They should auction it off. For pickup only, of course.
I'd like to own the first helicopter on Mars.
I'd like to own the first helicopter on Mars.
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.
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.
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?
The stated mission for the Space Race has often been "put a man in orbit", "put a man on the Moon", "put staff in the space station for X period".
But implicit in all of those mission designs has been the goal of returning the crew alive and in one piece. The record is rather favorable in that regard, and it's always a tragedy when we lose someone.
So that's one of the reasons a crewed Mars missions is a daunting prospect: because even with improved technology, it may be a one-way trip.
How many objects are worth $17M/kg?
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.
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."
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.
I really hope this won't become reality in the mind of confrontation and being first to claim land, because this will mean, spamming the moon surface with cheap "scientific" equipment to claim lots of land. I mean, what is the bar here for lander? Is it enough to have a flag with it? Then you can have a flag inside a steel cannon ball and shoot many of them across the lunar landscape.
GREAT, mission accomplished!
IMHO Richard Garriot should go a step further and sell his rover for scrap. Use that to bootstrap a commodities market.