|
Author
|
Topic: U.S. sues Edgar Mitchell to reclaim lunar camera
|
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 06-30-2011 05:15 PM
   
Reuters reports that the U.S. government has sued Apollo 14 astronaut Edgar Mitchell to recover a camera used on the moon's surface after seeing it slated for sale in a New York auction. The lawsuit, filed in Miami federal court on Wednesday, accuses Edgar Mitchell of illegally possessing the camera and attempting to sell it for profit.In March, NASA learned that the British auction house Bonhams was planning to sell the camera at an upcoming Space History Sale, according to the suit. The item was labeled "Movie Camera from the Lunar Surface" and billed as one of two cameras from the Apollo 14's lunar module Antares. The lot description said the item came "directly from the collection" of pilot Edgar Mitchell and had a pre-sale estimate of $60,000 to $80,000, the suit said... "All equipment and property used during NASA operations remains the property of NASA unless explicitly released or transferred to another party," the government suit said, adding NASA had no record of the camera being given to Mitchell. The suit said the government had made repeated requests to Mitchell and his lawyer to return the camera but received no response. Mitchell's lawyer, Donald Jacobson, said NASA management was aware of and approved Mitchell's ownership of the camera 40 years ago. "Objects from the lunar trips to the moon were ultimately mounted and then presented to the astronauts as a gift after they had helped NASA on a mission," Jacobson said. Bonhams said in an emailed statement that the camera had been slated to be auctioned off in May when it learned about the ownership dispute from NASA. The auction house withdrew the camera from sale "pending further discussion between NASA and the consignor," a Bonhams spokesperson said. The government is asking the court to stop Mitchell from selling the camera to anyone, to order its return and to declare that the United States has "good, clean and exclusive title" to the camera. collectSPACE has obtained a copy of the complaint filed by the U.S. Government with the federal court and will have more on this story soon. |
David Carey
Member Posts: 782
From:
Registered: Mar 2009
|
posted 06-30-2011 05:52 PM
Sounds like the next step in a stepping-up of ownership claims by the U.S. Government. First some lunar dust scraps and now a full-blown lunar surface camera. I suppose the positive here is that other flown objects which have recently made it to, and through, auction might be assigned an implied clean status. I'm no legal expert though and perhaps an unbounded statute of limitations on government property would allow them to pursue other items after-the-fact. Still, reason dictates there should be some obligation to pursue claims consistently, as they become aware, and before they knowingly allow a sale (as was apparently the case here). |
Greggy_D
Member Posts: 977
From: Michigan
Registered: Jul 2006
|
posted 06-30-2011 06:05 PM
quote:
Originally posted by David Carey:
I suppose the positive here is that other flown objects which have recently made it to, and through, auction might be assigned an implied clean status.
I would not assume this at all. |
David Carey
Member Posts: 782
From:
Registered: Mar 2009
|
posted 06-30-2011 06:31 PM
I'm not assuming anything, thus the sentence which followed regarding an un-bounded SoL. |
DChudwin
Member Posts: 1096
From: Lincolnshire IL USA
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 06-30-2011 09:34 PM
The question here is: How far will the U.S. government go to recover any items from the Apollo astronauts that were not in their Personal Preference Kits (PPKs)? Will the government go after flown flight plans and checklists? Will the government go after flown maps and charts? Will the government go after various flown straps, tubings, and devices that were carried aboard and later taken by the astronauts? Will the government go after patches and emblems taken from astronauts' spacesuits?The point is where will this end? Instead of honoring these men who risked their lives for their country, the government is hounding them to give back items which I believe are rightfully theirs. This lawsuit is a misguided attempt which I hope will fail. Ed Mitchell is an ethical man of the highest integrity. Unless I learn otherwise, I believe that he did receive approval to take this camera. |
328KF
Member Posts: 1234
From:
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 06-30-2011 09:53 PM
I doubt that any of those bringing these charges have any memory of the Apollo missions or the incredible risks and rewards these heroes had placed upon them.Some stuffed shirt trying to make a name for himself by bringing down national heroes...pitiful. |
DChudwin
Member Posts: 1096
From: Lincolnshire IL USA
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 06-30-2011 10:41 PM
It is important to remember that NASA did not have clear-cut regulations about what crews could or could not bring aboard the command module until after the Apollo 15 cover controversy in 1972. Practices were more fuzzy in 1971 for Mitchell's Apollo 14 flight. Is this lawsuit an ex post facto application of later regulations? |
GoesTo11
Member Posts: 1309
From: Denver, CO
Registered: Jun 2004
|
posted 06-30-2011 11:00 PM
Disgusting. Your government in action.I certainly don't worship astronauts, and I recognize that they're human beings who are far from flawless and no less prone to occasional misjudgments than any of us...but I simply can't accept that an astronaut from that era who swore an oath of service to his country would knowingly commit theft on this scale. My gut feeling is that Ed Mitchell thought he was in the right, and that his contemporaries at NASA agreed. |
SkyMan1958
Member Posts: 867
From: CA.
Registered: Jan 2011
|
posted 06-30-2011 11:55 PM
It would seem logical to me that all the astronauts from that era should band together and take this/bring this as a class action lawsuit. Also some of the deep pocket collectors might wish to join them. Otherwise there is the possibility of the government picking off everybody one by one... the proverbial hang together or hang one by one. |
GACspaceguy
Member Posts: 2476
From: Guyton, GA
Registered: Jan 2006
|
posted 07-01-2011 05:15 AM
I wonder if the issue here with NASA is not the fact that the astronauts have these items, rather it is the fact that the item is up for sale. However that argument breaks down when you realize that this is not the first flown item that has been up for sale over the years. It may be that NASA wanted it back and now that it is becoming a profit making item they are digging in their heals. Not defending NASA’s actions just trying to understand why this one, why now. |
Spaceguy5
Member Posts: 427
From: Pampa, TX, US
Registered: May 2011
|
posted 07-01-2011 05:22 AM
Yeah, they may see taxpayer money being used to give a huge profit to an individual as wrong. Remember, NASA is known to, for instance, censor an astronaut's writing to say "Candies" instead of "M&Ms" to avoid commercialization. |
DChudwin
Member Posts: 1096
From: Lincolnshire IL USA
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 07-01-2011 05:45 AM
From the Palm Beach Post which interviewed Edgar Mitchell: Mitchell, who gained fame in 1971 when he became the sixth man to walk on the moon and has remained in the limelight by lecturing about his beliefs in alien landings and paranormal activity, scoffed at the government's claims."It's utter nonsense," he said. During the moon mission era, he said he and other astronauts got permission to take mementos from the space crafts. "We have dozens of pieces. All of us who flew to the moon," he said. Had they not brought them back, they would have been destroyed, he said. After astronauts climbed back into the command module for the roughly 250,000-mile trip home, engineers in Houston blew up the lunar module, he said. "It was government throwaways, government junk," he said of the various items he salvaged. His most prized possession is a hand controller from the Apollo 14 spacecraft. "They were going to throw it away on the lunar surface, so why not?" he asked. Apollo 12 astronaut Alan Bean, who was also a commander of Skylab 3 in 1973, said the rules changed, perhaps after Mitchell retired in 1972. At some point, he estimated about 35 years ago, he and others were ordered to return anything they got in connection with their NASA duties. He recalled that he was forced to return a dagger and his wife to hand over a bracelet they received as gifts in Morocco when he and other astronauts took part in a worldwide goodwill tour. "I gave all of my stuff back," he said. "I didn't have anything as good as a camera." The two cameras he and astronaut Pete Conrad took to the moon in 1969 stayed there, he said. "They're probably still up there," he said from Houston where he works as a painter, billing himself as "the only artist to walk on the moon." Mitchell, he said, shouldn't be faulted. Others, he said, probably didn't return their space goodies. "Be kind to Ed," he said. "These things, back in those days, it wasn't important. We were trying to get to the moon and get back alive. The other stuff, it wasn't important." It seems unlikely the federal government is going to heed that advice. Already, it persuaded Bonhams auction house to pull the camera from a planned May 5 sale, where the sellers estimated it would fetch as much as $80,000. "There are no current plans to offer the camera at a Bonhams auction," said a New York City spokeswoman for the British-based auction house. Mitchell acknowledged that the government asked him to return the camera in the past. But, he said, he thought the issue had been resolved. Many collectors love space memorabilia. Now, he said, some worry the government will seize items that have cost them plenty. "It's just a tempest in a teapot," he said. |
Hart Sastrowardoyo
Member Posts: 3445
From: Toms River, NJ
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 07-01-2011 07:38 AM
I'm thinking of that line in Lost Moon, where as the astronauts are about to leave the LEM, one of them takes a length of netting, shrugs and says, "Souvenir." So is the government going to go after all the owners of those cards which have flown netting on them? |
LM-12
Member Posts: 3208
From: Ontario, Canada
Registered: Oct 2010
|
posted 07-01-2011 08:03 AM
Don't mess around with our moonwalking heroes. |
AJ
Member Posts: 511
From: Plattsburgh, NY, United States
Registered: Feb 2009
|
posted 07-01-2011 09:33 AM
I think the Palm Beach Post article throws some very valuable light on the situation, thanks to the comments from Alan Bean. I hope this can be resolved in a positive way. I say, let the old man sell the damn camera! |
spaced out
Member Posts: 3110
From: Paris, France
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 07-01-2011 09:36 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Hart Sastrowardoyo:
So is the government going to go after all the owners of those cards which have flown netting on them?
Those particular presentations were made by NASA using material recovered by the crew. Likewise the Apollo 14 lunar safety line presentations. I can't see there ever being any question as to their legality. |
Jim Behling
Member Posts: 1463
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010
|
posted 07-01-2011 09:37 AM
quote:
Originally posted by SkyMan1958:
It would seem logical to me that all the astronauts from that era should band together and take this/bring this as a class action lawsuit.
We have to stop putting these people on high pedestals. They were gov't workers using gov't hardware.They have no case. I am against astronauts selling GFE. Especially if they did not obtain it "legally". If they brought it back, it is still the gov't's even if the gov't intended to leave it in space. It is up to the gov't to disposition it. |
capoetc
Member Posts: 2169
From: McKinney TX (USA)
Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted 07-01-2011 09:45 AM
The question is, what will NASA do with the camera if they recover it?Will they place it in a museum? Or will they throw it away like they did so many other historic artifacts? I would argue that maybe the US government has better things to do with its limited resources than to try to track down items it has collectively long since forgotten about to prevent the folks who actually cared for these items all these years from making a profit from them. I think it was in Homesteading Space that Owen Garriott said that he had an item (slide rule, I think?) used for on-orbit calculations that he wanted to keep when he retired -- he was even willing to pay for it, but he had to turn it in. Where is that historic artifact now? Probably discarded in a dumpster. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 07-01-2011 09:52 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Jim Behling:
It is up to the gov't to disposition it.
In most cases, the government did disposition it... to the astronauts. There are NASA memos held in the history archives documenting that items flown on Apollo but of no longer use to NASA could be retained by the crew members. This is why astronauts possess their cue cards, hygiene kits, and even pieces of spent spacecraft and spacesuits.The issue in this particular case is the item in question. It should be noted that when the camera was first listed for sale, even members of this website raised questions about its ownership. Other data acquisition cameras (DAC) brought back to Earth are now held in the national collection as cared for by the Smithsonian. For example, the Apollo 12 lunar module DAC is on display at the National Air and Space Museum (it's identified online as being on loan from Alan Bean, but Bean's own comments in the Palm Beach Post article would seem to contradict that). |
capoetc
Member Posts: 2169
From: McKinney TX (USA)
Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted 07-01-2011 09:53 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Jim Behling:
We have to stop putting these people on high pedestals. They were gov't workers using gov't hardware. They have no case...
I guess you are right. I was a USAF pilot, and I kept some items I used during my flying career (flight helmet, etc). One day when I am gone, those items will likely end up being sold to militaria collectors (albeit for less than what the Mitchell camera will sell for) for a profit.I guess I should take all those items paid for by the taxpayers back to my local AF base so they can throw them away... |
Jim Behling
Member Posts: 1463
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010
|
posted 07-01-2011 09:56 AM
quote:
Originally posted by capoetc:
I was a USAF pilot, and I kept some items I used during my flying career (flight helmet, etc).
A camera is not personal effects like a helmet. |
Rick Mulheirn
Member Posts: 4167
From: England
Registered: Feb 2001
|
posted 07-01-2011 10:20 AM
Were the crew required to return the DAC camera? I don't know enough about the kit in question but was the film recoverable during the mission? I may be way off base here but I always thought that items meant to be discarded during the mission were "fair game" for the crew to keep as souvenirs ie. PLSS straps, food packages etc. Did the DAC not fall in to this category? |
Spaceguy5
Member Posts: 427
From: Pampa, TX, US
Registered: May 2011
|
posted 07-01-2011 11:24 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Jim Behling:
A camera is not personal effects like a helmet.
Not to mention a helmet is worth substantially less than $60 to $80k. Personally I see no issue with him keeping it, although I think there should be rules preventing astronauts from selling such artifacts as it doesn't seem ethical that they should be able to make such a substantial profit off of something paid for with taxpayer money. |
Spacepsycho
Member Posts: 818
From: Huntington Beach, Calif.
Registered: Aug 2004
|
posted 07-01-2011 01:06 PM
Another example of the abuse of process so gov't employees can justify their jobs. This is obscene, especially considering this camera was considered expendable by NASA. Shame on the NASA OIG, gov't officals and the DA's who are wasting taxpayer money on this nonsense. |
DChudwin
Member Posts: 1096
From: Lincolnshire IL USA
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 07-01-2011 01:19 PM
Astronauts literally put their lives on the line for NASA. Most were military men and were paid far less than what they could have made in the civilian sector. Some with business saavy like Alan Shepard or Bill Anders became millionaires. Others did not. I, for one, have no problem with Ed Mitchell selling this camera or any other lunar artifact he obtained legitimately. I believe it will be shown that the camera was obtained with permission. How many astronauts have had "garage sales," selling off flown flight plans, cue cards, orbital charts, maps, straps, patches and philatelic covers? Is the government going to try to recover anything flown, including equipment? |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 07-01-2011 01:31 PM
quote:
Originally posted by DChudwin:
Is the government going to try to recover anything flown, including equipment?
I would caution about conflating this specific case of the camera with all other flown items in astronauts' possessions. At this point, there is no reason to suggest that the camera is not a specific, single concern — especially since it was the only piece pulled from an auction that included many other flown artifacts (and that's not to say anything of the countless other auctions that have been reviewed by the NASA Office of the Inspector General and have been allowed to proceed unchallenged). |
BarryLowe
Member Posts: 24
From: Castle Rock, Colorado, USA
Registered: Mar 2003
|
posted 07-01-2011 02:26 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Rick Mulheirn:
Were the crew required to return the DAC camera?
Friday night at Spacefest 3 I happened to be sitting next to Ed Mitchell at the bar. I can't recall how the camera story came up, but he specifically mentioned that the camera would have been destroyed, along with the rest of the lunar module, had he not removed it. Chris Kraft had given him permission to remove the camera and keep it as a memento. It seems to me that there were no existing plans to remove and save the camera. NASA was done with it. The person from NASA that had contacted Mitchell about the camera said that Kraft did not have the authority to grant that permission to keep the camera. |
hlbjr
Member Posts: 475
From: Delray Beach Florida USA
Registered: Mar 2006
|
posted 07-01-2011 03:24 PM
There are no winners in this situation. Where is the discernment on the part of the government? They need to look at this in context, i.e. a camera which was to have been destroyed anyway, kept by the user with permission at the time, and for which there is no longer any useful purpose other than historical value, but it only has value because of Ed Mitchell saving it! This only sullies Mitchell's reputation and casts and ugly light on everyone involved. This is a bad bet by the government in my view. By the way, check out the comments on the Palm Beach Post story. They are unanimous in favor of Ed. Good show. |
Spacefest
Member Posts: 1168
From: Tucson, AZ
Registered: Jan 2009
|
posted 07-01-2011 04:35 PM
They could go after Alan Bean paintings sold since 1995 which have moondust gathered on "government" spacesuit patches, which were presented to him by NASA.Maybe it's time for the astronauts to "admit" they never went to the moon! |
JFS61
Member Posts: 101
From: Bryan, Texas USA
Registered: Jun 2005
|
posted 07-01-2011 05:04 PM
quote:
Originally posted by capoetc:
I guess I should take all those items paid for by the taxpayers back to my local AF base so they can throw them away...
I remember the story of an 8th Air Force veteran turning his gear into the base quartermaster following the end of hostilities in the ETO, and while in the middle of the process, the clerk asked him if he happened to have his flight jacket with him. The vet said yes, at which time the clerk asked him to hand it over. To the airmen's shock (and chagrin), the clerk produced a knife, pierced the jacket at the neck, and then pulled it lengthwise down the back and out the bottom, cutting it in half, at which time he turned and tossed it in the trash.Needless to say, word spread quickly, and the base quartermaster soon discovered that the airmen in the squadron had suddenly (and somewhat mysteriously) all lost their flight jackets. |
Rusty B
Member Posts: 239
From: Sacramento, CA
Registered: Oct 2004
|
posted 07-01-2011 05:26 PM
With all his psychic studies, he should have seen this coming.  Seriously, don't they have enough Apollo era cameras in museums? Let him keep it. |
OV-105
Member Posts: 816
From: Ridgecrest, CA
Registered: Sep 2000
|
posted 07-01-2011 10:36 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Rusty B:
Let him keep it.
The problem is he was not keeping it but selling it. |
mode1charlie
Member Posts: 1169
From: Honolulu, HI
Registered: Sep 2010
|
posted 07-02-2011 03:55 AM
I strongly agree with the majority opinion here. These guys were not being overpaid by any standard, much less in relation to the fact that their assignment was about the highest risk occupation one can imagine. And in service to their country, no less. It is very easy to imagine that NASA simply lost (or never had - those were much more loosey goosey days) the paperwork indicating that they allowed the astronauts to keep some of these objects that would otherwise have been destroyed with the jettison of the LM. It's reasonable to presume that a man of his unquestioned integrity would not steal the thing, so in that case it is his to do with what he likes. Now that Mitchell is in his golden years, needs the cash, and wishes to pass the object along to someone who will value/curate it.... what exactly is the problem? |
capoetc
Member Posts: 2169
From: McKinney TX (USA)
Registered: Aug 2005
|
posted 07-02-2011 06:12 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Spaceguy5:
Not to mention a helmet is worth substantially less than $60 to $80k.
I think I said that in my post: "...albeit for less than what the Mitchell camera will sell for..." |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 4437
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 07-02-2011 06:44 AM
quote:
Originally posted by mode1charlie:
These guys were not being overpaid by any standard, much less in relation to the fact that their assignment was about the highest risk occupation one can imagine.
Same corollary applies to any member of the Armed Forces who place their lives in harms way on a daily basis - yet if that service-member attempts to take home equipment assessed as unserviceable or battlefield abandoned as "compensation" they would be subject to the wrath of UCMJ proceedings. The only difference (absent demonstrable proof NASA did authorize the release of the camera to Mitchell) is that so much time has elapsed without the government seeking forfeiture, statute of limitations may preclude prosecution. |
mmmoo
Member Posts: 551
From: London, England
Registered: May 2001
|
posted 07-02-2011 06:52 AM
Here is a good TV news interview with Edgar Mitchell from WPTV.You also get to see some of Mitchell's other flown items in his collection |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 07-02-2011 07:17 AM
I think, based on the media reports thus far, there may be a misconception that the government has charged Edgar Mitchell with committing a crime. The lawsuit, while filed against Mitchell, is not for the theft or conversion of government property (Title 18, USC Sec. 641). It is only seeking a declaratory judgement by the courts that the camera belongs to the United States in order to prevent its sale. From the government's complaint filed with the federal court: - The NASA camera is the property of the United States.
- Defendant is exercising control over the NASA camera and is attempting to sell it to a third-party via an auction undertaken by Bonhams, a privately owned British auction house.
- Defendant is thereby prohibiting the United States from exercising its rightful control over the NASA camera and to use and/or transfer the NASA camera as it sees fit.
- If Defendant proceeds with his intention of selling the NASA camera, the United States would be irreparably harmed.
- Accordingly, the United States requests that Defendant be adjoined from entering into any agreement transferring or limiting the rights of the United States to the NASA camera.
Wherefore, the United States respectfully requests that this Court grant the following relief: - Declare that the United States has good, clean, and exclusive title to the NASA camera identified herein;
- Declare that the Defendant has no legal rights or title in the NASA camera identified herein;
- Require Defendant to immediately produce to the United States or the Clerk of the Court the NASA camera identified herein; and
- Grant the United States all equitable, injunctive, and monetary relief that it may be entitled to under the law; including the awarding of fees and costs.
|
mode1charlie
Member Posts: 1169
From: Honolulu, HI
Registered: Sep 2010
|
posted 07-02-2011 07:31 AM
quote:
Originally posted by SpaceAholic:
The only difference (absent demonstrable proof NASA did authorize the release of the camera to Mitchell) is that so much time has elapsed without the government seeking forfeiture, statute of limitations may preclude prosecution.
So... unless Mitchell can prove NASA gave it to him, and unless the statute of limitations has passed, your position is that he should be prosecuted? If that is your position, it would be a curious fit with the manifesto on your website (which is excellent, by the way): Since the conclusion of the first U.S. space programs, much important history has been lost. Unfortunately, with the exception of what resides in national museums, the majority of 1960's era material residual from Projects Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo and robotics missions has been indiscriminately destroyed by NASA, the contractors who engineered and built the hardware and even by some of the museums the artifacts were originally consigned to. A few items were retained by the employees of these organizations but often once the individual passes-on, their family members will also discard the artifacts as they have either no interest or understanding of their historical significance. Museums in the current distressed economic environment are not able to do it all; they tend to target their limited staff and budgetary resources to preserve and display those items which are either major assemblies/complete flight vehicles or items whose function in a given program are easily recognizable by the general populace. In such circumstances, private curators of space history have a significant role to play. While augmenting formal institutions in their capacity as the principle curators, private space history collectors: - Serve as a supplemental repository and implement best conservatory practices to preserve U.S. Space Heritage
I think the principles you articulate are entirely reasonable - even necessary. And I think what you're doing (i.e. collecting, curating, and preserving space history) is great. But assuming, as I said in my original post, that he didn't steal anything but rather was gifted the object by NASA and the paperwork went wonky, how does what Mitchell did not only NOT contradict your stated principles, but rather - indeed - serve as an eminent example of them? |
DChudwin
Member Posts: 1096
From: Lincolnshire IL USA
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 07-02-2011 07:36 AM
I realize that (iv) above in the lawsuit may be legal boilerplate, but it sounds like the government is trying to require Mitchell to pay for the costs involved in his own persecution. This whole thing is disgusting. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 07-02-2011 07:46 AM
quote:
Originally posted by DChudwin:
...involved in his own persecution.
Mitchell isn't being persecuted, he's being prosecuted; the charges filed are not targeted at him, but at an object in his custody. |
Topic Closed
advertisement