posted 01-06-2012 08:19 AM               

Perhaps NASA shares the concern that many of us have expressed about the "confettization" of checklists and other flown items of historical significance by collectors and dealers.

I think that they are also trying to make a public stance now. Consider all the astronauts who are in their 80's at present, who haven't sold any items at auction (e.g., Neil Armstrong) or donated papers or items to universities or museums. NASA is perhaps trying to establish a precedent now to preserve what's left of the artifacts in the astronauts' hands.

posted 01-06-2012 08:38 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by jimsz:
That you are aware of.

---

posted 01-06-2012 09:59 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Do we know of another example of an astronaut keeping his training gloves, such that he could give one away?

---

posted 01-06-2012 10:17 AM               

The glove is different. Here we have an unknown, third party consignor claiming the glove was a gift from an astronaut. But was that astronaut ever in the position to make such a gift?

posted 01-06-2012 11:38 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
After the loss of Challenger (if not earlier), NASA enforced a policy that astronauts could not retain their checklists.

---

The question is, did that policy extend back to the Apollo era, even if it was unenforced? And was that policy ever clearly communicated to the astronauts?

I could understand NASA's concern if they were addressing an isolated case of an astronaut keeping a checklist that was clearly expected to be returned to the agency after the flight. But it appears many, perhaps most, Apollo astronauts kept their checklists...with little to no concern paid by NASA as to who truly owned the checklists. Surely at some point before now NASA would have asserted ownership over those checklists if they truly felt the astronauts had taken them without permission. Indeed, even the Apollo 15 scandal (where astronauts profited by selling items carried aboard their mission) did not appear to prompt NASA to assert tighter control over other flown items, such as checklists.

posted 01-06-2012 11:45 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by ilbasso:
Perhaps their intent and message is something along the lines of "you astronauts were temporary custodians of the items from your missions. When you don't want them any more, the Government has first right of refusal."

---

It was not foreseen there would be a day that they would be selling items for prices that would equal a car or a house in a type of "bubble" or split and dispersed. I might add these prices were created by a confluence of factors. The supply/demand law within the collecting community,and the collectors/investors (not even space collectors per se) desire for tangible items with inflation and even the "end of an era" in space with the retirement of the shuttle all played parts.

These high dollar amounts in turn promoted a higher profile negative publicity that got the attention of the OIG. For every congratulations within the collecting community there were just as many or more remarks made in surprise and shock on the sidelines for "That should be in a museum!" and "They let him keep that?!".

posted 01-06-2012 11:47 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by mjanovec:
Indeed, even the Apollo 15 scandal (where astronauts profited by selling items carried aboard their mission) did not appear to prompt NASA to assert tighter control over other flown items, such as checklists.

---

posted 01-06-2012 11:55 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
I think the General Counsel's actions in this regard are without any consideration for the precedent already set, and worse, demonstrate a serious lack of knowledge about the history of the agency it serves.

---

Ineed, I think one of my rules of life applies here: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.

I think there might be some misplaced anger on this issue, and frustration over the (perceived) state of the human space program is bubbling over. As Robert has explained nothing has been done but request information. I know that logically begs the question of why the information was requested and what will be done with it, but until there are further developments all we can provide is conjecture at this point even those with personal experience in this area.

posted 01-06-2012 11:55 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by ilbasso:
Perhaps NASA shares the concern that many of us have expressed about the "confettization" of checklists and other flown items of historical significance by collectors and dealers.

---

posted 01-06-2012 12:32 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
It sure did. It was the fallout from the Apollo 15 congressional investigation that led to NASA not only establishing its first written rules governing what the astronauts could and could not keep, but led to a wholesale revision in 1978, which in turn led to the post-1986 policy prohibiting astronauts from keeping their flight documents.

---

I'm not saying the Apollo 15 scandal didn't have any effect on what the astronauts could keep. My argument is that if NASA believed the checklists were already their property in the early 1970s, they should have clarified that immediately after the Apollo 15 scandal...so the astronauts flying on the remaining Apollo missions didn't keep their checklists. Instead, it appears they didn't decide (and communicate) that checklists were their property until 1986, long after the Apollo program was over.

So why are they now asking Lovell and/or Heritage to prove ownership of a checklist that pre-dates their own policies by 16 years? And if the policies were meant to be retroactive, why didn't they send out a letter to all Apollo (and Shuttle) astronauts in 1986 requiring the return of any flight documents they may have in their possession?

posted 01-06-2012 01:10 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by mjanovec:
So why are they now asking Lovell and/or Heritage to prove ownership of a checklist that pre-dates their own policies by 16 years?

---

posted 01-06-2012 01:12 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
I was just interviewed about this for CBS News Radio.

---

posted 01-06-2012 01:30 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by kyra:
These high dollar amounts in turn promoted a higher profile negative publicity that got the attention of the OIG.

---

Big dollar values ensure that they will be cared for, just as much as paintings by Vincent Van Gogh. They were considered worthless at the time that he painted them, no one bought them, and they were passed down by those that appreciated his work only to be auctioned off by the owners starting in the '70's when the prices for his work rose. Now many of the rich owners have granted them to museums where all can see them.

And that will happen to these Apollo artifacts, too. Eventually those that have the money to buy them, care for them, will eventually place them into museums for all to see.

I think, from the PR sense, what NASA is doing is counter-productive, and what they are doing now tarnishes their image in the public's mind.

posted 01-06-2012 01:57 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by xlsteve:
I agree that this has not been handled very well thus far, and it is turning into a bit of a publicity issue for the agency, but I will reserve judgement until I see what is ultimately done, not what I think might be done.

---

posted 01-06-2012 02:17 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Schoner:
Eventually those that have the money to buy them, care for them, will eventually place them into museums for all to see.

---

My issue is I am reluctant to trust this natural evolution as in the with the Van Gogh's works to happen and in a reasonably timely manner. I am unsure who has the better principles (the OIG or the private collector/investor). It's a very grey area at best as I see it.

If you would all pitch in comments let's all try to understand what each side truly is thinking. What does the $300,000 checklist buyer think about his purchase? Does he/she really love space and care about its preservation or is it like an ancient Ming vase would have sufficed if he could get it for a deal?

Likewise, what did the GC initiator really think? Does she share the same goals as us and is misguided as to how to accomplish it? Or is she doing it to climb a ladder politically or merely struggling to hold his place and taking orders from higher authority?

posted 01-06-2012 02:39 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by chet:
No need to reserve judgement in this case (unless, of course, you want to) because the outrageousness of what NASA is doing here is pretty clear cut.

---

We can (and have and should) point out where the GC stumbled in its job, but that doesn't require we vilify them in the process.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kyra:
If you would all pitch in comments let's all try to understand what each side truly is thinking.

---

posted 01-06-2012 03:21 PM               

We are seeking a meeting with NASA administration to clear up this misunderstanding.

posted 01-06-2012 04:03 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by james f. ruddy:
Mr. Pearlman is doing a fine job in informing us about NASA's actions. Let him do his work without criticizing NASA.

---

posted 01-06-2012 05:00 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Greggy_D:
I believe the wording will offer us all a great deal of insight into the intentions of NASA.

---

And I would point out that this was written from a deputy general counsel in a field office to the auction house's counsel; it was not addressed to the astronauts nor makes any mention of them.

Dear Heritage Auctions Counsel,

I have been informed by the NASA Office of Inspector General (IG), that you have several space related items you intend to offer it for auction. Specifically, I have noted listed on your web site:

• Alan Shepard Training Used Apollo A7L Left IVA Glove
  
• Apollo 9 Lunar Module Flown LM-3 Spacecraft Identification Plate
  
• Apollo 13 Flown LM Systems Activation Checklist Book
  
• Apollo 9 Flown Command Module Rotational Hand Controller

Please be advised that the only NASA has the authority to clear NASA property for sale. NASA retains title to its property until it is properly dispositioned, so that it is no longer owned by NASA.

In this case there is nothing to indicate that ownership of or title to the above items was transferred from NASA to any individual or entity. Therefore, if you have evidence of clear title to the above items, request you so inform me and provide it as soon as possible.

Please be advised that this matter is being turned over to the NASA Office of Inspector General and that there is potential risk of the items being seized by the government until title issues have been resolved.

posted 01-06-2012 05:17 PM               

Unfortunately I don't have a similar image of the Apollo 9 crew, but here's a shot from the Retro Space Images' Apollo 13 set showing the Apollo 13 crew at Grumman's Bethpage plant after the flight:

Apart from the LM spacecraft id plate in the guy's hand Fred Haise seems to be holding another presentation of some piece of hardware. Anyone recognize that?

Incidentally, in my humble opinion this shows an official presentation ceremony, which I can't help thinking NASA were well aware of, rather than those dastardly astronauts grabbing some loot before sneaking it away to their stash.

posted 01-06-2012 05:41 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
it's possible that they assumed that the current policy was always the policy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
I would caution against trying to read too much into the wording or tone of the letter and concentrate more on what NASA has gone on the record to say since the letter was sent.

---

posted 01-06-2012 05:43 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leon Ford:
Did they think the astronauts were holding on to the property for NASA?

---

I say "discussed" because the only references I have to the loans are in letters that precede any final decision.

posted 01-06-2012 05:55 PM               

The Apollo 11 Command Module Operations Checklist and Launch Operations Checklist are identified as having been donated to the National Air and Space Museum by Michael Collins.

Whereas the Alternate and Contingency Checklist from the same mission was transferred by NASA.

posted 01-06-2012 06:00 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leon Ford:
Are there copies of these loan agreements somewhere?

---

posted 01-06-2012 06:05 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
...what NASA has gone on the record to say since the letter was sent.

---

posted 01-06-2012 06:24 PM               

I have been informed by the NASA Office of Inspector General (IG), that you have several space related items you intend to offer it for auction.

posted 01-06-2012 07:13 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by chet:
What exactly has NASA said, on the record, since this letter was sent that collectors might find at all encouraging going forward?

---

NASA also said that it is looking to be proactive moving forward, finding a way to work with the Apollo astronauts to avoid future situations like this.

posted 01-06-2012 07:23 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by spaced out:
Unfortunately I don't have a similar image of the Apollo 9 crew, but here's a shot from the Retro Space Images' Apollo 13 set showing the Apollo 13 crew at Grumman's Bethpage plant after the flight.

---

posted 01-06-2012 07:27 PM               

That being said, this warning from a NASA representative seems part and parcel of their scattershot application of haphazard policies, and seems deliberately vague, especially with regard to NASA having done its own due diligence before sending out such an ominous sounding communique. The only thing not vague about it was its self-serving tone.

posted 01-06-2012 08:29 PM               

This reflects extremely poorly on NASA as there is a developing perception that the agency is persecuting its Apollo heroes. Unfortunately, this is symptomatic of large organisations that lack "institutional memory" and/or adequate procedural and documentation controls. As the gentleman said, perhaps not malice but ineptitude.

In both the case of the A13 Checklist and A14 Camera, it was ultimately astronaut actions that prevented the complete destruction of these precious artifacts. It seems highly ironic that NASA was ashamed of the A13 mission failure in the post-flight period but only now seeks to value and retrieve a checklist now that the auction process has established its importance and monetary value. That's deeply hypocritical and utterly reprehensible.

The primary motivation behind these and other inquiries may be noble i.e. the reacquisition and preservation of history, but the manner of execution of NASA's actions is quite simply appalling, the treatment of Ed Mitchell being particularly deplorable. It would appear that all of this is really being driven by NASA's shame over its lax procedural controls and loss of lunar samples and this is being selectively retroactively applied to other high value/profile artifacts.

posted 01-06-2012 11:40 PM            

Well done NASA.