|
Author
|
Topic: 110626588665: Apollo 13 Latch Shim Flown
|
MikeSpace
unregistered
|
posted 12-20-2010 07:26 PM
 
If you look at ebay item #110626588665 you will see an Apollo 13 Flown Shim I just purchased. I'm new to flown material so feel free to chime in. The other auctions include lots of flown materials, mostly in displays. I also wonder if James Lovell signs 'flown' material; I use quotes to mean anything that he hasn't released himself. Would love to have him sign this at whatever autograph event he and I can get to. Thanks in advance. |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 4437
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 12-20-2010 08:09 PM
 
Hi Mike... I would start first by trying to establish if this was really a flown artifact. It has a nice parts removal tag (which were routinely issued by North American in conjunction with both pre and post-flight parts removal). The date of inspection (which is post flight) could be associated with the true removal date or some type of independent inventory inspection/action on the component subsequent to pre-launch removal. Understanding the authority for its removal is important - the tag Authority line "MAO 3-1-0081 "A" chng Unit 108" suggests this shim's affiliation with S/C 109 was in conjunction with pre-flight modification or fit-check vice post flight testing. Ordinarily any components authorized for post flight removal would include an associated ASHUR (Apollo Spacecraft Hardware Utilization Request) number on its tag which is missing in this instance. I am unfamiliar however with the acronym "MAO". |
David Carey
Member Posts: 782
From:
Registered: Mar 2009
|
posted 12-20-2010 11:13 PM
Hello Mike - certainly what Scott said, and you might want to review my comments under the 'astronaut vs. NASA certification' thread in the Flown Hardware forum in case that might help with your question. |
MikeSpace
unregistered
|
posted 12-21-2010 10:02 AM
Next time I will check here before purchase.Lesson learned. |
Greggy_D
Member Posts: 977
From: Michigan
Registered: Jul 2006
|
posted 12-21-2010 10:08 AM
Looks like the eBay auction was posted by a fellow cS member, Jerry Czubinski (blueangels1). For what it is worth, all artifacts I have purchased from him over the years have been legit and included pages upon pages of documentation. |
space1
Member Posts: 853
From: Danville, Ohio
Registered: Dec 2002
|
posted 12-21-2010 01:30 PM
I'll start by clarifying that the photo of the shim on a hatch is a photo I took recently of a shim on the SL-3 hatch. It is not a photo of this shim, and not of the Apollo 13 hatch.Scott and I differ on the parts removal tag. I believe this type of tag was only used post-flight. I have seen other types of tags used for parts removed pre-flight. I also don't believe the ASHUR was always needed for a part to be removed post-flight. The authorization to remove is not an ASHUR in this case, but a standard procedure. The "MAO 301" series of procedures dealt with mechanical systems. As an example, MAO 301-0124 was instructions for installation of the locking mechanism. I don't know what the "-0081" procedure was specifically, but it could have been related to post-flight work. There would have been procedures for safing of systems, removal of detonators and actuators, and any number of other standard procedures. Scott points out the "Unit 108" at the end of the Authority entry. I can only guess that this is part of the revision history of the procedure. But I do believe that it refers to S/C 108 - Apollo 12. The date and quality control stamp are associated with the S/C 109 entry as the next higher ("removed from") assembly. So I am satisfied that the shim was removed from Apollo 13 post-flight. ------------------
John Fongheiser
President
Historic Space Systems, http://www.space1.com |
MikeSpace
unregistered
|
posted 12-21-2010 02:29 PM
Oh I'm not doubting the person selling the piece at all, I saw the wonderful items they have for sale and the discussions here, that was one of the reasons I bought it, because of the good reputation of the seller.Lesson learned = I should have done more research myself that a 'definite' provenance [sp?] of the item existed. Thanks for all the responses, the depth of knowledge here humbles me, and people think I'm a space nut.  |
MikeSpace
unregistered
|
posted 12-21-2010 02:54 PM
S/C = Service/Command as in modules? |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 12-21-2010 03:04 PM
S/C = spacecraft |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 4437
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 12-21-2010 07:01 PM
quote:
Originally posted by space1:
I also don't believe the ASHUR was always needed for a part to be removed post-flight. The authorization to remove is not an ASHUR in this case, but a standard procedure.
Seemingly inconsequential items to include shims, clamps and knobs are addressed in the initial CASHURs; there is no reason to believe ASPO would not mandate persistent control under the ASHUR process during subsequent interaction with the spacecraft.I think what we have is a shim, residual from implementation of the change (i.e. prior to launch, a new shim was installed and the replaced article was tagged by NAR for disposition/accountability). |
space1
Member Posts: 853
From: Danville, Ohio
Registered: Dec 2002
|
posted 12-21-2010 10:25 PM
Referring to the CASHUR for CM 111 (ASTP) which Scott referenced in another thread, the CASHUR addresses only stowage items ("System(s) Affected: Stowage Items"). Having personally paged through hundreds of subsequent ASHUR's, the affected systems and equipment have a broad scope. But they do not address routine spacecraft processing. So if the CASHUR and subsequent ASHUR's do not address these, I believe they are covered by standard procedures, which themselves are controlled as specifications with signed approvals. These procedures would require removal of equipment as well as covers and hardware. I hope to research this further. |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 4437
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 12-23-2010 09:56 AM
quote:
Originally posted by space1:
Scott and I differ on the parts removal tag. I believe this type of tag was only used post-flight.
An unambiguous example of the same Temporary Parts Removal Tag (North American Rockwell form 961-D revision 4-68) being applied to an unflown artifact; this one from the recently auctioned docking ring (clearly not flown since the flight articles were jettisoned with the LM) with the authority for its removal based on a Test Preparation Sheet (TPS). The second image is of the tag associated with the shim for comparison.  
|
MikeSpace
unregistered
|
posted 12-23-2010 10:58 AM
First, thanks for the enormous wealth of information, this is literally an education.And it's also great that people can disagree on a point without being disagreeable, a rarity on many boards. I contacted the seller [very helpful and nice] and the shim was previously with Farthest Reaches, and he gave me the name of the person they got it from, and told me to contact they regarding provenance. I think he said it may come with some supplemental info on the COA, will let all know. |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 4437
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 12-23-2010 02:51 PM
The shim offered on Farthest Reaches has the identical tag, but it doesnt look like the same shim sold on Ebay. The Farthest Reaches shim includes the drawing (part number) stamped on its face (which matches the tag); the shim offered via the Ebay auction has images of both sides shown and it lacks the stamped part number and exhibits a couple of other dissimilar characteristics. Its the identical tag in both instances...very odd |
space1
Member Posts: 853
From: Danville, Ohio
Registered: Dec 2002
|
posted 12-23-2010 02:52 PM
You bring up a good example. It's as though the docking ring tag were used in error. It really needed a temporary parts -installation- tag. Once this tag was used the part was then tied to CM110, with expectations that it would later be re-installed on CM110. I remember reading of a test conducted for another spacecraft involving various components. I need to look further into that and try to see what was done. |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 4437
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 12-23-2010 04:20 PM
Heritage Lot 41119 from Nov 2010 - again note same tag, different shim from that depicted in the Ebay listing. |
Greggy_D
Member Posts: 977
From: Michigan
Registered: Jul 2006
|
posted 12-23-2010 08:43 PM
Looking at the scuffs on the shim, it appears the 3 pics in the Ebay auction are all of the same side of the shim. |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 4437
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 12-23-2010 08:48 PM
Yep concur... its inverted in the 4th image and not flipped. Good catch |
Greggy_D
Member Posts: 977
From: Michigan
Registered: Jul 2006
|
posted 12-23-2010 08:52 PM
But still VERY odd the exact same tag appears from all three sources. I'd love to see a pic of the opposite side from the Ebay shim.Based upon the markings on the shims, it is obvious the HA shim and the Farthest Reaches shim are two different parts. |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 4437
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 12-23-2010 09:11 PM
Yes they are (in the case of the shims; but the tags are the same). |
MikeSpace
unregistered
|
posted 12-24-2010 04:40 AM
Front, back, tag:  |
space1
Member Posts: 853
From: Danville, Ohio
Registered: Dec 2002
|
posted 12-24-2010 04:57 AM
No big mystery. The tag says "shims." I seem to recall a lot with a collection of shims wired together to a tag, sold through an auction house some years ago. These would be the separate shims with a copy of the tag. |
MikeSpace
unregistered
|
posted 12-30-2010 11:03 AM
Received the shim,No numbers as shown above on either side. It's definately not the one pictured above. Hmmm. |
blueangels1
Member Posts: 35
From: Houston, Texas
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 12-30-2010 07:24 PM
Okay everyone, I purchased this flown Apollo XII Shim from Steve some time back from Farthest Reaches, and believe Steve still has a few available. If anyone knows about shims or aircraft shim material can be separated to adjust for the thickness required to rig critical close tolerance areas. Most shim material I've used measures .002 &.003 thick MIL-S-22499C I believe and are layered. The shim I offered up on "the bay" was just that, the separated aft section of the shim I purchased from Steve at Farthest Reaches. I never mentioned the Part or Serial number side in the auction, and wished if the bidder had a question would of asked it before pulling the trigger. He could of sent the cS experts a thread first then asked the questions and bid or not bid. I even gave him Steve's contact info due to Steve having the history of the "Remover/Owner" of the A13 shims. My apologizes cS'ers. |
Charlie16
Member Posts: 494
From: Italy
Registered: Dec 2010
|
posted 03-03-2011 05:04 AM
I contacted Jerry and I purchased the shim. I received shim with the invoice and the business card of Steve, and asked to Steve if I know some history of shim.
That was the first response he did not know the piece? I sent the seller's name
to confirm the authenticity. I wait an answer. I think Jerry will understand that it is important to know the whole story of a piece flown before exposing it in a museum. I can not write flown if there is no certainty. Any comments or help is appreciated. I attach pictures to the history archive of forum.  .jpg) ------------------
Luigi Pizzimenti |
farthestreaches
Member Posts: 1074
From: Redondo Beach, Ca
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted 03-04-2011 01:18 AM
Let me end this thread. I explained that the shim didn't look familiar to me and why would it. The photo I was sent was one showin the shim after it had been taken apart. In that it NO LONGER resembled the shim I sold, would not in good conscience verify that I was the source. It's true that I did in fact sell a shim to Jerry and if the shim pictured IS the same shim, so be it but as it stood, the shim in the image was unrecognizable to me as it had been altered. That's the rest of the story...------------------
Steve Hankow
http://www.farthestreaches.com |
Charlie16
Member Posts: 494
From: Italy
Registered: Dec 2010
|
posted 03-04-2011 05:40 AM
I hope you understand my English.Then confirm that it is authentic? Conclude with response would be nice  One of the two sides is equal to what you've sold, because adhesive is the same, right? I think it's interesting to get the truth at all to confirm the honesty of sellers? I never wrote: Steve or Jerry not honest, I'm just wondering truth. Before I made to you questions, but do not come to conclusion... |
Charlie16
Member Posts: 494
From: Italy
Registered: Dec 2010
|
posted 03-04-2011 06:32 AM
Are in possession of all bills of sale Between Steve and Jerry. At this time are stored, But if anyone has new information availableI can show you in private.
|
c11esh
Member Posts: 34
From: UK
Registered: Mar 2009
|
posted 03-04-2011 07:31 AM
What more are you expecting either of them to say? Steve has said, if the part of the shim sold by Jerry is the one Jerry bought from him, then its authentic. Jerry says the shim is part of the one he bought from Steve. How can you expect Steve to say any more than that, especially if the shim has been separated and no longer looks like the original? |
Charlie16
Member Posts: 494
From: Italy
Registered: Dec 2010
|
posted 03-04-2011 08:26 AM
Sorry if I seek the truth. Do you mind? |
Charlie16
Member Posts: 494
From: Italy
Registered: Dec 2010
|
posted 03-04-2011 08:56 AM
I understand that you are Steve lawyer and would prefer to speak in a public (as you wrote in your email). Since you prefer to talk about cS I hope you will give an answer.If Steve confirms that the invoice is true and also his business card attached to the invoice, we will know that the shim come from Steve and go to Jerry. Jerry will show that the portion of the shim that cut and everything will be resolved. It seems very simple, no? |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 4437
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 03-04-2011 09:07 AM
Flown or not, well done to whomever decided to part a formally intact component into individual pieces in the interest of profit. Another historical artifact converted to scrap. |
Charlie16
Member Posts: 494
From: Italy
Registered: Dec 2010
|
posted 03-04-2011 09:20 AM
It's true, thank you for that. I like also the whole piece for the museum. I saw the site of Steve whole piece with registration numbers, We now have two pieces of shim! It remains important to know where the two pieces.
|
c11esh
Member Posts: 34
From: UK
Registered: Mar 2009
|
posted 03-04-2011 09:45 AM
I do not know Steve, I have never had any contact or dealings with him. My comment was simply you had received a detailed reply from both parties already, and that Steve had given as much assurance as any one would want to about the item. Even if Steve were to confirm the invoice and business card are his (he has already said he sold a shim to Jerry, so you would expect they are) He still cannot 100% confirm the item Jerry sent with that invoice and business card was the one he sold. If Steve sold me a car. I sold you a wheel from a car, saying it was from the car Steve sold me. Even if I had an invoice from Steve how can Steve say 100% the wheel was from the car he sold me. I have no wish to get into an email exchange with you, which is why I asked you not to send me emails. I am sorry if my comments upset/offended you in anyway, and I have nothing more to say on the matter. |
Charlie16
Member Posts: 494
From: Italy
Registered: Dec 2010
|
posted 03-04-2011 09:50 AM
Thank you for your invaluable contribution... |
Charlie16
Member Posts: 494
From: Italy
Registered: Dec 2010
|
posted 03-05-2011 12:26 AM
Received request to send it back? We want to see the shim cut in two pieces. I just need this.I think a simple request, everyone wants to know if someone is not telling the truth. When you sell flown pieces. |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 4437
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 03-05-2011 08:15 AM
Further evidence the shim was not flown. The memo below, which was issued prior to S/C 109's return to North American for its inspection, reaffirms the policy that adherence to ASHUR procedures was required for any post-flight work or testing on the capsule. The investigate action triggered by the accident was particularly sensitive to capturing traceability of any interaction with the CM to preserve the integrity of the Team's findings.  
|
Charlie16
Member Posts: 494
From: Italy
Registered: Dec 2010
|
posted 03-05-2011 02:52 PM
I wait for answers and comments. |
Charlie16
Member Posts: 494
From: Italy
Registered: Dec 2010
|
posted 03-06-2011 05:59 AM
Maybe my English is not good, I apologize for this and my request was not understood immediately.I await the pictures of the two separate pieces front and back. I am convinced that Steve and Jerry are serious people and will see all the evidence. I was told that the documents do has nothing to do where shims attached to the door when it was dismantled three months after its return to earth, so they actually flew on Apollo 13. |
Charlie16
Member Posts: 494
From: Italy
Registered: Dec 2010
|
posted 03-06-2011 12:16 PM
I got pictures that prove the separation of the various layers (3) shims because they were the first shim with the number, then in a half and then it was stuck to the door.I wait only to confirm that Steve has sold for the first shim and who is now for sale on its site, yet another. So Steve is only person who knows better what has sold. I will stop here for now, all the e-mail, messages, photos are stored because one day we will return to talk about the famous Apollo 13 shims. Maybe in 40 years? |
advertisement