One full backup and a partial backup?

Risky strategy, but he is Chuck Norris, risky is his middle name. Or Ray. Something with an R.

Personally, I have at least 100% of my data on spinning drives on this computer. Another 4 or 500% of my data on removable spinning drives. And maybe 10-20% of my data (about 300% of my personal documents and a few photos, some music...) on removable solid-state storage. And probably a few hundred percent on writeable plastic disks floating around somewhere, no longer needed.

[addendum]

Judging by this and some of the other comments in this post... For example:

...there seems to be a 180 degree reversal in how Americans think about scientists vs engineers and the rest of the world.

In the US, a "scientist" is someone who is suitably degreed and formally published. While an "engineer" can be anything from a professional to a backyard tinkerer. Whereas in most/all other countries, an "engineer" is a highly regulated profession with minimum tertiary qualifications, while a "scientist" is just anyone who "does science", from professionals to the least-qualified hobbyist.

So in Germany, "Part-time scientists" would be like an American group called "After-hours engineers".

Further to the AC's comment, you'd also be hitting the moon at several km/s. Your bouncy shell would merely add a thin layer to the moon's surface.

Germany may have laws about who can call themselves an engineer, but not about who can call themselves a scientist. Ie, a profession vs a vocation.

The lunar surface only reaches 130 C even though it has an albedo of just 5%. Even the solar panel on the rover will be more reflective that that (about 30% in practice). And the panel would act as a partial solar shield for the rest of the rover, with a high-albedo coating protecting the rest (white in the pics). So nothing is going to actually melt. Thermal contraction during the lunar night is the killer.

"Then will be revealed what was stronger: the merciless lunar night or the valiant Asimov. It will either remain in eternal sleep or embark on another new and exciting day on the moon."

Hopefully they are aware enough of Asimov's work to print the robot ID number "ASM-05" on the rover.

(No, actually, I'm just glad they didn't create yet another fucking backronym... "Autonomous Science and Investigation MOon Vehicle".)

Off-the-shelf star-tracker of the type used on everything from deep-space probes to the Dragon capsule, plus an atomic-clock-on-a-chip, plus a big bumper book of star tables.

(Dropped beacons would quickly fall below the close horizon on the moon. Plus you'd still have to determine the location of the beacons, using a method small and cheap enough to throw away. So why not put that method on the rover?)

So just to be clear, in just 2 hours, and all without a trace of self-awareness, you have gone from:

- criticising me for attributing the claim that "America is not a democracy" to the broad conservative movement

to

- assuring me that "all (or most)" mainstream conservatives would "laugh at anybody who made that claim", including and especially your conservative friend, Dr. Pournelle

to

- criticising me for daring to challenge Pournelle's claim.

You brought up Pournelle as an example of someone who would never accept the claim, would laugh at it. When I quoted Pournelle matter-of-factly repeating the claim, you switch to challenging me to show my credentials.

So I'm done. You have a nice life now.

Rest assured that Dr. Pournelle's penis remains larger than any mere mortal.

Speaking of assurances, are you still assuring me that Pournelle would "laugh at anybody who made the claim" that "the USofA isn't a democracy", or are you no longer laughing but defending the claim one the grounds that Pournelle "knows what he's writing about"?

And are you including or excepting Pournelle from the list of wackos who are saying exactly the same thing as Pournelle?

So because of your assumptions about your conservative friend, who you haven't actually asked, you are rejecting my decades of observation of this issue, and the hundreds or thousands of conservative and libertarian websites talking about this (as noted in a google search for the phrase "us is a republic not a democracy"), and the recent and increasing use of the slogan by conservative demonstrators?

But since you brought him up:

"It was not all that long ago that everyone in America understood that this nation wasn't founded as a democracy, and that democracy, having been considered by the Framers, was rejected for a constitutional republic of limited and precisely defined powers. As to democracy, most of the founding figures of the American Republic rejected it flatly. John Adams was particularly vigorous in his rejection: 'Democracy while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.' - John Adams " -- Pournelle, 30/5/2012, taken from the blog you linked to.

[Emphasis mine.]

(This is also exactly the sort of "appeal to Founders" than prompted me to write: "Weird because Jefferson's party were called the "Democratic Republicans", suggesting that they weren't quite as dark on democracy as the proponents of the meme would like to suggest.")