|
Author
|
Topic: Flown hardware vs flown mementos
|
spaced out
Member Posts: 3110
From: Paris, France
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 04-30-2007 04:27 AM
   
There's been a couple of threads recently where the most ardent fans of flown hardware have effectively dismissed flown mementos (flags, patches, covers etc) as "trinkets" which were "just along for the ride".Let me first say that I fully appreciate the importance of pieces of hardware such as heatshield plugs in the moon missions. They performed a vital function during the mission and should be valued for that. What some people seem to be forgetting is that the "trinkets" carried in the OFKs and PPKs actually had a role to play in the missions too. These items were carried in order to share something from the mission with those who worked on the Apollo project, with important people in the U.S. and abroad, and with the families and friends of the astronauts themselves. As such I think it's beyond doubt that they performed an extremely useful service both for the benefit of NASA, the U.S. and for the astronauts. These items would not have been carried on the missions if they had not been deemed to have a vital role to play by NASA. They didn't play the same critical role as pieces of hardware but they were important in a different way. All flown items, whether mementos or pieces of hardware, have little or no intrinsic material value in any case. A 4x6" flag that cost a dollar is just a piece of mylon or silk. A chunk of heatshield may have cost a lot to produce originally but the material has no value today. Even a complex switch that cost a fortune to have custom made originally isn't of any use today and its components do not have any significant value. Their only value is an arbitrary one placed on them by collectors. One collector may place more value on an item's perceived importance to a mission. Another may place more value on the aesthetic or symbolic appeal of an item such as a flag or patch. The collector who places more value on an item's perceived importance to a mission is not "right" nor is the collector who places more value on the aesthetic or symbolic appeal of a flag or patch. It's all just personal preference and in that there is no right or wrong answer. The only 'wrong' is to think that everyone should feel the same way you do or that those that don't are somehow misguided. As mjanovec says "I would personally prefer a heat shield plug over a flown flag anyday" And as I say "I would personally prefer a flown flag over a heat shield plug anyday" The great thing is we're both right.  |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 04-30-2007 09:41 AM
While I greatly agree that collectors can and should pursue the items that interests them, I question if all space artifacts are created equal. The comparison offered -- flags versus chunks of heat shield -- is probably not the best for this discussion as both exist as post-flight mementos. Likewise, neither was marked to distinguish its flight aboard a particular mission. On the other hand, intact and complete artifacts, e.g. a flown checklist, a control handle, spacesuit component or other serialized piece of hardware can be traced through archival documentation to its specific mission. Further, while a nylon flag or ablator segment may not have an intrinsic value, a complete piece of hardware does... to history, as a reference to how that one small part of the mission was accomplished. This is why museums such as the Smithsonian are most concerned with preserving the major pieces of hardware and less interested in flown flag presentations. In addition to their role entertaining and educating the public, museums are archives for researchers and historians. There is little to be learned from a nylon flag other than that it exists. There is also the matter of scale: we know that hundreds of flags flew on each mission while far fewer examples of each type of hardware exist. When you consider that most of the hardware is (as it should be) held within museums, then the number of pieces available to collectors is far less than for souvenirs. Simple supply versus demand would then suggest a higher value be assigned for hardware than for mementos. Perhaps an appropriate analogy is the comparison between "limited edition"
commercial commemoratives and mementos created and distributed as souvenirs for the people involved in the actual event. For example, the difference between an unflown Robbins medal and a Franklin Mint coin. In this case, the medal is artifact while the coin is the collectible. Both are desired by collectors but the value of the earlier is greater because of its role in history and its limited availability. |
gliderpilotuk
Member Posts: 3398
From: London, UK
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 04-30-2007 10:08 AM
My personal take on this is that I like stuff that has been "exposed" to space rather than having just sat inside a bag, which was inside another bag, which was inside the CM. Lucites are ok but nowhere near as nice as a bare plug or piece of heatshield which you can handle directly... or even a RESCUE decal.I have such "exposed" items from Apollo 8, 11 (surface and CM) and 13 and enjoy them much more than any flown flags I have. But as you say, it's all a question of personal preference and at the end of the day we're ALL preserving history for posterity. |
RPF
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 04-30-2007 12:35 PM
Whatever is important to you, IS important to you - and that is it.I wonder why some people collect or have an interest in some things. I often can't imagine the draw of some particular subjects. But then again, those same people will wonder why I am interested in space etc... Let us all have our interests and rejoice that people have such diverse preferences, for reason that do not have to be logically explained, nor justified. |
spaced out
Member Posts: 3110
From: Paris, France
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 04-30-2007 01:50 PM
Museums have their own criteria for what constitutes a worthwhile exhibit. Most museums would find a signed uninscribed Armstrong portait of little or no interest but examples sell for as much as a flown flag or many pieces of flown hardware.The question of supply and demand is a valid one but for certain types of flown hardware the supply is actually very large - heatshield pieces and kapton foil are two examples. In a way flown checklist pages are another, although of course each page is unique and hand notations add to that. It's clear however that some astronauts have many hundreds of pages to sell off one at a time. There are also areas where the boundary between mission-critical hardware and "trinkets" becomes a bit blurred. Take the case of hardware items that have been transformed into mementos such as the couch fabric squares from Apollo 13 or the safety line presentations of Apollo 14. The safety line of Apollo 14 was a piece of mission equipment that in the end went unused and was transformed into a "trinket" (if you like) for the benefit of NASA employees, exactly as was done with many mementos. |
driftingtotheright
unregistered
|
posted 04-30-2007 10:12 PM
Interesting that the first post in the thread favors aesthetic/sentimental flown items and comes from Paris, France, whereas the second favors those of practical / functional nature and hails from Houston, USA. |
Lunar rock nut
Member Posts: 911
From: Oklahoma city, Oklahoma U.S.A.
Registered: Feb 2007
|
posted 05-01-2007 06:28 AM
As beauty is in the eye of the beholder! |
LCDR Scott Schneeweis
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 05-01-2007 08:41 AM
quote:
Originally posted by spaced out:
Take the case of hardware items that have been transformed into mementos such as the couch fabric squares from Apollo 13 or the safety line presentations of Apollo 14. The safety line of Apollo 14 was a piece of mission equipment that in the end went unused and was transformed into a "trinket" (if you like) for the benefit of NASA employees, exactly as was done with many mementos.
What an abhorrent practice - to decompose an existing artifact exclusively for the purpose of producing "trinkets". Information of value that can be conveyed by the original intact item irretrievably lost and in the process denying countless generations who follow the same opportunities we had to examine, understand and experience our excitement as collectors when interacting with its progenitor artifact. The decision to "cut-up" an artifact is irrevocable - once initiated future collectors and institutions are not provided the liberty of rebuilding "Humpty - Dumpty" - they live with the aftermath how we treat this material today. |
Rizz
Member Posts: 1208
From: Upcountry, Maui, Hawaii
Registered: Mar 2002
|
posted 05-01-2007 01:52 PM
I have an Apollo 13 lucite with a small couch sample. It was signed by Capt. Lovell and is one of the nicest artifacts that I have. |
poofacio
Member Posts: 268
From: United Kingdom
Registered: Oct 2006
|
posted 05-01-2007 03:47 PM
quote:
Originally posted by LCDR Scott Schneeweis:
What an abhorrent practice - to decompose an existing artifact exclusively for the purpose of producing "trinkets".
I agree whole heartedly with this reference things that need to be kept as a complete item to be appreciated, but come on, a length of rope is a length of rope. Cut up into small bits a lot of people can feel the excitement of owning and touching a piece of history, keeping interest alive. I have many items in both categories and I love them all.All that can possibly be learned from a piece of string is how long is a piece of string! I can't speak for the USA but here in the UK the last people that should be entrusted with these things are the museums. e.g. The Science Museum in London has put Mr Baird's original television away in the cellars and replaced it with a ghastly display board explaining how TV came to be. The Tower of London has an entire floor with projected flames and piped "rioter" noise. It is to show the shell suit brigade what London may have been like if the gunpowder plot had succeeded. (probably better!) Apparently the peasants prefer this. ( the ones that can read that is!) Better cut up and in private hands than languishing in a theme park for the mindless |
mjanovec
Member Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 05-01-2007 04:14 PM
I agree that it's all a matter of preference that should dictate what we collect. I was speaking on behalf of my personal preference when I stated that I'd rather have a heat shield plug than a flown flag. I knew that not everyone would agree with me on that.The fact is that I'm not wealthy enough to collect either.  It's good that we all collect different things. Can you imagine the prices if everyone collected the same thing and we were all competing for the same items? As for cutting up piece of mission hardware to turn in mementos, I think it's fine as long as it's done with taste. I prefer the items that were cut up with cooperation of the astronauts involved, such as pieces from Apollo 13 that were presented to NASA workers as a "thank you" for their efforts. After all, some of those pieces came from Aquarius, which would have burned up anyway had the items not been retrieved as a souvenir first. I think it's admirable that the astronauts found ways to give people little bits and pieces as souvenirs...just to let them know their contributions to the mission was important. I would not be in favor of chopping up something like PLSS cables or hoses, however, since they are better left preserved as one piece. But in the end, it's up to the owners of these pieces to decide what to do with them. |
LCDR Scott Schneeweis
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 05-01-2007 08:05 PM
quote:
Originally posted by poofacio:
All that can possibly be learned from a piece of string is how long is a piece of string!
There is lost contextual information (how was the line attached to the shroud, what was its role in the overall design of the chute, how was it detangled, and packed), physical information (elasticity, dynamic stresses endured during flight and deployment, how tolerant were the textiles to compression); manufacturing processes applied, etc. It's easy to answer those questions now as we are within a generation/two of the early space program but with a displacement of centuries other questions will be asked with a relatively greater significance imparted upon intact artifacts to provide the answer and tangible physical connection that our first steps into space were not mythical but really occurred. |
advertisement