Re: Stick/CEV Propulsion News

I would prefer the base, as the lunar nights would make a great time to
analyse the results of the previous field trip and plan the next.
Still, if only six site visits were up for grabs I would take that-
better a little than nothing! In this case I would want to spend much
longer selecting sites and base the selection on the results the
previous landings had obtained. I would also tend to opt for selecting
some geologically unusual sites, even if the landing presents a greater
risk, as the results returned may be quite instructive.

As an aside, I would like to voice the view that Apollo teams 15 and 17
seemed to do an outstanding field geology effort - despite Jim Irwin
being a creationist nut. The 15 crew were airforce astros but quite
geologically enthusiastic (well, David Scott at least), and 17 - of
course - had a trained geologist on board. Based on the Apollo 15
experience, I think good field geology can be performed by a properly
trained crew, but such training takes years and the crew must really be
committed. Note that I do not think Al Sheppard or John Young were
particularly enthused about field geology and that reflected on the
field geology performed on their respective missions. Again, a
personal view and the geological information returned by Apollos 14 and
- particularly - 16 was still quite impressive and informative.

.