5 ms·
They should auction it off. For pickup only, of course. I'd like to own the first helicopter on Mars.
by PretzelPirate 3y ago
They should auction it off. For pickup only, of course.
I'd like to own the first helicopter on Mars.
- madduci 3y agoI wonder if they will pick up the trash or we are just littering everywhere in space
- doubleorseven 3y agoI would first check the software license and if i have the "right to repair" on this beauty.
- givemeethekeys 3y agoIt's going to be on display at the Visitor Center when your grandkids visit.
- adastra22 3y agoYou joke, but Russia did that with their moon rover.
- mkl 3y agoIn 1993, to Richard Garriott, for just $68,000: https://www.space.com/8073-privately-owned-soviet-moon-rover-sparks-space-law-talks.html https://www.space.com/8073-privately-owned-soviet-moon-rover...
- varjag 3y agoGood luck getting Russia acknowledging the deal as still valid today.
- TedDoesntTalk 3y agoRichard Garriot aka Lord British who made the Ultima series of videogames?
- smcin 3y agoBut technically Russia might not have owned title to it in the first place. Sounds almost like an NFT before NFTs existed: -- Space lawyer, Joanne Irene Gabrynowicz (University of Mississippi) said: without reading the papers or knowing how they were processed and by whom, she can't speak to the validity of the ownership of a space object purchased at auction. "However, a contention that buying a space object that landed on the lunar surface from a sovereign nation gives rise to a property right to the territory under it is wrong"... said that States-Parties to the Outer Space Treaty of 1966 cannot acquire lunar territory by landing an object on the moon. "The USSR was and Russia is a party to the Outer Space Treaty. It did not acquire the territory under the object when it landed. One cannot sell what one does not own. Since USSR/Russia did not have a property right to the territory under the landed object, there was nothing to sell."
- pavel_lishin 3y agoIt sounds more like Rai stones: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rai_stones https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rai_stones
- lukan 3y agoYeah, but the rover itself was in possesion of russia and is now in posession of Garriot. That is undisputed. What is rightfully disputed, is whether he also owns the land under the rover. He would like to, but not possible with current laws.
- adastra22 3y ago> What is rightfully disputed, is whether he also owns the land under the rover. He would like to, but not possible with current laws. Actually, contrary to the opinion of Ms. Gabrynowicz, current case law and government/agency positions represented by the Artemis Accords reflect Mr. Garriot's claim. It may have been an untested hypothetical at the time, but in the current political climate it is finding support by all the relevant players. In fact they go even further in asserting exclusions zones much larger than just the regolith undermining a lander or rover.
- caseysoftware 3y agoThat's an amazing idea. Not only could they have fun with that stage but it'd be a fun race to see who could get it for them. Then have a big show when it's brought back to Earth and delivered to the owner. I could see SpaceX and FedEx team up for some amusing PR on that one.
- Apocryphon 3y agoFedEx you say? https://tenor.com/view/expanse-the-expanse-fedex-gif-13167563 https://tenor.com/view/expanse-the-expanse-fedex-gif-1316756...
- netsharc 3y agoHuh, a bit like NFTs (or not at all?), the bragging rights that you have ownership of something on Mars is probably worth some change, especially if you're a billionaire.
- 0cf8612b2e1e 3y agoA bit like giant stone money: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2011/02/15/131934618/the-island-of-stone-money https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2011/02/15/131934618/the-...
- oliwary 3y agoShow HN: This website is served from a helicopter on Mars
- WJW 3y agoImagine the latency though.
- daemonologist 3y agoImagine the egress fees (actually I imagine ingress would be more expensive than we're used to too).
- rich_sasha 3y agoFirst item on the to-do: add a CDN
- m463 3y ago42 minute delay or interplanetary hug of death?
- hotpotamus 3y agoHasselblad liked to advertise that there were a couple free ones on the moon, you just had to pick them up. To save weight for more sample returns, the Apollo astronauts did the logical thing and kept the film, but chucked the cameras out on the moon.
- LorenPechtel 3y agoThey chucked a lot of stuff--anything intended for surface use went out the airlock. The cost per pound to bring something back from the moon was higher than the cost per pound of basically anything they brought.
- benj111 3y agoDepends. If the primary point was to put a man on the moon, the cost of bringing things back is basically free. If on the other hand the primary mission was bringing back as many rocks as possible, then yes, the return would be very expensive.
- vel0city 3y ago> the cost of bringing things back is basically free. No, because they'd still have to pay to bring all the extra fuel to get the junk back up off the moon and back to Earth. And before that spend the cost of that extra fuel getting it up there. When every pound is like thousands of dollars it really adds up.
- benj111 3y agoBut at that point the price has already been paid. If you bring back rocks, or air. Same cost. If I take a first class flight, how much does it cost to take my phone? Yes I could apportion a fraction of the cost of the ticket to the phone, but most would say free. Now if the whole purpose of the flight were to get the phone from London to new York, the entire cost should be attributable to the phone, it is the reason for the journey. Was extra fuel specifically brought? Or was it just safety margin? The Landers had spare fuel when they landed, is that waste, or safety margin?
- dgacmu 3y agoBetter investment than an NFT, at least.
- intrasight 3y agoAs long as only public museums are allowed to participate