posted 06-23-2011 01:50 PM               

Lunar Material Recovered

The United States Attorney's Office announced that what is believed to be lunar material stolen from National Aeronautics and Space Administration decades ago was safely returned on Monday of this week to its laboratories at the Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas.

The material consists of moon dust removed from the film cartridge of a camera used by astronauts on the surface of the moon during the Apollo 11 Mission. The moon dust is believed to have been smuggled out by a NASA employee that had access to the camera that was used on the Apollo 11 Mission. NASA investigators believe that the employee removed the moon dust using a 1-inch piece of tape and that the tape was later sold in 2001 to a German national who deals in space-related memorabilia. Since then the trail has grown cold as it is believed the tape was cut into several smaller segments and sold to unknown purchasers. This would be the first of the segments to be recovered.

The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern Missouri first learned in early June that the dust was going to be listed for auction by Regency-Superior Auctions in its St. Louis office. Regency is the oldest and one of the largest auctioneers of space and aviation memorabilia in the world. Investigators from NASA's Office of Inspector General out of the Kennedy Space Center then contacted Regency, who cooperated with the investigation and, with the permission of the consignor, withdrew the material from auction. The name of the consignor is not being released. She had not been involved in its purchase and was unaware of its history or how it had been acquired by her late husband. Upon learning that the material had been stolen from NASA years earlier, she immediately and graciously agreed to relinquish it back to the American people.

Investigators from the U.S. Attorney's Office retrieved the material from the Regency Superior Auctions last Friday. On having the lunar material in his office for a day, United States Attorney Richard Callahan quipped, "It wasn't much to look at, but I will never be that close to the moon again!"

Preliminary testing by the Johnson Space Center laboratory late yesterday confirmed that the material is in all likelihood lunar, though it will take another 2-3 weeks to complete full testing.

posted 06-23-2011 02:32 PM               

I can't help but wonder how many collectSPACE members have these presentations within their collections.

posted 06-23-2011 08:25 PM               

• Auction houses, reputable ones at least, routinely submit their catalogs to the appropriate authorities for review.

• The authorities routinely browse auction catalogs.

• "Good Samaritans" (of various knowledge levels) routinely browse sale listings and raise questions about what they think does not look right (regardless if they are wrong or right).

Actually, confiscated is not the right word. It was turned over, at most surrendered.

As far I can determine, there is no legal precedent being set here. There were no charges, no arrest, not even a sting operation.

The authorities asked for Regency-Superior's cooperation and received it. The authorities asked for the consignor's cooperation and received it.

It's not unusual for the authorities to ask for others to cooperate with their requests.

A couple of other observations:

• The authorities allowed the original 2001 sale of the intact Slezak presentation to proceed unchallenged (either before or after the auction).

• Slezak told The New York Times today that no one from NASA or law enforcement has ever questioned him about the tape, even when he sold the poster at an auction in 2001.

posted 06-23-2011 11:04 PM               

For example, one of these Apollo 11 lunar dust presentations sold on eBay for $1,680.00 back on May 15.

posted 06-23-2011 11:10 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Had this case played out differently, had the authorities confiscated the display from a consignor defending his/her right to own the display, then the outcome of that legal proceeding would potentially have had ramifications for other collectors.

---

posted 06-24-2011 12:07 AM               

I also collect antiquities (an odd pairing with Space stuff perhaps) and good provenance is paramount given the swirl of ownership debates and changing laws. Is space artifact collecting headed in the same direction?

In the specific example of a lucite or similar 'gifts of the time', many/most were made and given by NASA or its affiliates with full and open knowledge, at least to my understanding. A wave of claw-backs seems quite unlikely or at least indefensible.

posted 06-24-2011 06:02 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aztecdoug:
Are all of those Alan Bean originals with real moondust going to end up in the crosshairs?

---

The issue in Terry Slezak's case (and similar cases) is and has always been was the release of the lunar material authorized by NASA.

In the original 2001 auction listing for the "poster board montage" that included "a 1" piece of scotch tape covered in moon dust 'taken off when I (Mr Slezak) cleaned the magazine.'" mention is made that it was "given to Mr. Slezak as a memento." No other detail about how the dust came to be in Slezak's possession is provided.

The implication therefore, is that someone was authorized to present him with the montage, including the moon dust, as a souvenir.

Here however, is the (recently revealed, potential) problem: the montage as given to Slezak did not include the moon dust-stained tape.

Speaking to The New York Times on Thursday, Slezak said, "Later, presented with a poster board of photographs signed by the Apollo 11 astronauts, 'I added the little piece of Scotch tape with the moon dust on it... I thought that would be kind of neat.'"

So Slezak took it upon his own accord to remove the moon dust-stained tape from NASA. It was not presented to him as many (myself included) were led to believe by the auction listing.

One wonders what else was originally on the montage board and what was later added by Slezak himself? In his interview with The New York Times, he describes the original presentation only as "a poster board of photographs signed by the Apollo 11 astronauts."

Was the flown, Aldrin hand-written note about the contents of Magazine "S" original to the montage? Was the "Mag. S" label presented to Slezak or was it saved by him? Was the Kapton tape sample, which was first mounted to a COA-style card, original to the display or added later?

No one at NASA was ever authorized to simply pocket or remove items from their work space, including the astronauts who had to seek written permission to retain the lunar flown items that they did (those memos reside today in the University of Houston, Clear Lake NASA-JSC Archives).

posted 06-24-2011 08:15 AM               

When investigators from both NASA and the U.S. Attorney's office noticed moon dust listed for sale in St. Louis, they shut down the transaction with the cooperation of the auction house and the seller.

Have they had their head in the sand for the past ten years? Why ignore a decade of transactions regarding the presentations, only to go into (a limited for now) recovery mode?

This article from Forbes just adds to the spectacle.

"In the case of extraterrestrial material, it's invaluable," Parker said. "It's something that needs to stay within a scientific community."

Authorities learned the tape was sold to a German collector of space memorabilia in 2001. The pursuit of the missing dust then grew cold, though it is believed the tape was cut into several smaller segments and sold to other buyers, the U.S. attorney's office said. The segment in St. Louis was the first piece found.

Needs to stay within a scientific community? What about the dust on name tags and checklists? Is that dust any less valuable? Shouldn't that dust also stay within the scientific community, according to logic?

The trail grew cold? How many times have we seen the presentations on cS, Ebay, or other auction houses? Heck, Robert even wrote an article back on Dec 10, 2001 about them.

posted 06-24-2011 08:43 AM               

If they did not know this existed until now, then their incompetence is further highlighted. These pieces have been for sale quite openly, from Florian, through eBay, and the various auction houses. it was not hard to find information on them. As Robert said, Florian and the others bought the items in good faith, however if the NASA and the government is now asserting ownership, then will they have to be returned?

If they are now claiming it is theirs, will they go back through auction records, ask Florian for names, look at eBay to identify current owners?

posted 06-24-2011 09:02 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by fredtrav:
Some investigators NASA has. The trail grew cold...

---

This recovery was one of convenience and cooperation, not the result of a long drawn out investigation. The auction came to their attention (regardless of how), and they received the cooperation of the auction house and the consignor.

posted 06-24-2011 11:41 AM               

Unfortunately the press release is so full of obvious mistakes, crap and lies it sounds to me more like a personal smear campaign of a certain agent there who has already broken the law in 2002, then we didn't sue him further.

My attorney will request an official statement from them incl. all facts and proofs they claim to have, so we can properly react and bring the guy to justice that wastes your hardly earned money as a taxpayer.

Just one thing... when I spoke with last time they hung up the phone after they learned I'm represented by several lawyers. We even requested a written statement that they declined.
There is no scientific value in these kind of samples as many scientists confirmed already.

But then again for somebody not even getting history right or knowing a tiny country called the former Soviet Union who successfully retrieved lunar material (to be read here on collectSPACE) what would you expect?

We will be working on solving the situation as soon as possible to all sides satisfaction.

posted 06-24-2011 01:57 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Speaking to The New York Times on Thursday, Slezak said, "Later, presented with a poster board of photographs signed by the Apollo 11 astronauts, 'I added the little piece of Scotch tape with the moon dust on it... I thought that would be kind of neat.'"

---

Also, regarding the presentation itself, are we sure this is a presentation that was reviewed or approved by NASA management? Or was this a neat memento put together by friends and co-workers as a gift to Slezak... as a reminder of his accidental exposure to lunar dust? If this presentation was unofficial in nature (and never approved by NASA management), that also sinks the argument for private ownership of this dust.

Whereas IF the presentation was an official NASA presentation (approved by management) and IF it included the lunar dust at the time it was presented, then a case can be made that this dust was legal to own and re-sell.

Unfortunately, this level of scrutiny should have been applied in 2001 when the dust was auctioned.

posted 06-24-2011 02:06 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by mjanovec:
Whereas IF the presentation was an official NASA presentation (approved by management) and IF it included the lunar dust at the time it was presented, then a case can be made that this dust was legal to own and re-sell.

---

posted 06-24-2011 04:27 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by fredtrav:
They are wasting taxpayer dollars to recover minute amounts of dust?

---

posted 06-24-2011 08:37 PM               

It just seems very convenient that the first display they target was handed over free of hassle. What if they have made requests in the past, but the owners have refused. If they felt that they might lose a challenge in the court, would they really want the public awareness that these are legal to own?

The way it stands with this case, the media beat up has given the impression that they aren't legal, without actually having it tested in the court.

The second query I have is whether or not NASA ever really possessed ownership of the dust in the first place. All the other lunar samples where intentionally collected and catalogued, but as far as I understand it, no senior management where even aware of these samples until they where already circulating.

Yes they would have been aware of Slezak contamination, but they had no interest in the dust, further than Slezak biological containment. During the earlier missions, dust contamination was even swabbed down and then intentionally sunk.

At what point during NASA's possession of the dust did they declare or imply intent of ownership? If I come back from the desert after drought breaking rains, and my tires are caked in mud, then an edaphologist collects some mud that has chipped off, do I have the right to demand it back?

posted 06-25-2011 10:40 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by AusSpace:
The second query I have is whether or not NASA ever really possessed ownership of the dust in the first place.

---

posted 07-23-2011 05:23 PM               

Yet it has been sold openly since 2001 and in many auctions since then. All the while NASA was aware of it right from the start. It was not "stolen" not on the "black market" nor was it ever "missing" as the news articles unjustly stated.

But, if left standing...

It is "illegal" by default as NASA in its capacity has said so.

Really?

Where is the news followup?

This determination cannot stand at face value as there are at least 200 others that have these items in their possession.

Too bad that lady was cowed into surrendering this item as it set a precedent for NASA's claim of its illegality.

posted 07-23-2011 05:38 PM               

Ideally the former Superior Galleries (not be confused with Regency-Superior Galleries) would have clarified this at the time of the original auction and once learning the truth, turned away the sale.

But that of course, didn't happen. Instead, Superior proceeded with the auction, selling the ill-gotten moon dust-stained tape to Florian Noller. Noller, as Spaceflori, resold pieces of the tape.

posted 07-24-2011 01:09 AM               

The Slezak dust wasn't "stolen" (as Slezak didn't steal it), and it wasn't "missing" (as NASA had no record of it and it was never cataloged as such, or reported as missing or stolen at the time, or even thereafter), as was reported by Time, and others (including here).

As noted, there have been no successful prosecutions of anyone possessing moondust, and that's not just by accident.

posted 07-24-2011 07:37 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by chet:
The Slezak dust wasn't "stolen" (as Slezak didn't steal it), and it wasn't "missing" (as NASA had no record of it and it was never cataloged as such, or reported as missing or stolen at the time, or even thereafter), as was reported by Time, and others (including here).

---

My mother gives me a box that belonged to my deceased father. In it she says that it contains all of my late father's wrist watches which my Dad wanted me to have when he died. Great, I take inventory as I am not sure what is there and thus I assume I have it all. Some time later I find out that there was in fact a missing watch, one that was broken and a friend of my Dad took with the thought that he would have it repaired. My Dad dies, he figures my Dad would no longer miss that watch so he repairs it and sells it. Is that watch stolen or not? I would say it was stolen as all of Dad’s watches were to be mine.

My Dad’s friend was entrusted with the care of his watch, as was the worker who took the dust. My Dad's friend had honorable motives at first as he was going to salvage the watch, so did the worker who took the dust, as the dust may have ended up falling on the floor and swept away. Time had passed before I knew that there was even a watch to be missed, time has passed on the worker who took the dust. The watch was of little value until repaired and sold. The dust had little value until it was then was mounted a sold.

As I said, I would feel that in the scenario set above my Dad's watch and thus mine, although now owned by another, was in fact still mine and should be returned to me. Regardless of the fact the current owner bought it without the knowledge that the seller did not have the right to sell it.

Again, I am not defending the actions of the dust taker or NASA but just pointing out that we need to be careful in how we define ownership and “stolen” in the legal sense.

posted 07-24-2011 08:59 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by chet:
The Slezak dust wasn't "stolen"

---

By your reasoning, the geologists working in the Lunar Receiving Laboratory who were entrusted to catalog the lunar material could have (should have?) legally skimmed off samples and kept them because "NASA had no record of it and it was never cataloged as such, or reported as missing or stolen at the time, or even thereafter."

posted 07-24-2011 09:50 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Simplifying the scenario: You work in a company's mailroom. The mail is delivered one day and you're the first to see it. In the process of sorting it, one of the envelopes opens and cash falls out. No one but you knows about the cash, so you pocket it. The company doesn't know the cash went missing, so it doesn't report it stolen. So, are you in your legal right to keep the cash?

---

Have you experience working for Royal Mail, Robert?

Slightly "off" analogy. You'd have to add that there were ten years' or so of delay before someone finds that the cash has been stolen, by virtue of it being in third party hands and secondly, cash being a fungible asset, you'd have a problem ever proving that a number of bills discovered later were ever part of the original "whole".

posted 07-24-2011 01:40 PM               

Even if took longer, this is what the Office of the Inspector General exists to do.

Public law 95-452, known as the Inspector General Act of 1978, created independent audit and investigative units, called Offices of Inspector General (OIGs) at 63 Federal agencies.

The NASA Office of Inspector General (OIG) conducts independent audits, reviews, and investigations of NASA programs and operations to prevent and detect fraud, waste, abuse...

quote:

---

What about the dust-stained charts and name patches we've seen?

---

posted 07-24-2011 03:38 PM               

I think it is important at this point to make certain that everyone understands that souvenir-hunting, cannibalizing, etc., no matter how small, should not take place. It is difficult to control since the spacecraft go back to NAR and there is no way to keep tabs on them constantly. But it would be helpful, since I'm certain you agree, if you could get the proper word out to all hands that this is not an acceptable practice.

The Agency has a very firm agreement with the Smithsonian on the turn-over of artifacts. Some of the Gemini spacecraft have been badly gutted of instruments and other small fittings.

There have been several occasions in which unauthorized removal of equipment or parts of spacecraft has been experienced. These removals have included stripping of small pieces of the kapton thermal coating and removal of the command module nameplates. These removals have occurred during the recovery and return to NAR and during postflight testing.

I would like to point out to all personnel concerned that this unauthorized removal of equipment, no matter how small it may seem, constitutes a violation of our responsibility.

In order to prevent unauthorized removals in the future, I would like to urge all personnel having access to the recovered spacecraft and equipment to take a personal interest in seeing that all of the hardware is protected and properly handled while in their custody.

posted 07-24-2011 08:03 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by albatron:
Did Slezak KNOW that he wasn't authorized to take it?

---