PAGINA INTERDETTA DAL CENTRO NAZIONALE PER IL CONTRASTO DELLA PEDOPORNOGRAFIA ONLINE (C.N.C.P.O.)
Il tuo browser sta tentando di raggiungere un sito Internet contenente immagini e filmati di pedopornografia minorile. L'inibizione dell'accesso a questo sito é prevista dalla legge n. 38/2006.
Questo servizio di protezione della navigazione sulla rete Internet è predisposto grazie alla collaborazione tra il Centro Nazionale per il Contrasto della Pedopornografia Online e gli Internet Service Providers italiani.
La visualizzazione intenzionale, la diffusione, la detenzione, la cessione, la produzione e la commercializzazione di questo tipo di materiale sono puniti dalla legge come reato.
What if that's just some illegal content that was reported? Even archived on purpose in the first place. Would that result in banning the whole domain?
In 1993, the price of a non-functional lunar rover was $68,500.
That's how much Richard Garriott (son of astronaut Owen Garriott, creator of the Ultima game series, and after that, private astronaut that spent 12 days at the ISS) spent to purchase the rights to Lunokhod 2 and the Luna 21 lander.
It would be the ninth. The honor of the first lunar rover goes to the Soviets. And in recent times China, India and Japan have all successfully deployed rovers on the moon.
If it had been launched fast enough it could have become the first American (self-driving) rover on the moon. And still among the first ten rovers. That would be worth something to some collector
Personally I would want the purchase to make a tangible difference to my life. If I can't control, communicate with, or see my purchase, that's functionally equivalent to me not owning it
Stocks are ownership in a company, they provide you info disclosed to shareholders, possibly voting rights, and dividends. It's not like the rover provides a passive income.
owning a passive lunar rover will surely give you some publicity and access to something (you can brag about it in some venues). People have successfully monetized more stupid things. I'm not saying _I_ would know how to get returns from that investment but I'm sure there are some people who would.
Outsider looking in, this article[1] published circa Jul 2022 appears to add some historical color to the status quo...it all seems related to CLPS[2] failures surrounding a few involved primes[3][4].
In any case, sure does look like a nasty Nunn-McCurdy breach that NASA has on their hands.
The rover itself, made by NASA, experienced cost growth. This is a longstanding problem in science missions and so, in an era of fiscal tightening, they chose not to add more money to VIPER.
"Nunn-McCurdy" is weapons regulation. It doesn't apply here directly, but there are Congressional reporting requirements for it.
It's absolutely the case. The rover was built in the middle of Covid. Given the challenges that created, the cost growth on the rover itself was quite reasonable.
The problem right now is that NASA HQ has no confidence in the CLPS contractor building the lander, but it's not politically correct to throw a private company under the bus.
> Just wait a sodding minute! You want a question that goes with the answer for 42? Well, how about "What's six times seven?" Or "How many Vogons does it take to change a lightbulb?" Here's one! "How many roads must a man walk down?"
While your comment would normally be considered "humor", and thus automatically subject to downvote, the Committee has noted that it seems, based on the numerous replies, to have tapped into an under-served concept in an upscale demographic segment. Even better, the segment appears to have dubious taste. It got legs, baby. Congratulations, and enjoy your upvote.
We have taken the liberty to pass this along to a VC manager who is very interested in discussing future opportunities with you. Please be prepared to discuss specifics of the LLM we, ah, sort of assumed was involved.
I'm really disappointed that this isn't listed on GSA Auctions. It could be one of the featured auctions, between the "scrap Lockheed Martin HC-130 Aircraft" (current bid $10,000) and "approximately 8 cords of firewood" (opening bid $10)
Heh, I mentioned this to my wife a while back, she said that we've had a pair of shoes since our first (of three) that had never been worn, and that shoes at our second hand store are often labeled that way. Turns out, baby shoes are aesthetic only, baby's feet aren't really foot-shaped yet so they're hard to put on, and if they're moving, they're crawling, and shoes make it impossible to use their feet while crawling. The shoes were either a gift, or something she bought before the baby was born... So that story made her think of the naivety of pre-parents and chuckle, I had to explain why people found it sad, and her response was "those people have never tried to put baby shoes on a baby".
Which is to say, I think that her take makes this even more apt response... the people getting sad about this have never tried to put a rover on the moon.
I think the sentence could be made more correct by replacing shoes with booties. Baby booties are the thick, typically woven, often hand-woven footwear used to keep a baby's feet warm.
They're often gifted by family to the expecting parents and sometimes kept as a keepsake, so someone getting rid of never-worn booties works a little better. Though it's typically considered distasteful to sell handmade gifts.
Of course, the sentence seems to work fine as a story regardless of its correctness, based on its enduring popularity.
It is very suspicious that the companies bidding are NASA contractors. This may be a case of corruption. I.E., NASA sells the moon rover for 85 M and then pays 200 M for the moon rover to do something for them for future NASA missions.
"It's petty suspicious that the only companies trying to buy this mining equipment are other mining companies." Did you expect Walmart to make a bid on it?
However, in this case, I don't think there is anything weird going on, at least not with the information we have. I've never worked at one of these contractors who service NASA, but in the past I worked for a large defense contractor who in part provided some pretty high-tech stuff to the Air Force among others.
One of the things I worked on specifically was the communications computer for the Predator drone. It was the piece of equipment that received all command and control from the ground station, and sent the video back from the drone camera. The actual plane itself was made by a separate company who was more specialized in that aspect.
We were very proud to work on Predator, and we absolutely would have loved to have bid on something like that. Even though we made part of it, we didn't have a complete unit. Had we have won a bid to get one, it would have gone into a glass case in our visitor area, where we would proudly display it like a trophy. I would not be surprised in the least if that is what these bidders have in mind.
Consider how much fun it would be if you are showing up for a job interview and you see in a glass case in the lobby an actual brand new moon Rover! I know that would be pretty cool for me. I do tend to love museums though, so maybe I'm not the best test case.
Stipulations include performing the science mission and releasing the data. While there the cool factor would be orders of magnitude greater, there are also considerable commitments and risk involved. So the question is: what other benefits would be involved? I'm sure there would be many, particularly if you could prove that you could launch and operate such missions, but I doubt that having a museum piece would be one of them. (And you would only have that museum piece if there is a twin that remains on Earth, which seems to be common for NASA missions.)
Everyone who has the capability to land this on the moon is a NASA contractor or a competing space agency. And I don't know how congress would feel about selling this to Roskosmos, the Chinese CNSA or Indian ISRO. Maybe ESA.
Of course somebody else could buy it and pay somebody to put it on the moon. But that seems unlikely given the provision that findings have to be shared. For companies that sell moon landings it's good marketing, for anyone else there wouldn't be much upside
