCHMP, in terms of the duration of the activity or the safety zone 

• The name of the lunar operator (space agency, private company, consortium etc) with all contact details for enquiries or reporting 

• The name of the heritage expert who undertook the work and their qualifications and experience 

Activity description 

• Clear, relevant and detailed information about the nature and extent of the proposed activity to be covered by the LCHMP, including ancillary works, in order to assess the scope for potential impact on lunar cultural heritage. 

 • A description of the likely impact on the surface from the activity and how this relates to impacts on heritage sites 

• Appropriate images of the activity area. 

Documentation of consultation 

• The names and roles of any persons or parties consulted in the process of creating the LCHMP 

• Records of formal consultation meetings or processes, including date, location, agenda items 

• Outcomes of consultation meetings, including the documentation of disagreements 

• Details of informal consultations (eg personal communications) 

• Details of meetings of any advisory groups established for the purposes of the project 

• If the proponent of the development and the LCHMP is different to the launching state of the heritage site, official representatives of the launching state may need to be signatories to the LCHMP as a way of avoiding disputes and ensuring agreement to the mitigation measures. 

Dispute resolution 

Procedures for dispute resolution are a typical feature of terrestrial CHMPs. The LCHMP may set out time frames for communications regarding the dispute, and preferred methods, for example, mediation or negotiation, or the appointment of a neutral evaluator. Any mechanisms which have been established for more general disputes in lunar governance systems would be appropriate to use. 

Results of cultural heritage assessments 

Cultural heritage sites should be identified by unique designators to avoid confusion. If a lunar heritage register has been established, these designators should be used. 

Desktop assessment 

• Search of relevant international or national heritage registers to locate registered lunar objects and registered terrestrial heritage sites which are related to the lunar site 

• Search of literature and UN Register of Space Objects to identify sites not present on national heritage registers or international space heritage registers 

• Search of relevant museum collections to identify material culture related to heritage sites in the activity area 

• Literature review of previous reports, academic literature, and archives where applicable 

• Satellite imagery of the activity area 

• Assessment of the likelihood that previously unknown heritage locations or objects might be present 

• Identification of relevant stakeholders. A cultural heritage site may exist across more than one safety zone or activity area. 

Field assessment 

Where a field assessment, either using human personnel or robotic means, can be undertaken without creating harm to a heritage site, it should include: 

• Survey methods eg remote sensing, instruments used, location of transects, scale of observation 

• Maps, images or new data obtained about the location and condition of existing sites 

• Maps, images or new data obtained about the location and condition of previously unknown sites 

• Obstacles and limitations of the survey 

• Details of any samples removed or any other disturbance of the site, whether deliberate or accidental 

Details of cultural heritage in the activity area (if any) 

The aim of these sections is to provide sufficient information to make evidence-based management decisions. 

 • Details of the assessments undertaken to determine the nature and significance of each place or object, including analysis of site formation processes; 

• Results of the assessments 

• Precise coordinates of location and extent of the site 

• A detailed plan of the site showing the relationship between objects and traces 

• A detailed description of the material remains at the site, including any catalogues of data recorded. 

• Historical background of the site 

• An assessment of the significance of the place, site or objects. It is recommended that the significance criteria of the Burra Charter be used for consistency. 

• Any images of the site 

• Impact assessment, including the cumulative impact of ongoing activities in the area 

        • Whether the activity will be conducted in a way that avoids harm to the place or object 

        • If there is potential harm, whether the activity will be conducted in a way that minimises                harm to the place or object 

        • What aspects of cultural significance will be affected by the activity 

        • Any specific measures required for the management of the place or object, before,                       during  and after the activity. 

        • Any contingency plans required in relation to disputes, delays and other obstacles that                may affect the conduct of the activity 

Specific management and mitigation measures 

The Management Plan should clearly explain why the activity cannot be conducted to avoid harm to cultural heritage if this is the case. If harm is likely to be caused, then mitigation measures to minimise the harm should be outlined. 

Based on the significance assessment, specific management measures should be identified. They could include: 

• Avoidance of the site as the preferred management strategy in the first instance ie locate the activity as far away as possible 

• If a heritage site is not going to be impacted by the activity, then no action should be taken that will create unnecessary disturbance. 

• Adjust the design of the activity (eg location of specific elements, construction methods, operations methods) to minimise harm 

• A salvage strategy to recover information only when it is not possible for that cultural heritage to be preserved in situ. 

• Note that disturbance and salvage is destructive and should only be carried out when necessary to identify and document the extent, nature and significance of the cultural heritage that may be threatened by the proposed activity. Disturbance or salvage should not occur if it causes more harm to the heritage than the activity. 

• Removal and curation of heritage objects. A plan should be provided specifying secure storage location (whether that is on the Moon or Earth), resourcing, and any relevant factors relating to the long-term survival and safety of the objects. Potential repositories should be identified in advance. For example, the Smithsonian Institution has a Memorandum of Understanding with NASA for the deposition of materials related to US space activity. 

• Removal of human biological material, for example, from the Apollo missions or cremated ashes, must be handled sensitively, with a view to preserving the dignity of the people to whom they belong (or their family and descendants). Protocols established for ethically dealing with human remains in other disciplines can provide guidance here. 

• Any removed objects must be catalogued, labelled and documented to the fullest extent possible. 

• A monitoring plan to collect information on the condition of sites at regular intervals during the activity. This can be done by remote sensing. 

• At the end of the activity or safety zone, an audit of the impacts of the activity on heritage places 

• Any combination of the above measures.

Contingency plans 

A Management Plan must include contingency plans for the discovery of previously unknown lunar heritage during works. This could include: 

• Stop works for a specified time and/or within a specified distance (ie buffer zone), leaving the remains in situ, until an assessment can be prepared and appropriate management recommended. 

 • Verification of the identity of the material and the launching state 

• Notification to the legal owner of the object/s (Liability Convention 1972) 

• A plan for consultation with the legal owner and other stakeholders 

• Consultation with a heritage expert to provide a significance assessment 

• Dispute resolution in relation to the cultural heritage eg between the lunar operator and the legal owner of the heritage objects, where these are different, about how the heritage place is to be managed; or between different stakeholders. Dispute resolution should specify appropriate time frames and processes, using, for example, any mechanisms which have been established for more general disputes in lunar governance systems. 

Other Considerations 

A LCHMP may also provide for the following: 

• Disaster management provisions 

• Protocols for handling sensitive information 

• Cultural heritage training or inclusion of heritage in induction procedures for employees or contractors 

• Evaluation of the LCHMP by an independent expert prior to adoption or implementation 

• Evaluation of the LCHMP by relevant stakeholders

Who lives on the Moon? What we learn from Ambrose Bierce and The Devil's Dictionary

'LUNARIAN, n. An inhabitant of the moon, as distinguished from Lunatic, one whom the moon inhabits. The Lunarians have been described by Lucian, Locke and other observers, but without much agreement. For example, Bragellos avers their anatomical identity with Man, but Professor Newcomb says they are more like the hill tribes of Vermont'.

Somehow I have started a practice of posting on Bluesky every day a dictionary definition from one of the many interesting and/or satirical dictionaries that are around. First of all I did Flaubert's Dictionary of Received Ideas. Then I moved on to Ambrose Bierce's The Devil's Dictionary, published in 1911. (I'm grateful to @Fionnbharr for recommending this to me). Some of Bierce's definitions are definitely old school racist and misogynist, so I've been quite selective in what I've chosen to put on social media. But of course, when I came across this definition for Lunarians, I was immediately captivated.

We'll leave aside any analysis of the Moon and madness; I'm just going to focus on the Moon itself. 

First of all, Bierce mentions Lucian. Lucian of Samosata's account of voyages to the Moon, written in the 2nd century CE, is a work of satire. This quote about the lunar inhabitants will give you the flavour of it:

'I am afraid to mention their eyes, lest, from the incredibility of the thing, you should not believe me. I must, however, inform you that they have eyes which they take in and out whenever they please: so that they can preserve them anywhere till occasion serves, and then make use of them; many who have lost their own, borrow from others; and there are several rich men who keep a stock of eyes by them'

You can read the full work for yourself here.

Lucian crater, on the Moon. Source: NASA

Now, I was unaware that philosopher John Locke (1632 -1704) had written about the Moon so of course I had to look this up straight away. It turns out I had the wrong Locke; but in tumbling down this wild rabbit hole, I did find this. In the fourth book of An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, according to the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy,

Locke distinguishes two sorts of probable propositions. The first of these have to do with particular existences or matters of fact, and the second that are beyond the testimony of the senses. Matters of fact are open to observation and experience, and so all of the tests noted above for determining rational assent to propositions about them are available to us. Things are quite otherwise with matters that are beyond the testimony of the senses. These include the knowledge of finite immaterial spirits such as angels or things such as atoms that are too small to be sensed, or the plants, animals or inhabitants of other planets that are beyond our range of sensation because of their distance from us.

So other planets could be inhabited, but we'll never know!

Bierce actually means Richard Locke, who was the perpetrator of the Great Moon Hoax of 1835. This was also a work of satire, so this makes sense. The illustration below shows how he portrayed the lunar inhabitants.

A lithograph of the hoax's "ruby amphitheater", as printed in The Sun. Source: Wikimedia

Bierce says that 'Bragellos avers their anatomical identity with Man', which is funny when you consider the Lunarians described by Lucian, with their detachable eyes and many other absurdities, and by Locke, as you can see in the illustration above, with bat wings stretching between their limbs (Homo vespertilio). Bargellos, however, is a made-up person; Bierce has such people scattered throughout the Dictionary, with hilarious names like Opoline Jones and Jex Wopley.

Professor Newcomb is not made up. I'm pretty sure he's astronomer Simon Newcomb (1835 – 1909). Newcomb wrote three serious works on the Moon: Research on the Motion of the Moon, Part I (1878), Investigation of Inequalities in the Motion of the Moon Produced by the Action of the Planets (1907) and Research on the Motion of the Moon, Part II (1912). I had a look at them and frankly they're too full of equations and not very satirical.

He also wrote The Philosophy of Hyperspace and The Fairyland of Geometry, which I am very much more interested in. I suppose I'll just have to read between the equations.

Bierce might be alluding to the fact that in 1884 Newcomb became the inaugural president of the American Society for Psychical Research (ASPR). In this period, there were psychics, such as Catherine Müller, who visited other planets and met the inhabitants. In the course of his association with the Society, Newcomb decided that psychic research was all bunkum, which doesn't provide much to mock. 

By coincidence, one of the founding members of the ASPR was psychologist G. Stanley Hall.  I had come across him before. He invited Freud and Jung to the US in 1909 - enough alone to make him interesting! Some time before the turn of the 19th century, he conducted a study on what children thought about the Moon. It's fascinating, and I talk more about it in Dr Space Junk vs the Universe: Archaeology and the Future.

Back to Newcomb, though. Bierce says Newcomb thought the Lunarians were 'more like the hill tribes of Vermont'. Vermont is a very mountainous US state. I feel that this means something, but I don't know what. The hill tribes of Vermont could refer to a First Nations people, or to some type of white people. Bierce seems to be saying that Newcomb thought the hill tribes of Vermont did not resemble 'Man' [sic], so might as well be alien, I guess, or unevolved or devolved or something. I haven't really found anything else about this one.

So there you have it, a little discursion on Ambrose Bierce's satirical interplanetary musings.

The Moon in the 1870s

'MOON: Inspires melancholy. Is it perhaps inhabited?'

- Gustave Flaubert, Dictionary of Received Ideas, 1870s

'This Plain Would Be Nothing But an Immense Ossuary' by Émile-Antoine Bayard, 1870, illustration for Jules Verne's From The Earth to the Moon.

From 'Influence of the Moon on Plants', Border Watch (Mount Gambier, South Australia) Saturday 9 April 1870, page 2. I am not responsible for the typo.

'The Moon shines forth with peculiar brilliancy'.
 James Glaisher, Camille Flammarion, W. de Fonvielle, and Gaston Tissandier, 1871 Travels in the Air (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott).

From 'Is Our Moon Inhabited?', Wagga Wagga Advertiser and Riverine Reporter (NSW), Saturday 16 September 1871, page 4

How did Pluto become the symbol of oppressed white men and US ownership of the solar system?

It's the 20th anniversary of Pluto's plummet from planet to 'dwarf' planet.

A composite of enhanced color images of Pluto (lower right) and Charon (upper left), taken by New Horizons on July 14, 2015. Credit: NASA/Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory/Southwest Research Institute

In 1930, the ninth planet was discovered by astronomer Clyde Tombaugh and spent nearly a century as part of our expanded solar system. If you're 100 years old in 2026, you were born into a solar system without Pluto, but it's likely that you don't remember it, as you would've been four when it was discovered.

In 2006, Pluto was kicked out of the ranks of the planets. The astronomer Mike Brown, who was largely responsible for this change of status, gleefully calls himself Plutokiller! Ever since, it's been a 'dwarf' planet.

In 2015, NASA's New Horizons spacecraft flew past Pluto and turned it from a few pixels into an incredible planetary surface. It was thrilling! I wrote about the experience in this post. But despite all the Pluto-love this mission to the outer darkness generated, it was still a 'dwarf' planet. 

In April 2026, as the success of the Artemis II mission to the Moon caught the imagination of the world, NASA chief Jared Isaacman re-opened old wounds by stating that he supported making Pluto a planet again.

The deeper background here is that Isaacman was responding to a question from US Senator Jerry Moran from Kansas, where Clyde Tombaugh grew up. However, I don't think this detracts from the interpretation I'm about to put forward.

I'll come clean and declare my interest here. I would love Pluto to be a planet again. I was sad when it lost its planetary status. It seemed unfair. I think many of us felt that Pluto was an underdog in the planetary world, not like the other planets with it's odd orbit and outsized moon, and we felt we were sticking up for it because no one else would.

The demotion was also hotly contested. I'm not going to revisit the arguments but I want to remark on the fact that people are very emotionally invested in Pluto. It represents a lot of things to different communities. I'm quite happy to admit my own investment. But I'd want Pluto's elevation to be for scientific, not political, reasons. I want Pluto to be a planet on its own merit.

So I'm not sure how I feel about it becoming a US conservative symbol - the planetary equivalent of a white man who's been discriminated against by the woke. How did that happen?

I was contemplating Isaac's statement in the light of the Trump government's war on what is called in America Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, or DEI. (Let's also be clear that this is US terminology that has been popularised because it has become so controversial). 

This has got to the point where there is a claim that white men are being discriminated against, and every woman, person of colour, person with disabilities, LGBQTI+ and other diverse people have been unfairly employed, promoted and preferred - because they have no merit and took the place of a white man. The right chooses not to understand that a person can be qualified for the job AND belong to one of those categories.

So instead of DEI measures attempting to create a level playing field where everyone has an equal opportunity based on merit, anti-DEI is returning the US to a world where discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sexuality etc is actively encouraged. So you don't actually get the best person for the job!

This argument is beyond ridiculous. To the privileged, equality feels like oppression, as they say. If you disagree with me on this, there is plenty of information out there to help you understand how wrong you are.

So ..... how does overturning a 20-year-old decision by planetary scientists and the International Astronomical Union fit into this agenda?

By analogy, if the Trump administration is overturning anything where marginalised groups are given equality, then Pluto must have been unfairly demoted and must be restored to achieve the right moral order. Pluto's an honorary white man. Or dog. (What does this make the other planets? I dare not ask).

The International Astronomical Union, of course, is in charge of things like planet definition and planetary nomenclature. Isaacman has to go through the same channels as everyone else to change definitions. Could there be something else going on here?

I believe there is. The reinstatement of Pluto is an assertion of US space power.

The US has felt it owned the Moon since it 'won' the Space Race with the Apollo missions in the 1960s. Isaacman reiterated this sentiment when Artemis II went to the Moon.

But it's not just the Moon. When New Horizons visited Pluto in 2015, there was a very nationalist message. The quote below is from my blog post here.

Science journalist Elise Cutts has noted how the likes of William Shatner and Elon Musk, famously an opponent of DEI, have jumped on the 'Make Pluto Planetary Again' bandwagon.

Pluto was demoted by the woke left, so reinstating it is a symbol of the Trump administration's commitment to white colonialism - from the Moon to the ends of the solar system.

Addendum: an additional factor that @casmilus.bsky.social and @drmlharris.bsky.social highlighted: Clyde Tombaugh was, of course, American, so it was the only planet discovered by an American that got booted out of the club. This helps make sense of the MAGA/nationalist connection.

@valwrites.ca points out that 'dwarf' planet is a problematic term. They're right. It could be a minor planet instead.

See also:

The day Pluto came to breakfast: Venetia Burney and a life in mathematics

Dr Space Junk's Guide to Voting For Names of Surface Features on Pluto

The Pluto pom-pom parameter

The Space Heritage Task Force (World Archaeological Congress 2003) Terms of Reference

At the fifth World Archaeological Congress (WAC) in 2003, the first-ever conference session on space archaeology and heritage was held. You can read the session abstract here. 

In the plenary session where resolutions and such things were adopted, those of us in the conference session proposed the establishment of a Space Heritage Task Force. Task Forces were set up by WAC to investigate particular issues. But it wasn't the straightforward matter we imagined. The plenary audience did not respond positively when we spoke to our proposal. People thought we were kooky at best, and stupidly unhinged at worst. 

Then a woman stood up to speak. I didn't know her, although I did enquire afterwards. I regret to say I've forgotten her name but I'd like to thank and acknowledge her. She basically said that another similar resolution had been voted in, and for our proposal to be rejected just because it was about space was hypocritical and inconsistent: if the first had been accepted, then so should the second be, on the same basis. She swayed the entire room and our proposal for a Space Heritage Task Force was voted in. Members of the Task Force included me, Beth Laura O'Leary, John Campbell, Leslie Brown, and a few others.

I don't have the proposal any more, but I did find the terms of reference which I wrote for the Task Force later that year. I think it is a remarkably accurate description of what the field needed to consider. 

Space Heritage

WAC recognises that the material culture and places associated with space exploration are significant at individual, local, organisational, national and international levels. As space industries and eventual space colonisation develop in the 21st century, it is necessary to consider what and how elements of this cultural heritage should be preserved for the benefit of present and future generations.

The material culture of space exploration extends from the surface of the Earth to beyond the Solar System. In astronomy and rocketry its beginnings date from well before the Second World War. Sites, places and objects related to space exploration include research and development sites; launch facilities and tracking stations on Earth; satellites and so-called space junk in orbit round Earth; spacecraft and space debris in orbit around other bodies in the Solar System; landing and crash sites on the Moon, Mars, Venus, a small selection of asteroids and soon some of the moons of the outer planets, as well as both space and Earth-based telescopes and associated equipment and infrastructure.

As a basis for effective management, the significance of the material culture of space exploration must be understood. The Task Force will:

• Identify themes relating to space exploration with specific reference to the impact of space exploration on non-spacefaring nations, developing countries and Indigenous peoples;
• Investigate ways of assessing significance at individual, local, organisational, national and international levels.

Some sites, places and objects may have significance far beyond the local or national level. The Task Force will:

• Identify examples of such places, sites and objects that have exceptional cultural heritage value and whose preservation will benefit all humankind;
• Investigate avenues for preservation within existing structures, for example, the World Heritage Convention;
• Propose a set of cultural, historical, social and scientific criteria for preserving space heritage places of exceptional cultural heritage value.

The cooperation of international space agencies, national space agencies, the aerospace industry and the principal astronomical and astronautical associations is an essential part in ensuring the appropriate management of the cultural heritage of space exploration. The Task Force will:

• Identify relevant international and national organisations;
• Lobby relevant international and national bodies to ensure participation in preservation efforts;
• Explore avenues for raising sufficient funds for the preservation and where feasible conservation of at least a selection of space heritage places, sites and objects deemed of greater or exceptional significance.

The Space Heritage Task Force will present an interim report at the next WAC Inter-Congress conference.

A.C. Gorman and J.B. Campbell, November 2003

The NASA 'Hello World' photo shows an Earth interconnected with the cosmos

Apollo 8, Apollo 17 and Voyager 1 all took iconic photos of Earth from outside: Earthrise, Blue Marble and Pale Blue Dot. They inspired and motivated the environmental movement of the 1960s and 70s. 

But these images alone have not led to political action which ensures the protection of Earth’s environment. It takes more than a photograph to change the course of a capitalist system which views planets as resources to be extracted and sold.

Now we have a new image of Earth from outside taken by Artemis II commander Reid Wiseman, dubbed 'Hello World'. It's a blue, fragile, Spaceship Earth - our only home, floating alone in a sea of darkness. Is it that different to the Blue Marble? 

It does show something new: northern and southern auroras, the thin greenish tinge over the poles, and zodiacal light on the lower side, illuminated by the Sun. 

Hello World. Credit: NASA

Aurora are caused by cosmic rays – high energy particles from the Milky Way, other galaxies beyond, and our sun - travelling through the atmosphere to create the visual phenomenon that has such a magical effect. 

Zodiacal light is the reflection of the sun’s rays through interplanetary dust created by comets and collisions between asteroids. It’s sometimes called the ‘false dawn’ because you see it before sunrise. It can also be seen from the surface of the Moon. 

What does this mean? Instead of the isolated Spaceship Earth, the Artemis II image shows Earth interconnected with the solar system and galaxy. We're part of something bigger than planetary boundaries.

We have a responsibility to the space environment that we’re part of – including the Moon.

Space Heritage and the Potential for Exoarchaeology in the Solar System (World Archaeological Congress 2003)

On June 21st - 26th 2003, the first ever conference session on space archaeology was convened at the World Archaeological Congress 5 in Washington DC. World Archaeological Congresses are based around themes, with sessions sitting under the themes. In the theme The Heavens Above: Archaeoastronomy, Space Heritage and SETI, there was a session on space heritage. Below is the session abstract.

Space Heritage And The Potential For Exoarchaeology In The Solar System: National And International Perspectives

Organized By

John Campbell (Australia) and Beth O’Leary (USA)

Session Details

Space Heritage is an appropriate term for the sites and artefacts associated with space exploration which we humans are creating both on Earth and off-world on other bodies such as the Moon and Mars. Although some sites on Earth might be protected by virtue of their continued use by large government and non-government organisations, sites which are off world are not as yet protected, at least not properly. 

The United Nations Outer Space Treaty recognises the artefacts and other so-called “space junk” on the Moon, Mars etc. as the property of the country which sent the spacecraft or probes to their destinations. However, very much as with Antarctica on Earth, land in space can not be owned by any particular country. This is why the “Lunar Legacy Project” was carried out and partly funded by NASA, namely to assess what is needed to protect the first landing site on the Moon, Apollo 11’s Tranquility Base. Some large private companies are already intending to send robotic missions to bring back artefact samples from other sites such as Apollo 12’s landing site (they were initially intending to sample Apollo 11 but have backed away from that proposal). 

When people colonise Mars, as they will someday, and perhaps the Moon, there should be international agreements in place to protect at least the more significant sites and artefacts from wanton tourism and “souveniring”, as well as uncontrolled or unmonitored scientific sampling. On Earth archaeologists normally obtain permission from the relevant communities and authorities before carrying out excavations. Excavating or sampling sites off-world should also require permission, though the difficulty of course is from whom? 

There are also sites and artefacts on Venus and further afield. Those on Venus are undergoing severe corrosion. Sites have been created on some of the asteroids as well, such as Eros, and they will be created on some of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, such as Europa and Titan (both of which are of interest because they might harbour life), and eventually further out in the Solar System. Artefacts in orbit round Earth and Mars, as well as eventually elsewhere, should also be considered, even if most of the items now in orbit round the Earth might be considered “space junk”.

This session has four papers, invited commentaries, open discussion of the issues and a workshop which will attempt to come up with some concrete proposals for the development of space heritage legislation and protocols. The urgent need for a new UN Space Heritage Treaty will also be addressed and a draft proposal planned.

Presentations

Assessing and Managing Human Space Heritage in the Solar System: The Current State of Play and Some Proposals

Dr John B. Campbell 

(School of Anthropology, Archaeology and Sociology, James Cook University, Cairns, Australia) 

Cultural Heritage Management in Orbit

Dr Alice C. Gorman (Environmental Protection Agency, Rockhampton, Australia)

The Cultural Landscape of Space

Dr Alice C. Gorman (Environmental Protection Agency, Rockhampton, Australia) 

Lunar Archaeology: A View of Federal U.S. Historic Preservation Law on the Moon

Dr Beth L. O’Leary (Department of Sociology and Anthropology, New Mexico State University, USA), Ralph Gibson (Kell House Museum, USA), John Versluis (North Platte Valley Museum, Gering, USA) and Leslie Brown (Department of Physics, Astronomy and Geophysics, Connecticut College, USA)

Session Time

Thursday Date 26th June

Time 9-11AM

In this post, I tell the story of the events leading up to my departure for Washington DC to present at the conference.