Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA Sting Busts Woman Selling Purported Moon Rock

Posted by timothy on from the it's-her-perfect-right dept.

sgcxf949 writes "Woman attempts to sell a moon rock and gets busted by NASA. Who would have thought that NASA had undercover agents?" Evidently not the subject of this story, who offered to trade her sample of alleged lunar rock for $1.7 million.

161 comments

  1. How do you steal moon rock? by DWMorse · · Score: 3, Funny

    How do you steal moon rock? I hear it's a great conductor for making Portals, though.

    --
    There's a spot in User Info for World of Warcraft account names? Really?
    1. Re:How do you steal moon rock? by Noughmad · · Score: 1

      Yes, and all this time we thought that holes on the moon were craters...

      --
      PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
    2. Re:How do you steal moon rock? by Arancaytar · · Score: 2

      How do you steal moon rock?

      The moon isn't exactly hard to find. It's right up there. Just go, break off a piece, and come back. :P

    3. Re:How do you steal moon rock? by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

      Science labs aren't the world's best guarded places, and one of the thefts mentioned in the article was the theft of a safe from a lab.

    4. Re:How do you steal moon rock? by kthreadd · · Score: 1, Funny

      Hm, shouln't NASA be helt accountable for the moon rocks THEY originally STOLE from the moon then?

    5. Re:How do you steal moon rock? by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hm, shouln't NASA be helt accountable for the moon rocks THEY originally STOLE from the moon then?

      They were going to be, but the lunar ambassadors sent to negotiate reparations were blown up by the Boston police department soon after they landed.

    6. Re:How do you steal moon rock? by santax · · Score: 4, Informative

      RTFA! Sjezus. NASA previous shipped the rocks via mail. It got stolen. They are still searching for those missing parts since it had cost them about 50.000 per gram to get the rock here.

    7. Re:How do you steal moon rock? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I forcefully used mine onto Ash's Pikachu to turn it into a Raichu last Halloween.

    8. Re:How do you steal moon rock? by e9th · · Score: 2
      It's not just the Feds you can steal them from. From TFA:

      ...with the exception of two sets of goodwill gifts presented to 135 nations, the 50 states, and the U.S. provinces

      According to this week-old story

      A recent count showed 10 states and more than 90 countries could not account for their shares of the gray rocks.

    9. Re:How do you steal moon rock? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Who would want em? Pure poison.

      --Cave Johnson

    10. Re:How do you steal moon rock? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They weren't here to negotiate. They were here trying to cash a stolen social security cheque.

    11. Re:How do you steal moon rock? by Seumas · · Score: 1

      There's two points in response to your question:

      The first is, the US gave moon rocks to a bunch of other nations as gifts several decades ago, so presumably one would get them by stealing or buying it from one of those gifted sources.

      Second is that the moon rocks we gave other countries as gifts were bullshit and were actually made of petrified wood. So if this woman is guilty of anything, it's probably more like "selling stolen wood". If you think I'm bullshitting you, ask the Dutch.

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8226075.stm

    12. Re:How do you steal moon rock? by baegucb · · Score: 1

      You made me actually RTFA, to see if the "U.S. provinces" meant I'd missed the annexation of Canada somehow.

    13. Re:How do you steal moon rock? by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 1

      Presumably, the Dutch sample was stolen at some point over the years, and replaced with petrified wood. Why the thief would use petrified wood and not a piece of basalt or something else that is actually found on the moon is anyone's guess...

      --
      Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
    14. Re:How do you steal moon rock? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      one of the thefts mentioned in the article was the theft of a safe from a lab.

      We had that happen - sort-of - once. Had a safe in the office weighing around a half-ton, which the burglars dragged out into the middle of the workshop and evidently spent a lot of effort and time trying to chisel and hack and hammer their way into, to no avail. They eventually left with a few thousand pounds worth of laptops, probably when the early-start company on that street had people arrive for work.

      Of course, the safe wasn't even locked - just "on the latch". We'd never had a key for it since finding it when we moved in, and it required the key to lock it. The developer used it as a place to keep the incremental backups in when he left each evening, as it was probably fairly fire and sprinkler resistant.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  2. Well, obviously it's fake. by Radak · · Score: 5, Funny

    Eh NASA? wink wink, nudge nudge.

    1. Re:Well, obviously it's fake. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Easy to tell if it's real. Just throw it. If it's really moon rock it'll fly really far and take ages to come down

  3. Moon Shoes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will they bust me too if I try to sell 'em?

    1. Re:Moon Shoes by Z00L00K · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Any buyer paying $1.7 million for a piece of rock that's supposed to be from the moon, but not sold by NASA probably deserves to part with that money.

      B.t.w. as far as I know none of the material collected from the moon is for sale.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    2. Re:Moon Shoes by creat3d · · Score: 1

      My thoughts exactly... if anyone out there really considers a piece of rock (whatever its impressive origins) to be worth more than a 2 figure sum, at most, deserves to be ripped off. An important life lesson would've been learned: don't pay 1.7 million for a rock.

      --
      Grammar nazis are to this community what excrements are to gold.
    3. Re:Moon Shoes by MachDelta · · Score: 1

      Call em "MoonWalks"

      That way you can be sued three ways instead of just one!

    4. Re:Moon Shoes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      21st century pet rocks?

      Checkout my crotch captcha:

      http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/824/captchacrotch.jpg/

    5. Re:Moon Shoes by ZeroExistenZ · · Score: 1

      NASA probably deserves to part with that money

      Isn't NASA a government-funded company and not a private organisation entitled to the profit it generates?

      Think about it, who has paid to get these rocks ? Who has paid those engineers ?

      --
      I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
    6. Re:Moon Shoes by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      I think the point was that if you're buying a "moon rock" from anyone other than NASA then you're obviously gullible and the seller should throw in the Brooklyn Bridge at half price.

    7. Re:Moon Shoes by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure there are diamonds for sale at more than 99 pick-your-currency-units.

    8. Re:Moon Shoes by creat3d · · Score: 1

      Doesn't change the fact that only an idiot would pay so much for a rock.

      --
      Grammar nazis are to this community what excrements are to gold.
    9. Re:Moon Shoes by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

      Diamonds, like gold and platinum at least have practical uses like abrasives, conductors etc. Why anyone would want moon rock for anything but pure research is beyond me.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    10. Re:Moon Shoes by fredmosby · · Score: 1

      I agree completely. Someone should tell Newt Gingrich.

    11. Re:Moon Shoes by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Doesn't change the fact that only an idiot would pay so much for a rock.

      There are people who would say that about computers you have purchased . We all find value in different things.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    12. Re:Moon Shoes by Ravon+Rodriguez · · Score: 1

      Yes, but idiots are more likely to find value in worthless things. A computer is a useful tool; the more expensive the computer, the more use a particular individual will get out of it (though idiots also buy more expensive computers than they really need).

      --
      Jesus loves me, he loves me a bunch, because he always puts Jiffy in my lunch.
    13. Re:Moon Shoes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you think Princess Celestia doesn't know of this already?

    14. Re:Moon Shoes by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      either that or guilty of "receiving stolen goods".

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    15. Re:Moon Shoes by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Yes, but idiots are more likely to find value in worthless things.

      Idiots, as you are using the term, are not a judgment of overall intelligence, but rather somebody with a different value system than yours.

      A computer is a useful tool; the more expensive the computer, the more use a particular individual will get out of it...

      I don't think you realize that you just proved my point with that statement.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

  4. Pieces of it are bound to fall sometimes... by mark-t · · Score: 1

    Although certainly, such pieces might not be distinguishable from other meteorites without extremely careful analysis.

    Not that I'm saying I support what this woman is saying... in all probability, the story she's made up is complete fabrication - and even if it isn't, then she'd be in possession of stolen property, whether knowingly or not.

    But certainly, it's not impossible to privately own pieces of the moon... just very unlikely that you'd know it even if you did.

    --
    File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    1. Re:Pieces of it are bound to fall sometimes... by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2

      It is possible to own them if they fell to Earth; however, as you said, rocks of this origin are very rare. The vast majority of them came from samples taken during the Apollo missions. While they have been distributed as gifts, some have been stolen. It is more likely that this rock is one that has been stolen rather than one fallen to Earth.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    2. Re:Pieces of it are bound to fall sometimes... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Someone else posted that 90 of the moonrocks given away to other countries can't be currently located. Given the rules for selling government property may be lax in other locations, how can you be sure it must be stolen?

      And what did they sting her for? Fraud? Then they'd need proof it was fake. Theft? They'd have to prove she stole it or at the very least prove it was stolen at some point in the past. At this point, she is apparently being detained without being arrested or charged. Yay constitutional rights. Where they don't even know what to charge you with and hold you essentially indefinitely.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    3. Re:Pieces of it are bound to fall sometimes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lunar meteorites are well recognizable from most other meteorite types - confusion is possible with SNC (Mars) or HED meteorites.

      They are expensive - even for a crumb size you easily pay over $100,-. But you can easily get them, just do search on eBay (but do not trust each dealer - do some research into them at first). I have two small (~7 mm) pieces in my collection. They are legal to own.

    4. Re:Pieces of it are bound to fall sometimes... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      It's actually entirely feasible to prove or disprove that the rock is actually from the moon, by subjecting it to a detailed chemical composition analysis.

      However, the only way property ownership can legally be transferred in a way that is recognized within the USA is by consent of the party that has jurisdiction over the property. If the property is lost, then the property cannot ever legally belong to anyone else, and if it is ever discovered to be so, then the possessor of it actually has stolen property, whether they know it or not. Knowingly possessing stolen property is a crime. None of the countries that have missing moonrocks ever legitimately sold them to any private party. All other moonrocks that are not accounted for that exist on earth are pieces of the moon that fell to earth as meteorites, and although it possible to verify that such pieces came from the moon by subjecting it to a detailed chemical analysis, this is not the story that this woman is claiming. Even if this were the case, however, this too can also be verified by chemical analysis.

      This woman is therefore either lying or wholly mistaken about the rock's origins. There are three possible outcomes:

      1. The rock is from the moon, having fallen to earth.
        This is testable, and if true, the woman's claim of its origin is false, although she could not be considered to be in possession of stolen property.
      2. The rock is from the moon and does not have any chemical signature indicating that it fell through the atmosphere.
        As I said above, all pieces of the moon other than those that have fallen to earth and the aforementioned missing rocks would be considered stolen property by the USA, since there are no records that any legitimate possessors of moonrocks had ever privately sold them (and even if they had, such a sale would probably not be recognized as legitimate within the USA because the rocks were presented by the USA as gifts, and arguably not intended to ever have any monetary value, so surrendering ownership could not legitimately happen without the consent of the USA). The woman's claims about the actual origins of the rock she is selling are still false in this case, and she would also be considered to be in possession of stolen property. Whether she is charged for this or not depends one whether or not she reasonably ought to have known that her claims of its origin were false.
      3. The rock is not a moon rock at all.
        Again, her claims of the rock's origins are false. At best, she is misinformed, at worst, outright lying.
      --
      File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    5. Re:Pieces of it are bound to fall sometimes... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      However, the only way property ownership can legally be transferred in a way that is recognized within the USA is by consent of the party that has jurisdiction over the property. If the property is lost, then the property cannot ever legally belong to anyone else, and if it is ever discovered to be so, then the possessor of it actually has stolen property, whether they know it or not.

      Since the property was sent to over 100 foreign countries, applying USA property laws to all foreign samples would be silly. Not to mention that of the 100 or so samples that can't be accounted for, there's no proof that it wasn't sold or transfered from the proper holder. The fact that they have no idea where it is indicates incomplete or inaccurate records. So arresting someone because you think that somewhere (likely out of your jurisdiction) someone may have stolen something, but you don't know what or where strikes me as illegal, and if not, should be.

      As I said above, all pieces of the moon other than those that have fallen to earth and the aforementioned missing rocks would be considered stolen property by the USA, since there are no records that any legitimate possessors of moonrocks had ever privately sold them (and even if they had, such a sale would probably not be recognized as legitimate within the USA because the rocks were presented by the USA as gifts, and arguably not intended to ever have any monetary value, so surrendering ownership could not legitimately happen without the consent of the USA).

      Your inability to understand the word "gift" does not make for a legal argument. As well litigated in the US, a gift is 100% the property of the recipient, even if there were conditions with the gift (promotional material distributed without the intent of being sold has been sold, sued, and explicitly determined that "not for resale" promotional material may be resold). You don't understand USA law, and you are falsely applying USA law to other sovereign countries.

      It appears more to me that you have an opinion formed in the absence of fact (you find sale of moonrock to be "bad") and you are randomly applying bits and pieces of flawed logic, incorrect preconceptions, and personal opinion and throwing them in a blender and the muck that comes out you are presenting as fact. It's not.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    6. Re:Pieces of it are bound to fall sometimes... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      Applying US property laws to all foreign samples *WOULD* be silly... if the property did not find its way back into the USA.

      Secondly... none of the countries that formerly had a moonrock and have since lost it have ever indicated to the USA that their lost moonrock, should it ever be found, should *NOT* be considered stolen property... since the default would be that it is, unless the government had given consent... something else that they would need to inform the USA about, in the event that the rock should ever happen to find its way back into the US.

      Also.. had you ever considered that there's a reason why it's generally considered bad form for someone to give away or sell something that was given to them entirely as an act of goodwill? Even if you don't genuinely appreciate the gift itself, it's certainly disrespectful to the giver to just go and do something like that... and although I know that the USA isn't exactly everybody's favorite place, why should they just presume that another country's default behaviour would be so?

      --
      File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    7. Re:Pieces of it are bound to fall sometimes... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Also.. had you ever considered that there's a reason why it's generally considered bad form for someone to give away or sell something that was given to them entirely as an act of goodwill? Even if you don't genuinely appreciate the gift itself, it's certainly disrespectful to the giver to just go and do something like that...

      So, since it's rude, anyone who does so should be arrested, and anyone who does business with those who did should be arrested as well?

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    8. Re:Pieces of it are bound to fall sometimes... by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Seems to me he's making a point that it's unlikely the government of these places that were given moon rocks would have sold them or otherwise officially moved them on, rather than commenting about who should or shouldn't be arrested.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    9. Re:Pieces of it are bound to fall sometimes... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Then his comments are non sequiturs. My stance has never been that the person in question was in possession of a real moon rock and that moon rock was acquired in a legal manner. My position has always been "if you can't name the crime, don't arrest the person." They arrested her because they think it's likely either fraud or theft or maybe possession of stolen property, or maybe something else (it may not be technically fraud if she bought a fake rock thinking it was real, then turned around to sell it as real thinking it was real).

      Great, we are arresting people when we think that if we hold them in jail long enough and investigate their lives deeply enough, we'll be able to justify arresting them without ever having determined a crime was committed.

      His point in contradicting me seems to be that if we aren't sure if a crime was committed, we should round up everyone in concentration camps until we can get around to investigating their lives. After all, that's the *only* thing I'm arguing against, and he keeps contradicting me.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    10. Re:Pieces of it are bound to fall sometimes... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      His point in contradicting me seems to be that if we aren't sure if a crime was committed, we should round up everyone in concentration camps until we can get around to investigating their lives

      Where do I say anything remotely resembling this? All I said is that if it a moon rock, and it does not contain a discernable chemical signature revealing that it fell to earth through the atmosphere, then, by US property laws, it would be considered stolen property, since none of the countries that have lost their moonrocks have indicated that they voluntarily surrendered their ownership. Whether or not the woman is charged for possession of stolen property would depend entirely on whether she had reasonable cause to believe that her claims of its origin were legitimate.

      Regardless, however, her claims of the rocks actual origin are false, no matter what the investigation reveals. Whether she is charged for attempted fraud if (or more likely when) the rock turns out to be not from the moon at all would also depend on whether or not she had reasonable cause to believe her claims about the origins of the rock.

      --
      File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    11. Re:Pieces of it are bound to fall sometimes... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Where do I say anything remotely resembling this?

      When you continually argue when my only point has been consistently that there's no proof of a crime. You object. I indicate that there's no proof that if it is a moon rock that it was stole. You object. The fact that you object to everything indicates that you are arguing for the opposite of what I'm saying. Otherwise, you are the most objectionable person to ever have agreed with me.

      All I said is that if it a moon rock, and it does not contain a discernable chemical signature revealing that it fell to earth through the atmosphere, then, by US property laws, it would be considered stolen property, since none of the countries that have lost their moonrocks have indicated that they voluntarily surrendered their ownership.

      So anyone in possession of a PS3 should be held in jail until Sony (not the person in question) proves that the person in question bought the PS3?

      You are all geeked out about the moon rocks as if they are special. However, your grasp if US law is absurd at best. I do realize that there are a limited number of moon rocks. However, those "given" away are no longer property of the US. If you treat the situation like anything else, you would quickly see that your arguments are absurd. But that won't happen. You'll pretend that all moon rocks are property of the US and that indefinite detention without charges is reasonable as long as they are disrespecting the moon, or something like that.

      It's been 6 days since the first story on this, and no mention of whether it's real, whether she's been charged (there's a 48 hour rule in the US of charge or release, so they either charged her with something or should have let her go). My objections are that the legal system gets perverted for such things, and people like you not only justify, but encourage that the Constitution be ignored because you feel that it has to be fraud or theft, despite the absence of evidence either way.

      All I'm saying is that without evidence, they legal system should not be holding or charging her, even if you have the personal opinion that if it tests to be a moon rock that she stole it or was in possession of stolen property. No matter how many times you repeat the lie that US property laws demand that it be stolen unless the rightful owner had already told the US that they transferred ownership of it, that just isn't how the US laws work.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    12. Re:Pieces of it are bound to fall sometimes... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      So anyone in possession of a PS3 should be held in jail until Sony (not the person in question) proves that the person in question bought the PS3?

      As PS3's have been legitimately bought and sold for quite some now, I fail to see how that is a remotely justifiable comparison. Please, feel free to show me even a single sale of any moon rock by its rightful owner (other than any that have fallen to earth through the atmosphere) at any point in history

      All I'm saying is that without evidence, they legal system should not be holding or charging her, even if you have the personal opinion that if it tests to be a moon rock that she stole it or was in possession of stolen property.

      If it is a moon rock that is from any US mission, which accounts for all of the so-called "missing" moonrocks, then yes... she is in possession of stolen property... since only the recipient of a goodwill gift is typically considered the rightful owner of the gift unless the recipient admits otherwise to the giver, which in this case happens to be the US government. Whether you agree with this or not is wholly irrelevant.

      --
      File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    13. Re:Pieces of it are bound to fall sometimes... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      As PS3's have been legitimately bought and sold for quite some now, I fail to see how that is a remotely justifiable comparison.

      How do you know? Did you contact Sony? If they didn't give permission for any one person to own a console, then they can't list it on eBay.

      That is the point of your argument. Everyone listing a PS3 on eBay should be thrown in jail until Sony decides whether they are or aren't authorized to sell it. You may not like the comparison, but it's a good enough analogy to show your insanity.

      If it is a moon rock that is from any US mission, which accounts for all of the so-called "missing" moonrocks, then yes... she is in possession of stolen property...

      But she wasn't charged with that. So you must be wrong. Those with the legal books and the legal degrees and are paid to enforce the law haven't acted as you assert they should. So that means either they are all wrong or you are. My money is on the random Internet kook being wrong. Especially when you can't grasp basic legal concepts like "gift."

      since only the recipient of a goodwill gift is typically considered the rightful owner of the gift unless the recipient admits otherwise to the giver, which in this case happens to be the US government.

      Now you are just making shit up. US law is quite clear. A "gift" is not a gift if it has any conditions. If you call something a gift and put a condition on it, the condition is legally invalid. This has been tested in court a number of times for a number of things and every single time came out where a gift was 100% the property of the recipient. If you know otherwise, please let us know. Because until you can back up your statements that go against well documented US law, we'll have to assume you are a random Internet kook.

      Whether you agree with this or not is wholly irrelevant.

      You are right. Your opinion on this is irrelevant. As is mine. US law clearly states that a gift is 100% the property of the recipient and 0% the property of the owner, even when the gift contains explicit constraints and restrictions. She was not charged with possession of stolen property (at least when I last looked and the news stories are getting stale without much updates). So the people with the law behind them and more facts at their disposal than you have apparently agree that she shouldn't be charged with possession of stolen property. So she's not charged with what you say she should be charged with. And "gift" doesn't mean the same in the US as what you assert. And your opinion on the matter can't change any of that. And neither can my opinion change that either.

      It's just enough to know that you are 100% wrong on everything you've asserted here, and that I make sure that others know that your false legal opinions are useless and wrong.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    14. Re:Pieces of it are bound to fall sometimes... by mark-t · · Score: 1

      As PS3's have been legitimately bought and sold for quite some now, I fail to see how that is a remotely justifiable comparison.

      How do you know?

      You can buy them in stores. They are commercially sold. It is therefore possible to legitimately sell them. Your argument that moon rocks that are gifts from the US government could also reasonablly be legal rests on the premise that the USA's property laws are built on a "finders-keepers" principle. They are not.

      US law clearly states that a gift is 100% the property of the recipient and 0% the property of the owner,

      This has less to do with its status as a general gift and more to do with the fact that the recipient of the gift did not ever tell the giver of it that they intended to surrender possession . If you fail to see why this is relevant, remember again that it is usually considered disrespectful to give away or sell a goodwill gift without consent of the giver. There is no rational basis to presume that any recipients of the moonrocks would be so inclined, so standard US property law applies, and if it is not possessed by the intended recipient, it is considered stolen. Whether the USA has the power to act on this depends on whether or not it is within US borders. The rock would then be returned to its rightful owner, as recognized by the USA, if it is possible to determine.

      Wholly moot, however, if the rock is not from the moon at all.

      Either way, my original point was that the woman is either lying or mistaken about the rock's actual origins, not whatever the heck you seem to have concluded I was talking about.

      --
      File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
  5. Not tested yet, not proven moonrock by doug141 · · Score: 1

    Possibly just a con.

  6. Not just a Grand Slam by Nkwe · · Score: 1

    Where do you go to buy your moon rocks? Denny's of course!

    1. Re:Not just a Grand Slam by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      Don't you mean "Moons over My Hammy"?

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
  7. Who offered 1.7 Million? by econolog · · Score: 1

    It's called a sting. A sting is basically a set up. The person who offered the money was an operative...

    1. Re:Who offered 1.7 Million? by creat3d · · Score: 2

      I don't think finding a legit buyer would've been so hard... there are people out there with lots of money that would jump on the occasion to own a piece of the Moon, one-upping their friend's diamond encrusted hummer and the other guy's collection of Queen Victoria's used panties.

      --
      Grammar nazis are to this community what excrements are to gold.
    2. Re:Who offered 1.7 Million? by arth1 · · Score: 1

      the other guy's collection of Queen Victoria's used panties.

      Princess Victoria's panties are more interesting, I'd think.

    3. Re:Who offered 1.7 Million? by creat3d · · Score: 1

      Not according to the market.

      --
      Grammar nazis are to this community what excrements are to gold.
  8. really? by Osgeld · · Score: 1

    was a chunk of rock worth it nasa? couldnt call it fraud and let the authorities take care of it? had to set up a "sting"?

    1. Re:really? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Moon rocks are apparently considered national treasure in the US. They needed to set up a sting in order to ensure that they had the rocks so as to verify that they were real and put them back in the collection. The problem is that it could be fraud, but even if the rocks are real the attempted sale would still have been illegal under US law.

    2. Re:really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Each pound of rock cost nasa a shit load of money (transportation cost isn't exactly cheap) so yeah, it is even though they have quite a bit of it, they have a large vested interest in keeping it as the sole owner (as the public value of it ironically goes down as if common on the market and Nasa main concern is keeping people's interest in them like going to museums to see them).

  9. NASA plants ad. Hollywood plants /. story by retroworks · · Score: 1

    "Now the subject of an upcoming book and feature film in development by the author and producers behind 2010's "The Social Network," the student thieves were busted when the Belgian rock collector they contacted to buy the moon material contacted the FBI."

    Slashdot falls for another planted story, news at 11.

    --
    Gently reply
  10. This annoys me somehow by Omnifarious · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The idea that all the moon rock in the world is owned by the US government and any in private hands must therefor be stolen is somehow very annoying to me. Makes me wonder if you could finance a robotic trip to the moon that had the goal of returning 100kg of moonrock and selling it on the open market. Then NASA would have a much harder time proving that people didn't privately own moonrock.

    --
    Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
    1. Re:This annoys me somehow by Beelzebud · · Score: 2

      Well until you get some private investors to pony up the necessary cash to do this, I'd say it's safe to track down the lineage of any moon rocks currently on the planet to NASA.

    2. Re:This annoys me somehow by mark-t · · Score: 2
      Sure you could.

      It wouldn't stop NASA from probably doing an inquiry, but such an endeavor would have enough of a paper trail that it would not be difficult to substantiate your story. The hardest part of the whole thing would be making sure that the launch itself was legal, and providing sufficient evidence that your return trajectory would not constitute any sort of health or safety hazard to the general public.

      NASA might not like it, because it would lower the value of the moon rocks that they possessed, but given proof of your moon rock's origins, there is nothing they could legally do to you.

      --
      File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    3. Re:This annoys me somehow by rudy_wayne · · Score: 1

      The idea that all the moon rock in the world is owned by the US government and any in private hands must therefor be stolen is somehow very annoying to me.

      I see nothing wrong here. The only possible legitimate moon rocks here on earth are the ones brought back by employees of the U.S. government, who are the one people to ever go to the moon. Any moon rock being sold by anyone other than NASA can only be fake or stolen. It's not too hard to figure out.

    4. Re:This annoys me somehow by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Makes me wonder if you could finance a robotic trip to the moon that had the goal of returning 100kg of moonrock and selling it on the open market. Then NASA would have a much harder time proving that people didn't privately own moonrock.

      Hey if you want to finance it then go ahead. It'll probably cost you somewhere in the billions of dollars so I doubt you would sell it for cheap on the open market. Now my figure is just a guess but considering that it cost NASA $820 million to send a pair of rovers to Mars for a 90 day mission with no possibility of return, it's a reasonable estimate. The launch cost for a rocket to get a satellite in space is like $35 million. Again you'd have to upsize it if you want to return something to the Earth.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    5. Re:This annoys me somehow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The hardest part of the whole thing would be making sure that the launch itself was legal

      Don't be ridiculous. The hard part would be funding the technology to actually do it. If you could cover that then there would be any number of countries happy to sponsor the launch to the extent of ensuring its legality.

    6. Re:This annoys me somehow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure nasa would love it if private entrepreneurs made it to the moon.

    7. Re:This annoys me somehow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Those rocks cost a shitload of money and quite a few lives to go get....
      We're gonna keep track of them for now.

    8. Re:This annoys me somehow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I doubt NASA is going around seizing moon rocks for no reason. They only come from one of a few places: Only the US and Russia have ever brought any back (European, Japanese, Chinese and Indian trips to the moon were all one-way). The US has reported several stolen in the past. This is almost certainly one of those or is a fake. Either way, NASA would be remiss in not investigating.

      Sure, once someone finances a private trip to the moon that all goes out the window, but until then, just be annoyed. It is almost definitely theirs.

    9. Re:This annoys me somehow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet the idea of someone trying to scam 1.7 million out of someone else does not bother you at all?

    10. Re:This annoys me somehow by djmurdoch · · Score: 1

      According to TFA, there are also meteorites and a few small samples returned by Soviet robotic probes.

    11. Re:This annoys me somehow by Omnifarious · · Score: 1

      I didn't say there was anything wrong. I simply said it was annoying.

      --
      Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
    12. Re:This annoys me somehow by Omnifarious · · Score: 1

      Oh, that bothers me too. But there are ways to test that a moon rock is authentic. From what I know there are things about the chemistry and macroscopic composition that are unique to moon rocks.

      No, what bothers me is one single authority having a monopoly on something.

      --
      Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
    13. Re:This annoys me somehow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Open source Moon rocks? NASA spent billions of dollars collecting them so the government declaring them national treasures isn't so insane. They weren't collected for some one to make a quick buck off them. Put it into perspective. You're proposed trip to the Moon could set your investors back a billion dollars or more "if" it was successful. Your 100 kilos of moon rock would cost the investors 10 million or more a kilo. Are Moon rocks even worth that and even if they were the investors would want a several fold return for their money given the risk. Your idea for "cheap" and sellable Moon rocks would result in Moon rocks that cost more than the most most diamonds. Moon rocks are a bi-product of Moon exploration not a commodity to make money off since other than the novelty they have no real value. The amusing thing was they found that Moon rocks were quite ordinary. There is trace evidence that they have come from the Moon otherwise it's be extremely easy to come up with fake ones. It's why testing is needed to be sure they even came from the Moon.

      FYI if you want an actual privately owned Moon rock track down Moon meteors. They are out there. How do they know they aren't NASA Moon rocks? Meteors obviously have their own indentifying characteristics. It's far cheaper to look for Moon meteors for sale than financial a Moon mission. They are still quite rare but more common than Mars meteors.

    14. Re:This annoys me somehow by Omnifarious · · Score: 1

      And I'm pretty sure they would also try some sneaky legal trick (maybe eminent domain) to make sure your moon rocks were not privately distributed.

      --
      Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
    15. Re:This annoys me somehow by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Well strictly speaking, it's not all on US hands. From the WP article on them "Then President Richard Nixon ordered the distribution of fragments of that rock to 135 foreign heads of state (...)" so there's at least 135 pieces on foreign hands, maybe some other nations too have done sample missions. It just doesn't seem very likely they'd show up on eBay.

      As for making a trip, good luck on that. The thing about getting a lot of mass off the moon is that you have to bring the craft and fuel for it, first out of earth orbit then into moon orbit then down on the moon without slamming into it. The launch weigh of the lunar missions was about 45000 kg, of which 24000 kg was the service module with engines and fuel to get in/out of lunar orbit, 15000 kg for the lander and just 6000 kg for the crew module. Of the lander 10000 kg stayed on the ground, less than 5000 kg went back up. And of that, most was fuel - the actually payload was a crew of 2 and - on Apollo 17 - 108 kg of moon rocks so 250-300 kg total lift capacity.

      Drop the crew module, cut everything else in half and it might just fit a $100M Falcon 9 Heavy and carry 100-150 kg of moon rock back. Since you'd have to design everything but the rocket I'd low-ball the estimate to at least $300M. Is anyone going to pay $3000/gram for moon dust? I sorta doubt it. Maybe it gets a little better when you drop all life support, human supplies and land with much higher Gs with the lander, but the essence is that getting payload off the moon will be very expensive.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    16. Re:This annoys me somehow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lunar meteorites have characteristic ablation marks.

      Soviets returned a really small amount of moon rocks so it's not a probable source.

    17. Re:This annoys me somehow by GWRedDragon · · Score: 2

      Worse, if you RTFA you will see discussion of the fact that moon rock samples were twice given to each of the 50 states and to each existing country at the time.

      There is absolutely no reason to assume that with all those countries, all of them legally prohibited the transfer of state gifts to private individuals. I'm sure several of those could be privately held, completely legally.

      Of course, it would still be super rare and the owner would likely retain the gift set itself, which would pretty easily differentiate the sample from those stolen from NASA.

    18. Re:This annoys me somehow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Makes me wonder if you could finance a robotic trip to the moon that had the goal of returning 100kg of moonrock and selling it on the open market.

      But that's not happening yet, is it? Grow a fucking spine and leave US bashing out of this. Their rocks their rules and that's only fair.

    19. Re:This annoys me somehow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The idea that all the moon rock in the world is owned by the US government and any in private hands must therefor be stolen is somehow very annoying to me. Makes me wonder if you could finance a robotic trip to the moon that had the goal of returning 100kg of moonrock and selling it on the open market. Then NASA would have a much harder time proving that people didn't privately own moonrock.

      Aside from some Russian samples, meteorites, and a couple gifts made the US is the only country that has actually gone to the moon and collected samples. Duh.

    20. Re:This annoys me somehow by Omnifarious · · Score: 1

      You also can be more flexible in recovery options. If the stuff slams into the Earth pretty hard, you don't really care, as long as it doesn't hit anybody. The other way in which you can be more flexible is that you can adopt a flight path that will take months instead of days.

      But, I agree, it's an expensive proposition, and I think your estimate is still pretty close to accurate. Though I suspect you might be able to get that price for your moon rock if you marketed it well.

      --
      Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
    21. Re:This annoys me somehow by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      NASA might not like it, because it would lower the value of the moon rocks that they possessed...

      Not true. The marketplace isn't a zero sum place. Adding some more moon rocks to the market would actually increase demand, as right now, no one is allowed to own any. As long as you didn't flood the market with it, introducing it would create more demand for the product, ie: more people would want it than currently do now, raising the total average price per unit. As long as demand is a multiple of supply, the prices will remain very high. Right now, demand is infinitely higher than supply, so the concept of "value" is meaningless: there is none on any market. You can't put an honest price on something that has never been nor never will be for sale.

      The value of any given object is exactly equal to the amount that the highest bidder is willing to pay you at any given time: nothing more, nothing less. THAT is the definition of the market itself.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    22. Re:This annoys me somehow by Omnifarious · · Score: 1

      It's my theory that if you successfully pulled this off, NASA would find a way to keep the stuff out of private hands anyway. Perhaps by exercising eminent domain or something.

      Given that, I would not be surprised in NASA 'leaned' on countries to suddenly have 'no state gifts to private individuals' laws. My suspicion is that someone in NASA thinks its vitally important that there be no private ownership of moon rocks. I suspect the person has motives that seem on the surface to be altruistic (prevention of fraud, prevention of the private ownership of space, etc...) but are actually about power.

      --
      Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
    23. Re:This annoys me somehow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure Nasa scientists have better things to do than connive like DeBeers to inflate asset prices.

    24. Re:This annoys me somehow by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Let's just send Bruce Willis up there and blow it up. Then we'll end up with plenty of moon rocks here on Earth.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    25. Re:This annoys me somehow by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Any moon rock being sold by anyone other than NASA can only be fake or stolen. It's not too hard to figure out.

      Your ignorance betrays you.
      http://www.meteorites-for-sale.com/catalog/moon-boxes.html

    26. Re:This annoys me somehow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "each of the 50 states and to each existing country at the time"

      And several of these went "missing" (i.e. were stolen).
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_and_missing_moon_rocks

      It's not that the US wants to own all of the rocks (they don't). It's that they want to recover the stolen ones and punish those responsible.

    27. Re:This annoys me somehow by Kjella · · Score: 1

      You also can be more flexible in recovery options. If the stuff slams into the Earth pretty hard, you don't really care, as long as it doesn't hit anybody.

      There's very little difference between "lands safely" and "lands like a fireball in bits and pieces over a tri-state area". And even if you could keep it all together, it'd be pretty damn important for your sales price that you can certify for its purity and that it's not just mud from the crash site.

      The other way in which you can be more flexible is that you can adopt a flight path that will take months instead of days.

      Very good point, with a least energy transfer oribit from earth to moon and moon to earth you could save a lot of weight all around both on engines and fuel. Seems the Hiten probe already did that, savings of 20% and takes 3-4 months instead of 3 days. Not revolutionary much cheaper, but it helps.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    28. Re:This annoys me somehow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's very little difference between "lands safely" and "lands like a fireball in bits and pieces over a tri-state area". And even if you could keep it all together, it'd be pretty damn important for your sales price that you can certify for its purity and that it's not just mud from the crash site.

      No, no... you didn't say it right... it's ''bits and pieces over THE! ENTIRE! TRI-STATE AREA!!"

    29. Re:This annoys me somehow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This has to be one of the weirdest conspiracy theories I have heard in quite a while.

    30. Re:This annoys me somehow by thrich81 · · Score: 1

      The US taxpayers through the US Government paid an enormous sum to bring almost all the known moon rocks on earth here. There should be no legitimate way for private individuals to obtain possession of any of that material (obviously this doesn't apply to the Russian samples and the lunar meteorites). Otherwise, they become another example of rich and/or connected private entities getting their hold on stuff that the American public originally paid for. I imagine that NASA's goal here is to protect that principle. It would be much more annoying to me to know that Billionaire Jack HedgeFund had a moon rock in his private collection which was originally obtained through the collective effort of tens of thousands of American workers and the taxes of all of the Americans. If someone wanted to finance a sample return trip to the moon and get their own samples, I'm sure NASA would be fine with it and would be willing to help out if it fit with one of the agency's current research goals.

    31. Re:This annoys me somehow by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      The idea that all the moon rock in the world is owned by the US government

      Is a figment of your imagination, not a fact.

    32. Re:This annoys me somehow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wtf... NASA 'leaning' on countries to get their laws changed? Let me guess, NASA is just a front for the NWO and has joined in to help build space FEMA camps?

  11. She should use the Mooninite defense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Earth is their moon.

  12. CAN'T PROVE IT'S NOT A MOON ROCK !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now can they, no more than anyone can prove it has any. It's been forty years and that's long enough to forget. I say, if some foo wants to buy a rock, let the foo buy it.

    1. Re:CAN'T PROVE IT'S NOT A MOON ROCK !! by phageman · · Score: 1

      Sure they can. The samples that were returned were thoroughly characterized geologically, so NASA knows exactly what kind of rock it has to be, and AFAIK moon rocks have a very specific isotopic composition not found in terrestrial rocks (probably due to exposure to solar radiation).

  13. Err by Xaide · · Score: 1

    Yes, on the moon nerds get their pants pulled down and they are spanked with moon rocks.

    --
    No fair! You changed the outcome by measuring it!
    1. Re:Err by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope you can see this, because I'm doing it as hard as I can.

  14. Lunar Enforcement Authority drop the rock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this really the best use of US tax revenue?

  15. You can't trust even NASA... by peppepz · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Apparently they gave a fake moon rock to the prime minister of the Netherlands a couple of years ago.

  16. Huh? by Outtascope · · Score: 2

    I'm normally a big NASA supporter, but when exactly did NASA get into law enforcement? NASA agents? wtf.

    1. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm normally a big NASA supporter, but when exactly did NASA get into law enforcement? NASA agents? wtf.

      Remember that next time you're in a polling place.

      Taxes are NOT used for "investment".

      Taxes are NOT used to help YOU.

      Taxes are used by the people in power for nothing more than keeping themselves in power.

    2. Re:Huh? by rudy_wayne · · Score: 1

      I'm normally a big NASA supporter, but when exactly did NASA get into law enforcement? NASA agents? wtf.

      Since NASA has a policy of not giving out moon rocks to anyone other than a select few (the astronauts who walked on the moon don't even get any) they probably want to investigate these things to see if they are legitimate moon rocks that have been stolen.

    3. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They also have to protect the world from soviet moon rocks. You know those that hasn't been denaquadahied.

    4. Re:Huh? by arielCo · · Score: 1

      Quoth The Fine Article:

      Several local police officers and NASA OIG agents then moved in on the suspect, took possession of the alleged moon rock and detained the woman for questioning.

      "NASA OIG"? Wikipedia to the rescue:

      Office of the Inspector General (OIG) is an office that is part of Cabinet departments and independent agencies of the United States federal government as well as some state and local governments. Each office includes an Inspector General and employees charged with identifying, auditing, and investigating fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement within the parent agency.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OIG

      So, the NASA guys were more like private detectives (I know, I know) and the cops did the arrest

      --
      This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
    5. Re:Huh? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      I'm normally a big NASA supporter, but when exactly did NASA get into law enforcement?

      Somewhere around the day NASA came into being.
       
      What they do is enforce Federal law on NASA facilities and over NASA property. If you have, for example, a NASA employee stealing government property - the local cops haven't the authority to investigate and arrest. Ditto for fraud against NASA, etc.. etc...
       
      It's the same reason the Park Service has Rangers, and the Navy has the NCIS. There isn't a unified service like you might think, because while there is a core set of Federal laws they all enforce, many agencies/government branches have unique laws and regulations. (The UCMJ for NCIS, or the laws covering the postal service for the Post Office's equivalent.)

    6. Re:Huh? by a_hanso · · Score: 1

      But it would have been a lot more interesting if the NASA agents and stormed in wearing sun glasses, trench coats and wielding beam weapons.

  17. What about meteorites originating from the moon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wouldn't they also be considered "moon rocks"?

  18. Government idiocy knows no bounds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is not something on which federal government resources should be used.

    Anyone stupid enough to buy a moon rock deserves to be parted from his money.

    I am a US citizen, and the boundless stupidity of the government which controls people in the US both scares me
    and sickens me. And if you don't agree, you are on the wrong side, buddy.

    1. Re:Government idiocy knows no bounds by mark-t · · Score: 2

      The point of buying an authentic moon rock would be to possess something that not very many people possess. It is something that probably only a collector of obscure paraphernalia would prize... and is not likely to be considered of any real worth by most people, except to possibly try to resell.

      However, given that a person is inclined to want to own a piece of the moon, the reason to not buy a moon rock is because, considering that almost 100% of the rocks on the earth that are verifiably from the moon are very well accounted for, any private sale of an alleged moon rock is almost certainly founded on a false claim of the rock's origin, or else is stolen property.

      Such an offer of sale could be trivially met with the challenge that the seller provide proof of the origins of the moon rock and its acquisition, including notarization, which would not be difficult to obtain, given the likely difficulty that one would encounter in either or both of these.

      --
      File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
  19. New Business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How hard is moon rock?
    I'm thinking of starting a business - get rock from the Moon, bring it back to Earth and sell it to Palestinians to throw at Israeli tanks. Could it be strong enough to pierce armor?

    1. Re:New Business by phageman · · Score: 1

      Any rock could pierce armor, provided you could get it moving fast enough. Think about it, depleted uranium AP rounds are significantly softer than some types of rock, but when moving at thousands of feet per second do an excellent job of punching through armor. It's all a matter of kinetic energy, not hardness.

    2. Re:New Business by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 1

      DU is also pyrophoric, and ignites upon impact. It burns at a very high temperature, which helps it penetrate armor.

      A rock, not so much.

      --
      Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
  20. That's no moon rock... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...it's a space station rock...thing, erm...

  21. Re:What about meteorites originating from the moon by mark-t · · Score: 1
    Yes they would. However, it's very unlikely that you could possibly know that it actually came from the moon without subjecting it to a rigorous set of tests to analyze its exact chemical composition.

    If you had actually gone through the effort of doing that, and verified its origins to be from the moon, you would be a fool to not keep the paperwork proving these tests had been done, and getting them legally notarized so that the authenticity of your claim that it was a moon rock could not be disputed.

    --
    File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
  22. Not *all* moon rock by aepervius · · Score: 1, Insightful

    There are a few ion meteorite and a few ounce from the soviet as the article says : "Outside of lunar meteorites and a few ounces of the moon returned by Soviet robotic probes", but seeing the quantity brought back by human processes, yes 99.99% (a few ounces agaisnt 800+ pounds) is near enough 100%.

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
    1. Re:Not *all* moon rock by joek1010 · · Score: 1

      Certainly seems sufficient for probable cause (and thus an arrest). Chances are incredibly good that anyone purporting to sell a moon rock is committing wire fraud.

  23. How Pathetic by HansKloss · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Dozen of agents arresting a housewife???
    Serious criminals walk on streets and laugh every day. Not to mention many other crimes that go unpunished.

    What we lately read, are only stories about heavily armed forces busting housewives and teenagers. Gross.

    1. Re:How Pathetic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but this involved money being transferred from a rich person to a poor person. That's always been a serious crime.

    2. Re:How Pathetic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Erm...

      There's plenty of garden variety, genuine bad guys out there being caught and imprisoned every hour of every day. That's why you don't see much in the way of headlines about it. When housewives selling moon rocks get busted, it's rare enough that it's news.

  24. Another problem with the US government by schwit1 · · Score: 1

    Too many federal law enforcement agencies.

    Why does each agency needs its own heat packing force? The current system seems incredibly inefficient and prone to abuse. Why can't the FBI do investigative work so NASA can focus on aeronautics, space and ET?

    1. Re:Another problem with the US government by Vegeta99 · · Score: 1

      NIST has a police force...

      ....

      The TIME POLICE?!

  25. Bust and woman? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its a /. thing. I saw bust and woman, and jumped at the article like a teenager in his moms basement. Oh wait!

  26. Luna 16 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Soviet lunar sample return mission, flown in 1970, resulted in the only lunar soil in private hands.

  27. NASA as Law Enforcement. by lorg · · Score: 2

    NASA as Law Enforcement; If they had a rendition program they could really start using that "In space nobody can hear you scream" tag line again.

    I wonder what their badge looks like .. a giant golden rocket?

    1. Re:NASA as Law Enforcement. by c0lo · · Score: 1

      NASA as Law Enforcement;...

      I wonder what their badge looks like .. a giant erected golden rocket?

      FTFY

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    2. Re:NASA as Law Enforcement. by dlgeek · · Score: 1
      http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_cv6molNlE1M/S72Jp48NqBI/AAAAAAAAAXQ/gDew34P-eJk/s1600/NASA+-OIG-SA.JPG seems to match the description on Wikipedia.

      NASA OIG Special Agent badges have a striking appearance, for at the center of each badge is the blue NASA logo.

  28. hacker rule one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    never visit a .gov

  29. Let's get this straight... by Nyder · · Score: 0

    So the moon belongs to no nation, yet moon rocks belong to the USA?

    Ya, sounds like typical USA policy.

    --
    Be seeing you...
    1. Re:Let's get this straight... by Robert+Zenz · · Score: 1

      Oil which lies miles underneath the floor of the ocean does also belong to no one...yet we need to pay BP and other companies for it because they tell us "we own it, you pay it"...why's that?

      The U.S. has used a very big amount of resources (money, material and human) to get to the moon, and they brought something back and of course they want to keep it, because they've earned it.

    2. Re:Let's get this straight... by John+Bresnahan · · Score: 1

      And any nation that wants their own Moon rocks can go get their own.

      What's that? You don't want to spend the money? You just want the U.S. to give away the Moon rocks that they spent tens (hundreds?) of billions of dollars to collect?

      Ya, sounds like typical socialist mindset.

    3. Re:Let's get this straight... by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      They picked them up while visiting. Just like if you are in the middle of the ocean in international waters and catch some fish, they are yours.

    4. Re:Let's get this straight... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or you could just buy them for this woman. That was a joke, but it would be cheaper to bribe some NAZI^H^HSA people.

  30. Old by pedersend_ · · Score: 0

    Once again... slashdot is a week late to party. Old news.

  31. the moon is not a national park by decora · · Score: 1

    you cannot go to a land mass that has no legally declared owners or territorial sovereigns, and then claim that you somehow 'own' it. its ridiculous on it's face.

    1. Re:the moon is not a national park by bigstrat2003 · · Score: 2

      Why can't you? That's how every scrap of land that someone owns today originated, when it comes down to it.

      --
      "16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
    2. Re:the moon is not a national park by Robert+Zenz · · Score: 1

      Ohhh...but that's how it works. People find a piece of land which belongs to no one, starts clubbing each other at the head and the last man standing owns it. That even works with land which is already owned by someone else, look at Northern Cyprus, Israel or the extreme example: Nothern America.

      They also never claimed the moon...they claimed some *rocks* from it which *they* brought back. If you find a nice shell at the beach in your holidays and you take it home, you would also be pissed if your neighbor wants it and starts arguing "it's from the ocean, the ocean belongs to no one so I should also be allowed to have it".

    3. Re:the moon is not a national park by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is really sad that some people cannot understand brilliant satire such as this.

      decora, you're awesome.

  32. so christopher columbus by decora · · Score: 1

    spent billions of dollars (in 1492 money) to visit the Americas.

    does that mean he owned them?

    1. Re:so christopher columbus by Javagator · · Score: 1
      spent billions of dollars (in 1492 money) to visit the Americas. does that mean he owned them?

      It means he owns all of the rocks he brought back.

  33. NASA does not have jurisdiction over wire fraud by decora · · Score: 1

    nor should they have any arrest powers.

  34. Wow. Had to clear my browser cache... by Slutticus · · Score: 0

    ...just to make sure. Isn't this story like a week old?
    From a news story on 5/22: "According to reports, NASA investigators had been targeting the woman for several months in suspicion of the potential illegal sale of a moon rock. The final meeting between the parties took place in a restaurant in Lake Elsinore, CA, where the woman offered to sell the alleged hunk of the moon for $1.7 million to an undercover NASA official. 'After conversation, the moon rock was produced inside the restaurant (and) several (sheriff's) investigators and NASA agents moved in on the suspect, took possession of the rock and detained the suspect,' said Sheriff's Sgt. Todd Paulin in an interview with KPSP Local 2 News. Authentic pieces of the moon, collected by astronauts who have been there, are considered national treasures and, as such, it's illegal to sell them per federal law. The unidentified woman attempting to sell her chunk of moon rock hasn't been arrested, however—investigators need to first determine whether the rock is legitimately from the moon."

  35. doesnt mean she was selling those rocks by decora · · Score: 1

    dont be fooled by the rocks that she got

    they might not be the rocks from the box

    she used to have a little now she wants alot

    no matter where the case goes, we dont know where the rocks came from

  36. Baby Shoes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sleep with your wife for $1,000,000.

  37. Moon Dust, $50,000 by theNAM666 · · Score: 1

    I got me a half-ounce of smooth moon dust here, guaranteed to do what well you know what moon dust is supposed to do. First cool $50K takes it. Contact CmdrTaco for exchange.

  38. NASA sends out fake moon rocks all the time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I remember being in school and the "Moon Rocks" came for a visit. Everyone in school was marched next to the display for a look at all the rocks encased in acrylic.

    I recently found out that all those "rocks" were fake. Or I should say "earthly equivalents" of moon rocks. Bastards!

    My friend "Jimmy" (not his real name) tried to sneak one out. That didn't go over well, as this was still back when corporal punishment was still allowed, that is, the Principal took him down to his office and was "swatted" 20 times (paddle to the butt for the younger folk). So Jimmy was beaten for trying to take a piece of earth in acrylic plastic... Back then the normal reprimand for stealing was was just 2 "swats", but 20 for stealing "Moon Rocks". Poor Jimmy.

    1. Re:NASA sends out fake moon rocks all the time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I hope Jimmy went back to his former principal and returned 18 of those swats.

  39. Re:Wow. Had to clear my browser cache... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, how did Slashdot cover such fresh news? I'm used to stories from two decades ago.

  40. I hope they bust the International Star Registry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    by speaking about this organization and it's owner

  41. Not Law Enforcement by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, if you read their webpage, the NASA OIG is not a law enforcement branch. It was local police that did all the law enforcement work, not NASA. NASA just pointed them in the right direction about like any normal citizen is capable of doing.

    The OIG is setup as an oversight office to detect fraud and waste within NASA. They are primarily inward looking. Most mid-to-large sized companies have something similar.

  42. if i went to your house by decora · · Score: 1

    and i took rocks off your porch, and i took them back to my place... well, to quote the great philosopher mike judge, "how is that not stealing?"

    1. Re:if i went to your house by Javagator · · Score: 1

      Actually, I was aiming for "funny" rather than "insightful".

  43. Metal Gear 2 by panda+cakes · · Score: 0

    I knew about NASA special forces since 1990. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=57qbKeLUpX8

  44. Re:Moon Dust, $50,000 by kumanopuusan · · Score: 1

    guaranteed to do what well you know what moon dust is supposed to do

    So it's guaranteed to get me arrested by a local sheriff working in cooperation with NASA employees?

    --
    Use of the words "good", "bad" or "evil" is almost invariably the result of oversimplification.
  45. Wow! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    This story rocks!

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  46. Whos the buyer? by Tei · · Score: 1

    I say, follow the money. Whos the buyer? Is he building a laboratory in a salt mine?

    --

    -Woof woof woof!

  47. this is great news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am really impressed. The fact that NASA has time and resources for moon rock stings, means that we must have mysteries of the solar system and outer space fully charted. Way to go guys!

  48. Great news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You guys don't get the real news here... The fact that NASA has time and resources for moon rock stings can only mean that we finally have all the mysteries of our solar system and outer space fully charted! Way to go guys!

  49. Googolphonics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe Steve Martin needed a new needle for his record player and it had to be made out of moon nock- rock.. aw, shit..

  50. This sentence makes no sense. by hellop2 · · Score: 1

    "Evidently not the subject of this story, who offered to trade her sample of alleged lunar rock for $1.7 million."

    Can someone please explain it to me?

    --
    How many more years will slashdot have an off-by-one error on your Score in your profile?
  51. Re:NASA plants ad. Hollywood plants /. story by Maritz · · Score: 1

    If I was planting a story or doing a bit of underhand marketing, I'd mention the name of the film ;)

    --
    I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  52. y'know by WillgasM · · Score: 1

    I've got a giant chunk of rock at home that looks very similar. I found it fused to a slab of limestone. It wasn't there one day and the next it was, so I've always assumed it was a meteorite of some sort. I've never really pondered it's origin, I just know that It has yet to grant me any sort of supernatural powers. It weighs roughly 5 lbs, so I guess I'd be willing to part with it for about $138M.