Space News
space history and artifacts articles

Messages
space history discussion forums

Sightings
worldwide astronaut appearances

Resources
selected space history documents

Websites
related space history websites

  collectSPACE: Messages
  Hardware & Flown Items
  Cooper's Project Mercury Helmet (Page 1)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search


This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2 
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Cooper's Project Mercury Helmet
gikev
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 09-28-2006 11:25 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for gikev   Click Here to Email gikev     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Project Mercury mechanical visor helmet worn by Gordon Cooper on his MA-9 mission. I purchased this helmet from a reputable dealer in 1995. It was bought with the understanding that it was used by Cooper as a training helmet.

After several years of on and off research of this artifact I came to realize that it was actually his flown helmet. I have photographic evidence to prove this. In addition I have photographic evidence to prove that according to the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum's records the helmet they claim to be flown is his training helmet.

After all this time I still can't figure out why they would have been switched.

I will be posting photos to back up my claim here and would appreciate any thoughts and opinions on the legality of owning and future sale of this artifact.

Matt T
Member

Posts: 1356
From: Chester, Cheshire, UK
Registered: May 2001

posted 09-29-2006 06:22 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Matt T   Click Here to Email Matt T     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Does the Spacecraft Films 'Mercury' film include onboard footage of Cooper? It would be very interesting to compare against your helmet - actual footage from the flight would be even more compelling proof.

gikev
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 09-29-2006 08:28 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for gikev   Click Here to Email gikev     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I've seen one frame from the slow scan television transmission and, although it is faint and difficult to make out detail you can at least see the upper part of the helmet liner which is a characteristic of this helmet. But, not very conclusive. So again, the crystal clear flight day footage of Cooper suiting up was the last piece of the puzzle for me.

Do you know what ever happened to the in-flight footage that was confiscated?

space1
Member

Posts: 593
From: Danville, Ohio, USA
Registered: Dec 2002

posted 10-01-2006 05:02 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for space1   Click Here to Email space1     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Very nice artifact.

To address the legality of ownership, the Smithsonian does not automatically own every artifact. They have the right of first refusal. So if they don't want an artifact, it can be sold to the public.

If the Smithsonian's records show that they should have item XYZ, Serial Number 123, in their inventory, and they do indeed have that item, they're happy. At some time they must have been offered your helmet and decided it was not needed in their collection. It may have appeared on a list as item ABC, Serial Number 456, along with 100 other items. But still they decided it wasn't needed. So it would have been sold at a government or contractor sale. It would be nice to have the full trail of ownership for the artifact, but that's often not possible.

As far as the mix-up, I would bet it happened at NASA when the inventory and paperwork for disposition of some items was being prepared. Or more likely Cooper's helmet, used on the last Mercury flight, was retained at NASA for integration studies with the "new" Gemini spacecraft. After being downgraded to training status for those studies, its historic connection could easily have been lost.

I commend you for your research, which has allowed an obscure artifact to tell its story and be recognized for its true historic value.

------------------
John Fongheiser
President
Historic Space Systems, http://www.space1.com

gikev
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 10-01-2006 10:57 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for gikev   Click Here to Email gikev     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
John, thank you for your informative post. Your theory of the helmet possibly having been downgraded to training status seems to make sense in this instance.

space1
Member

Posts: 593
From: Danville, Ohio, USA
Registered: Dec 2002

posted 10-01-2006 08:37 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for space1   Click Here to Email space1     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The use of the helmet for some kind of Gemini integration testing is made more plausible by the early modifications needed to the Gemini hatch in the area above the astronaut's head. The initial design, created with the help of the short Gus Grissom, was found to have inadequate head clearance for many other astronauts. So the hatch was modified with a bump on the inside to give more head room.

If I were a designer making this modification, I'd want to test it with any available equipment to make sure the best solution was found. Using a "real" Mercury flight helmet, not a training unit, would round out the test results from the candidate Gemini helmet designs. A flown helmet would have to be downgraded to training status for this kind of testing.

So I believe that is the early history of this helmet, and the explanation for how it was mistaken for a training helmet.

gikev
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 10-02-2006 10:06 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for gikev   Click Here to Email gikev     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
John, thank you for sharing your insight on this.

After years of conjecture (which never led anywhere) and bouncing this off of "qualified experts" to no avail I think you've finally put this matter to rest.

Incidentally, the helmet was part of a group of items including outer suits and gloves- all of which were early Gemini prototypes!

LCDR Scott Schneeweis
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 02-26-2007 10:39 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for LCDR Scott Schneeweis   Click Here to Email LCDR Scott Schneeweis     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Anybody got some spare change so I can purchase eBay item 330093083739?

Peter S
Member

Posts: 96
From: Toronto, Ontario , Canada
Registered: Jan 2006

posted 02-27-2007 09:43 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Peter S   Click Here to Email Peter S     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Nice item... if I had the money, it would be a done deal. Now, another question: dollar wise, is that about right? My gut feeling is that considering the provenance, the scarcity, and the fact that it was flown, this may actually be a pretty good deal, no?

spacekid2
Member

Posts: 182
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Registered: Jul 2004

posted 02-27-2007 04:38 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for spacekid2   Click Here to Email spacekid2     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Hey, if 52 of cS members pay $2,885 and pool our money together we could purchase the helmet. Then each of us could have the helmet for one week each year. Now that will work for me? Who's game?

spacecowboy
Member

Posts: 75
From: Chicago IL
Registered: Sep 2000

posted 02-27-2007 05:03 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for spacecowboy     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Need less members, I will pay 5 weeks worth!

Peter S
Member

Posts: 96
From: Toronto, Ontario , Canada
Registered: Jan 2006

posted 02-27-2007 05:53 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Peter S   Click Here to Email Peter S     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I'm in for about half a day's worth!

Leon Ford
Member

Posts: 309
From: Shreveport, LA, United States
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 02-27-2007 11:04 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Leon Ford   Click Here to Email Leon Ford     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
For $150,000, I would sure want more documentation that the item flew. Photos are nice, but things can be altered to look like photos. I'm not saying that is what happened here. I'm just saying that things like that can happen. When you invest this much money for an item, you have to protect your investment. I just don't see the proof for $150K.

LCDR Scott Schneeweis
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 03-03-2007 10:42 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for LCDR Scott Schneeweis   Click Here to Email LCDR Scott Schneeweis     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Price change ----> only $300K now!

spacekid2
Member

Posts: 182
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Registered: Jul 2004

posted 03-04-2007 02:10 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for spacekid2   Click Here to Email spacekid2     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Okay, if 352 cS members put in $852.27 we could each get the helmet for a day each year.

Of course that doesn't include the over night FedEx cost. But who cares I own one day of a cool helmet.

David Mather
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 03-04-2007 12:06 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for David Mather   Click Here to Email David Mather     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by LCDR Scott Schneeweis:
Price change ----> only $300K now!
Ok. No bids at $150k. Here's an idea. Double it... they won't be expecting that!

Just out of interest, as a (probably) training/non-flown helmet (and let's face it- when you have the weight of the Smithsonian backing another helmet as flown, tough case to argue at $300K) what would it go for at Aurora? I estimate about $45k. The complete suit went for $107K some years back, admittedly with a lesser helmet. Any further bids?

cfreeze79
Member

Posts: 320
From: Martinez, CA, USA
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 03-04-2007 01:47 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for cfreeze79   Click Here to Email cfreeze79     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by David Mather:
Ok. No bids at $150k. Here's an idea. Double it... they won't be expecting that!

A lesson I once overheard regarding the marketing of perfume - "Triple your price. This gives customers the impression of great quality. Helps profits, too."

Adam S
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 03-04-2007 04:57 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Adam S   Click Here to Email Adam S     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I have no doubt that the helmet is worth $300,000, probably more, if it is actually the helmet worn by Cooper on his Mercury flight.

I also have no doubt that NASA could possibly have gotten the identities of the 2 helmets mixed up...

The problem is that if Gikev's claim is correct, then he does not have legitimate legal title to it, and anyone who buys it, especially in a sale as highly public as this one, stands a good chance of having their purchase confiscated by NASA or The Smithsonian at some time in the future, and then the purchaser's only recourse would be against Gikev in a civil suit... and good luck on that... The only winner in that exchange will be the unfortunate purchaser's attorney.

Lunar rock nut
Member

Posts: 734
From: Oklahoma city, Oklahoma U.S.A.
Registered: Feb 2007

posted 03-04-2007 05:43 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Lunar rock nut   Click Here to Email Lunar rock nut     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
It's not nice to fool around with National Treasure...

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 30714
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 03-04-2007 08:05 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Lunar rock nut:
It's not nice to fool around with National Treasure.......
...a national treasure that wouldn't be known as such without the research of the collector/seller.

Had this been sitting in a museum display (or worse, its archives), the helmet's true (or at least, potential) nature might have been completely missed to history and the wrong helmet might forever be labeled as the flown artifact (not that the helmet in the Smithsonian's possession is being re-labeled, to my knowledge, but through his posts here and on eBay, more people are now aware of the possibility).

I would hope whoever purchases the helmet would loan it for public display, or at the least, loan it to the Smithsonian for further research into which artifact is the flown helmet.

With regards to title, this helmet hasn't exactly been hidden from view, having been advertised in a 1993 Superior Galleries auction catalog more than a decade ago and before that, appearing in the New York Times. In addition, the current seller states that the helmet was brought to the attention of the Smithsonian, whose spacesuit curator acknowledged it as an authentic Mercury helmet used by Cooper. Were there any questions about it being government property, one might expect there would have been some action taken then, if not earlier when it was originally offered for sale in the early 90s.

This is a situation where a mistake in NASA's past handling of artifacts has been potentially corrected by a private collector, emphasizing the importance of the hobby as a compliment to museums and archives. Without such interest, this helmet may have very well been buried in some landfill or recycled for its metal content.

FFrench
Member

Posts: 3111
From: San Diego
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 03-04-2007 08:25 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for FFrench     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I'm no expert on Mercury spacesuit helmets, merely someone who has been following this thread with some curiosity. I may be missing something in the above, but I'm not sure I am understanding the evidence so far presented.

To my layman's eyes, the photographic evidence presented above does seem very persuasive that the helmet owned is the same helmet as the one worn in the black and white photo of Cooper (which I am not sure whether was taken on launch day in the flight-used suit - and it is not stated above).

The photographic evidence given that it was in fact the same helmet worn on the flight seems to be the color frame of flight day suit-up. That image shows mostly the other side of the helmet, so the rubber flashing, indentation and paint blob evidence is not visible. The top felt tip marking is, but not in sufficient detail for me to see if it is identical.

In short, I'd say there appears to be strong evidence that this is the helmet used in that black and white portrait (which may have been taken in training long before the day of flight, unless others know otherwise?) but no conclusive evidence presented in this thread that it is the exact same helmet as in the flight-day color still, not simply an identically-manufactured, same-model helmet.

It may be that I am missing something, or there is other evidence not being presented here. I'm not asking to try and prove or disprove, just out of curiosity - what am I not seeing here?

gikev
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 03-04-2007 09:35 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for gikev   Click Here to Email gikev     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
That's a very good point. I should have posted all of my research on eBay but there is a limit of 12 photographs. And I didn't think it was necessary to post more photos here to make my case. But for the sake of making a more comprehensive presentation I will post a composite of the three helmets used by Cooper for his Mercury training and flight.

From what I have learned, the Mercury astronauts were issued 3 helmets each for their flights. A training unit, a backup, and a flight helmet. In the case of Cooper improvements were made to the mercury helmet which were later implemented on his MA-9 flight. All mercury astronauts flying orbital and sub-orbital flights up until MA-9 wore helmets with a pressurized gas sealed visor.

Beginning with Cooper's flight and continuing through the entire Gemini program all crews wore mechanical visor sealed helmets (I'm not sure about the Borman/Lovell mission).

What that boils down to is, Cooper started out with a gas sealed training helmet and then finished out the mercury program using a mechanical visor back up and flight helmet.

In my composite I show all three helmets.

The early gas sealed helmet is easy enough to tell apart from the other two. But the two mechanical visor helmets differ enough from each other to differentiate them as well. My guess is that the back up is either in the NASM archives or in Huntsville.

As for the photo of Cooper, it was taken April 30, 1963, 15 days before his mission. Here is the description from the GRIN website:

Astronaut L. Gordon Cooper in white room, waiting for Terminal Countdown Demonstrations Test (TCDT) activities to resume in preparation for his Mercury-Atlas 9 launch.

FFrench
Member

Posts: 3111
From: San Diego
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 03-04-2007 10:47 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for FFrench     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Thanks for that information, which is most interesting. This website, with some training, launch day and in-orbit photos including helmet and dates the photos were taken, might assist also with the research. With the NASA ID numbers, you could probably find higher-res versions elsewhere.

FFrench
Member

Posts: 3111
From: San Diego
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 03-04-2007 11:12 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for FFrench     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Looking at NASA photo S63-06252:

Presumably incorrectly labeled as: Date Taken: 05/17/63 and examining a 10x8 NASA photo I have of this image -

- based solely on your description and images of the helmets used by Cooper (of which I have no independent knowledge), the helmet in the photo does look to most closely resemble the helmet you identify as the flown article.

gikev
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 03-04-2007 11:59 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for gikev   Click Here to Email gikev     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Believe me, if I got something wrong I'll hear about it on THIS website!

Please check my ebay revision for more observations.

The date on that photo you found is in error as his flight was on May 15. This after the original flight date of April 14 launch day was scrubbed.

My original search for photos of Cooper in the helmet were in 1995, pre-internet so I had to send off for photos from the Johnson Space Center. I asked the researcher, last name Gentry (super nice guy), to send me any shots of Cooper in a training helmet. I was frustrated because all of the photos he sent me(and there were lots) showed him wearing the earlier mechanical visor helmet, only one training shot sent to me showed him in his original gas sealed helmet. Because the helmet I purchsed was pretty close to the one in the photos I was convinced that I at least had some kind of real mercury helmet used by Cooper at some time.

I stopped looking for a while after that.

Only much later when the internet took off it occurred to me to look again always putting the word "training" in my search.

I think NASA was only putting up bits of things at the time and I saw some low res stuff that had possibilities.

On a search a few years ago I came across the April 30 photo. That's when the whole thing occurred to me.

I'm not saying that there couldn't be something out there that could knock down my argument, but if there is I haven't seen it.

I hope this helped.

gikev
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 03-05-2007 01:38 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for gikev   Click Here to Email gikev     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
One more final note!

The April 30 photo is the only photo I've seen that shows the small NASA logo on the visor mechanism.

With 15 days before the flight, this says to me, that this is a photo of Cooper in a brand new helmet. I wouldn't be surprised if the logo was removed that day, as someone must have noted, it looks silly. I can't see how it was attached so it must have been glued on.

Lunar rock nut
Member

Posts: 734
From: Oklahoma city, Oklahoma U.S.A.
Registered: Feb 2007

posted 03-05-2007 05:59 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Lunar rock nut   Click Here to Email Lunar rock nut     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
If is truly is the flown helmet and if the current possessor has the "right stuff", would it not be the right thing to do to correct the mistake? Perhaps trading with the museum and seeking compensation and recognition for time, research and effort. A small plaque of recognition at the museum's exhibit, carving his own niche in history will last presumably forever. Rewards of satisfaction and admiration from others that would last a lot longer than a windfall from an eBay sale. Plus when the dust settles, he would still have a helmet with some very interesting provenance attached to it. To do with whatever he wishes to do...

Adam S
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 03-05-2007 09:30 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Adam S   Click Here to Email Adam S     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Were there any questions about it being government property, one might expect there would have been some action taken then, if not earlier when it was originally offered for sale in the early 90s.
While that statement seems logical, you must remember you are dealing with the government, and logic is not always their primary motivation. Several factors could be responsible for the failure of the Smithsonian to take action.
  1. If Gikov's claim is valid, they might find the situation to be embarrassing. Besides, if a mistake was made, it was made not by the current staff but by their predecessors, so why rock the boat?

  2. The staff at the museum are overworked and underpaid. Besides, they have more items than they have need for in their displays, and an insufficient budget to maintain what they already have.

  3. The Smithsonian takes its cues from NASA. Has this been brought to the attention of Louis Parker, their director of artifacts?

  4. The fact that someone "claims" to have an important "flown" helmet, might not compel them to act, whereas a high dollar sale of same just might.

  5. One should look to the many examples of vintage warplanes that have been lost and then discovered and restored at great expense by private individuals only to have the Air Force (or other appropriate agency) show up and say, "Thanks for finding our plane, it will look lovely in our museum"

  6. The dispute over ownership and disposition of Gus Grissom's suit is perhaps the best example of what might happen should the sale of this helmet draw additional public interest to its background.
quote:
Originally posted by space1:
To address the legality of ownership, the Smithsonian does not automatically own every artifact. They have the right of first refusal. So if they don't want an artifact, it can be sold to the public.
This is correct, however NASA has never sold any of its hardware to the public. The bureaucratic intricacies of such a sale are staggering, and they never would have gone through such an exercise, especially for an (un-flown) item which they probably did not consider to be all that valuable at that time. They have been known to give some of it to other government agencies (the military for example) but I'm quite certain that none has ever been sold.

While none of these factors pose any real threat to Gikov right now, anyone laying out $300,000 or more to purchase it would most certainly have to take them seriously.

Caveat emptor!

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 30714
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 03-05-2007 10:16 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Adam S:
This is correct, however NASA has never sold any of its hardware to the public.
This statement is incorrect.

NASA has routinely sold its spent hardware, flown or otherwise, to the public through government surplus sales and auctions. Granted, these sales are primarily intended for scrap material dealers, but this is how such artifacts as Columbia's SILTS pod instrumentation, STS-35's BBXRT telescope assembly and more than one Gemini Astronaut Maneuvering Unit (the predecessor to the MMU) became part of private collections.

These sales were also how the late Charlie Bell amassed his collection, which later led to hundreds of Apollo and earlier era artifacts being auctioned after his passing.

Contractors have acted similarly with spare hardware after its return or deaccession by NASA, including spacesuit parts (e.g. ILC).

MarylandSpace
Member

Posts: 1066
From:
Registered: Aug 2002

posted 03-05-2007 11:34 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for MarylandSpace   Click Here to Email MarylandSpace     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Gordo's helmet, Gordo's suit.

While attending the AHOF induction and ceremonies during the past several years, I took opportunity (as a teacher) to visit the Educator's Resource Center at KSC.

Gordo's spacesuit was hanging for up close examination. To touch carefully and feel the real deal. To touch history. To dream.

Last May, I made my usual visit to the teacher's resource room, and Gordo's suit was gone! I asked the director and she said that someone from NASA had made a visit, realized what it was, and reclaimed it.

It was getting very fragile and probably needed conservation, too.

But I did have my up close and personal time with Gordo's suit...

And now you know, part of, the rest of the story.

Adam S
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 03-05-2007 12:12 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Adam S   Click Here to Email Adam S     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Mr. Pearlman's statement above is correct.

What I meant to say was that NASA would never have gone to the trouble of selling off a single item such as a helmet, especially one directly connected to one of the "Original 7" astronauts or to any of the later more historically significant missions.

It is my personal belief that our first effort to leave our planet and visit other worlds is, historically speaking, mankind's single most important achievement in the last thousand years. To try to put a monetary value on any of the significant artifacts associated with this effort is difficult to say the least.

If a single painting by Picasso or Van Gogh can sell for 50 million dollars, that makes Neil Armstrong's Apollo moon landing suit worth at least a billion dollars IMHO!

tegwilym
Member

Posts: 2303
From: Crest Airpark (S36) Kent, WA
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 03-05-2007 12:29 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for tegwilym   Click Here to Email tegwilym     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Hmmm...we could all pitch in some money, and put it in one of traveling grab bags! So while someone is taking and putting into the box, they can enjoy the helmet for a few days, put it back in the box and pass it to the next lucky person!

Of course that's risky.....

Grungy
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 03-05-2007 01:57 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Grungy   Click Here to Email Grungy     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
How about asking someone who was there what he can remember about this (or these) helmets?

Joe Schmitt is still around - and he very likely handled those helmets a lot, and probably suited up Gordo for his flight.

I last saw Joe on 25 August last year, at a retirement party for my former boss (we were all suit techs).

And Robert - if you haven't already interviewed Joe he has a wealth of experience in the field.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 30714
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 03-05-2007 02:17 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Adam S:
What I meant to say was that NASA would never have gone to the trouble of selling off a single item such as a helmet, especially one directly connected to one of the "Original 7" astronauts or to any of the later more historically significant missions.
Except this isn't exactly true, either...

Once the Smithsonian passes on an artifact and before it is surplussed by NASA, the space agency may offer it for sale to its own museum network. The prices assigned rarely if ever reflect the value of the item historically (nor what it cost NASA to procure or produce), and after a set number of years (I believe its currently 14) the museum may do with the item as it pleases (e.g. sell it to fund improvements to their other collections).

For a recent example, NASA JSC offered museums flown ACES suits (i.e. the orange "pumpkin" launch and reentry suits worn by shuttle astronauts) for less than $100 each (and before any eager collectors start calling NASA, it is my understanding that to participate you must be an accredited and recognized museum where the item will be placed on public display for the years specified).

Thus there exists a process by which NASA sells individual artifacts that are historically significant, albeit to museums, but even that stipulation leaves open a means for the item to eventually enter the market.

Not that I am suggesting this is how the helmet in question became available, as I am not even sure if gikev knows how it was originally deaccessed. Perhaps the helmet, having outlived its training value, was scrapped or perhaps it was gifted as a VIP presentation (which is also not unheard of within NASA). The point is, there are valid ways in which a training helmet (or one believed to be such) could legally enter the collector's market.

gikev
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 03-05-2007 03:22 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for gikev   Click Here to Email gikev     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
All pertinent photos I have seen show Al Rochford tending to Gordo's suit-up duties.

Matt T
Member

Posts: 1356
From: Chester, Cheshire, UK
Registered: May 2001

posted 03-05-2007 05:32 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Matt T   Click Here to Email Matt T     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Another consideration is that I don't believe NASA's agreement with the Smithsonian came into effect until the mid to late 60s. This item may have been disposed of (by whatever mechanism) prior to the Smithsonian's automatic claim coming into effect.

Grungy
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 03-05-2007 05:55 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Grungy   Click Here to Email Grungy     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Al Rochford was at the same party. He's also retired, but I believe he can be contacted.

divemaster
Member

Posts: 1365
From: ridgefield, ct
Registered: May 2002

posted 03-06-2007 12:00 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for divemaster   Click Here to Email divemaster     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Since I can't resist throwing in my two cents on the subject...

Remember, the bottom line on value is based on what someone will pay for a particular object on a particular day.

Let's not forget a certain set of lunar surface flown patches and also lunar surface flown covers that were sold at auction in 1999 - and what they haven't sold for since.

gikev
New Member

Posts:
From:
Registered:

posted 03-06-2007 11:47 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for gikev   Click Here to Email gikev     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Ok, I think I got something. You be the judge.

I combed through the flight day footage frame by frame to find the sharpest image and then photographed the helmet trying my best to match the angle and lighting of the selected image. I must mention here that the position of the black microphone (two bottom arrows), partially seen at the bottom of the frame, is adjustable. It can slide back and forth. It obviously has been moved since flight day, or on flight day, but I didn't feel comfortable trying to slide it back up.

I have highlighted two areas of particular interest within the rectangles for comparison. The red arrow is pointing to the location of a cut mark in the rubber which I can see matches a similar shape seen in the flight day frame. I see other shapes that line up too.

What do you think?

Lunar rock nut
Member

Posts: 734
From: Oklahoma city, Oklahoma U.S.A.
Registered: Feb 2007

posted 03-06-2007 12:32 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Lunar rock nut   Click Here to Email Lunar rock nut     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I salute you on your research. I am convinced it is the real deal, but I am not important. You have one of the highest (counter) number of hits, I have seen in my seven years on eBay. You will probably have more people watching your auctions end than the academy awards did. I am curious as to how many watchers do you have to date from the 3k+?


This topic is 2 pages long:   1  2 

All times are CT (US)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | The Source for Space History & Artifacts

Copyright 1999-2014 collectSPACE.com All rights reserved.


Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47a





advertisement