Apollo Astronauts Left Bags of Poop on the Moon and We Need to Get Them Back

Apparently, there aren’t only dinosaur remains on the moon… When Neil Armstrong took his historic first steps on the lunar surface in 1969, he left behind more than just footprints. In fact, the very first photograph he snapped on the Moon captured an unexpected subject: a bag of trash, which likely contained human waste. This seemingly mundane detail opens up an interesting chapter in space exploration history – one that involves 96 bags of astronaut poop and their potential scientific value.

During the Apollo missions, astronauts faced the practical challenge of managing bodily functions in space. Their solution was straightforward but not particularly dignified. For urination, they used collection tanks. When it came to defecation, the process was even less glamorous – astronauts had to strap bags directly to their backsides. These waste-filled bags, along with other trash, were then transported to the Moon and left behind. The primary reason for this was pragmatic: by shedding this extra weight, the lunar landers could make room for precious Moon rock samples on the return journey.

At first glance, the idea of retrieving half-century-old excrement might seem absurd. However, astrobiologists have a compelling reason for their interest in these unconventional lunar artifacts. These bags potentially contain a treasure trove of microbial life and viruses that originated on Earth. Studying how these microorganisms fared in the harsh lunar environment could provide invaluable insights into the resilience of life and the potential for biological contamination of other celestial bodies as we venture further into space.

The Moon’s environment is drastically different from Earth’s. Without the protective shield of an atmosphere, the lunar surface is bombarded by intense UV radiation and experiences extreme temperature fluctuations. Scientists have theorized that under these conditions, most microbial spores would likely be sterilized within a single lunar month. However, life has a remarkable knack for defying our expectations.

Recent studies have shown that certain forms of life can withstand conditions similar to those on the Moon. In 2020, Japanese researchers discovered that dried bacteria could survive for three years on the exterior of the International Space Station.

Even more impressively, in 2017, Russian cosmonauts found bacteria thriving on the station’s outer surface, enduring temperature swings from 121°C (250°F) to -157°C (-250°F) – a range comparable to lunar conditions. These findings, coupled with the known ability of some bacteria to be revived after lying dormant for millions of years, make the Apollo astronauts’ leavings a potentially valuable scientific resource.

The presence of human waste on the Moon also raises questions about planetary protection – the practice of preventing biological contamination between Earth and other celestial bodies. As Hugo Lopez, a researcher at the French National Centre for Scientific Research, pointed out in a 2020 study, these bags could pose “major concerns for the lunar environment as well as for the human scientific activities carried out on the moon.” While the chance of Earth microbes interfering with hypothetical lunar life forms is extremely slim, it’s a possibility that scientists take seriously.

Mark Lupisella, an exploration integration manager at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, has proposed a novel solution: a robotic mission to collect samples from the Apollo landing sites’ waste bags. This mission could provide crucial data on whether the microbes in these bags survived or possibly spread into the wider lunar environment.

As Lupisella explains, “It’s a 50-year natural experiment – we don’t have any such case on Earth.” The findings from such a mission could have far-reaching implications for our understanding of life’s adaptability and inform future space exploration protocols.

The legal and ethical considerations surrounding these lunar leftovers are as complex as the scientific questions they raise. Under the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, the United States claims ownership of the artifacts left at the Apollo 11 landing site, including the waste bags. However, the Moon itself is considered the common heritage of humanity. This creates a somewhat ambiguous situation regarding the ownership and protection of space waste.

As we stand on the brink of a new era of lunar exploration, with NASA’s Artemis program and other international efforts aiming to return humans to the Moon, the question of waste management in space has become more pressing than ever. The Apollo-era solution of simply leaving waste behind is no longer acceptable from environmental, scientific, or ethical standpoints.

As Melissa de Zwart, a professor specializing in space law at the University of Adelaide, points out, “If there’s going to be humans living permanently on the moon, you don’t want bags of poo lying around. It’s a hazard. It’s unsightly. It’s not what we want to do.”

The challenges of managing human waste in space extend far beyond the Moon. As we set our sights on long-duration missions to Mars and beyond, developing effective and sustainable waste management systems becomes crucial. NASA’s 2020 Lunar Loo Challenge, which called for innovative toilet designs for use in both microgravity and lunar gravity, is just one example of ongoing efforts to address this issue.

In the end, the story of the Apollo astronauts’ lunar leavings is more than just an amusing anecdote. It demonstrates the complex challenges we face as we expand our presence in space, and the unexpected ways in which even our most basic biological functions can become subjects of scientific inquiry.

As we continue to explore the cosmos, we must grapple not only with the grandeur of the universe but also with the very human realities of our existence. In this context, those 96 bags of waste on the Moon represent both a quirky footnote in space history and a unique opportunity to gain insights that could shape the future of space exploration.

Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4