posted 01-09-2012 06:20 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by mjanovec:
They will not forfeit their right to pursue artifacts they believe were wrongfully taken from the agency.

---

posted 01-09-2012 06:53 PM               

Many of the Kapton tape souvenirs for example, were indeed taken from NASA without permission, in so much that Jim McDivitt, as Apollo Spacecraft Program Manager, warned in an October 1969 memo.

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

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

I am sending you a piece of the heat shield from Apollo 8, man's first flight to lunar orbit. This core sample was originally taken out of the heat shield in order to perform an engineering analysis of the ablative characteristics of the material under conditions of lunar reentry. We have now completed the analysis, and I thought that you would like to have the sample as a memento of this historic flight.

Disposition will be made either by transfer of title or by indefinite loan, depending on the legal authority available and as mutually agreed by the parties concerned. When NASA historical artifacts are made available on an indefinite loan basis, the recipient must make appropriate commitments to NASA regarding maintenance of the property.

posted 01-09-2012 07:25 PM               

That solidarity must also extend to Ed Mitchell.

Now that the Apollo 14 LM Camera is destined for display at the National Air and Space Museum in Washington and he has been forced to relinquish title (claim), I think it unlikely it will be returned to him. It will be on display in a distinguished public location and that's not a bad thing.

His fellow Apollo astronauts could, and should, insist however that NASA pay his legal fees incurred in the recent case and give him the upper Bonhams auction estimate of $80,000 as a gesture of goodwill. It would be a small price to pay in this specific case. By instigating legal action, NASA's actions have indirectly cast doubt on Ed's reputation, integrity, and honor and there needs to be an apology and atonement for that.

posted 01-09-2012 08:23 PM               

First, the Court finds that under 28 U.S.C. § 2415(c), which provides that "[n]othing herein shall be deemed to limit the time for bringing an action to establish title to, or right of possession of, real or personal property," Plaintiff's claim for declaratory relief is not untimely.

Second, the Court finds that under 28 U.S.C. 2416(c), the limitations periods exclude periods during which "facts material to the right of action are not known and reasonably could not be known by an official of the United States charged with the responsibility to act in the circumstance." Accordingly, the Court cannot determine that Plaintiff's conversion and replevin claims are barred unless it also determines that Plaintiff had constructive knowledge of the facts material to the right of action prior to its discovery of the auction...

posted 01-09-2012 09:24 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by fredtrav:
...harder to argue that the government did not or could not have known Lovell had this

---

posted 01-09-2012 09:32 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by YankeeClipper:
By instigating legal action, NASA's actions have indirectly cast doubt on Ed's reputation, integrity, and honor and there needs to be an apology and atonement for that.

---

posted 01-09-2012 09:51 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by jimsz:
They are being looked at as doing something wrong.

---

Earlier in this thread, several posts share how the public seems to side with the astronauts. For example, describing a call-in show:

The host and all of the callers were decidedly on Lovell's side.

The General Counsel's letter didn't name the astronauts involved and in the case against Mitchell, he was not charged with breaking any law.

You yourself wrote:

Could NASA possibly find more ways to make themselves look bad?

posted 01-09-2012 11:27 PM               

From Apollo 9 thru Apollo 17, only 9 of these craft ever flew in space. Some of the most historically significant craft not just in the history of NASA, but of humanity. The pinnacle of human technical engineering at the time, the result of millenia of technological innovation and evolution. The first human vehicles to land on another heavenly body.

I don't understand why NASA would not take greater care to preserve and curate the little it could from these craft. They were all destined for ultimate destruction, so why wouldn't NASA formally insist on small low-weight equipment like COAS and 16mm DAC being deliberately salvaged for posterity?

Why would you let Pete Conrad grab the Intrepid's COAS, Jim Lovell the Aquarius's COAS, Ed Mitchell the Antares's 16mm DAC, and John Young the Orion's COAS on the spur-of-the-moment before jettison and forget all about these precious artifacts for decades?

This approach just doesn't seem consistent with deliberately planned salvage or indefinite loans on the part of NASA. Rather, it would seem NASA considered such hardware to be fully expendable at the time and that if an astronaut did grab something it was, as Jim Lovell wrote in his book, merely "a souvenir".

posted 01-10-2012 01:20 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by jimsz:
They are being looked at as doing something wrong.

---

Some say perception is reality. In the FOX News interview Gene Cernan said that:

I think more than that, Megyn, the thing that bothers me and several of us is the impingement on our personal integrity. For almost half a century now we have had the trust of the American people and now ... the trust is being violated or we're being accused of violating that trust and I resent that quite personally. I personally resent that because we gave everything we had at the time to what we were doing.

Some of the comments in response to UK media articles are suggestive of some element of wrong-doing e.g. on the Daily Telegraph website one reader posted:

It's a double-edged sword. NASA filing suit over paperwork that would've wound up in a dumpster or incinerator is asinine. But if they do nothing, they're encouraging mass-theft.

The best comment was from one reader who reminded everyone how NASA degaussed the original Apollo 11 Lunar Landing tapes.

posted 01-10-2012 03:54 AM               

NASA is a federal bureaucracy, and the bureaucrats who've been making these asinine decisions to harass Apollo astronauts will, I fear, not go down quietly. And while Bolden and the "gang of four" may have indeed had a very good meeting, the same 5 people will likely not be involved in the actual grind of negotiations to forge that "happy solution" everyone here is hoping for.

My biggest fear is some kind of compromise (i.e., call for sacrifice) will be trotted out by govt. negotiators as a way forward, but in this case compromise is capitulation; either these articles belong rightfully and WHOLLY to these astronauts (and by extension, us), or they do not. I fervently hope the astros don't end up agreeing under pressure to some idiotic deal just so NASA gets to save some face; if anything NASA deserves to have its collective nose rubbed in the muck hard and dirty for the embarrassments it's caused here.

posted 01-10-2012 06:20 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by AJ:
I think maybe what jimsz is saying is that the wording of the letter from NASA implies that Lovell and Schweickart did something wrong

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:But did that letter damage their "integrity and reputation" such that they would have ground to sue?

---

posted 01-10-2012 06:39 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by YankeeClipper:
Was there any documented formal instruction to crews to salvage such small hardware and, if not, why ever not? That's a question I would like to put to NASA.

---

It's easy for us to ask why they didn't have certain procedures in place years ago, but the world was a different place 4 decades ago, and everything was done differently and to different standards.

posted 01-10-2012 07:58 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by jimsz:
You don't need grounds to sue. You simply need a lawyer...

---

The FTCA provides a limited waiver of the Federal Government's sovereign immunity when its employees are negligent within the scope of their employment. Under the FTCA, the government can only be sued 'under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.' 28 U.S.C. S 1346(b). Thus, the FTCA does not apply to conduct that is uniquely governmental, that is, incapable of performance by a private individual.

posted 01-10-2012 08:42 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by garymilgrom:
I think the answer is simple - 40 years of hindsight. NASA wasn't focused on collecting... And they were not aware they were immersed in historical icons and documentation; they were too busy using these items and making history!

---

I struggle to accept that on the most historically significant adventure of mankind, when NASA clearly understood the need to curate lunar rock, the importance of photography, and the importance of preserving the command modules that they would miss the salvageable lunar module hardware as an oversight. Clearly the prime flight crews didn't!

As far as documented instruction goes, it didn't even have to be a written memo. CAPCOM could simply have relayed a request on the recorded and transcribed voice-loops - something to the effect of:

We have one more item for you, we'd like you to retrieve and stow the COAS and DAC.

posted 01-10-2012 11:16 AM               

But these recent actions by NASA's OIG are certainly NOT NASA's finest hour, as public opinion clearly indicates.

posted 01-10-2012 04:22 PM               

I'm speaking to ______ at the end of the month. They wanted me to sign a NASA helmet for them. They want to buy mine. I only have two. What do you think I should sell it to them for? It isn't for charity.

You should get clear, written title to it in light of what's going on now. And make sure the person giving the title will be recognized as a responsible authority after 2060.

posted 01-11-2012 10:30 AM               

One reader posted:

If they let Mitchell get away with this, it sets a dangerous precedent of allowing future astronauts to make off with decommissioned hardware with the intent of selling it later for personal gain.

Another was more blunt:

Frankly, that makes him a thief and, considering the value at which he is selling it, a felon. A felon.

It's not his camera. It never was his camera. NASA has apparently asked for it back several times and the astronaut is defending himself by citing the statute of limitations for THEFT in order to justify keeping it -- I mean, selling it for a profit.

Where I come from, terms like "lifted", "make off", "thief", and "felon" are perjorative and pretty damming.

As Gene Cernan said in the FOX News interview, they didn't have time for all the paperwork - they were going to the Moon. Jack Swigert proved that with his tax form prior to Apollo 13.

posted 01-11-2012 10:43 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by YankeeClipper:
As Gene Cernan said in the FOX News interview, they didn't have time for all the paperwork - they were going to the Moon.

---

Rather, it seems Deke Slayton is partially at fault, though certainly not because he set out to cause problems. His decision to keep the astronauts' mementos private, while perhaps justified at the time, meant that paperwork that would have normally been archived back then is unavailable today.

posted 01-11-2012 10:58 AM               

Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the Administrator of General Services may make or authorize a disposal or a contract for disposal of surplus property only after public advertising for bids, under regulations the Administrator prescribes.

posted 01-11-2012 11:36 AM               

It would appear NASA did not, but then is a possible solution to the issue now one of retroactively extending the existing policy to its earlier programs?

Note, the current policy does include the following:

Mementos provided by NASA to its employees, its contractors, or other individuals will be restricted so that no further subdivision and sale of the material is practical. The recipient cannot utilize such gifts for profit-making purposes.

posted 01-11-2012 01:16 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by chet:
empowered by Congress

---

posted 01-11-2012 01:21 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
However, I believe this has been interpreted to apply only so long as the recipient is in the hire of NASA and/or the federal government.

---

posted 01-11-2012 01:50 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
To what congressional act are you specifically referring?

---

Slayton's practices (of the handling of what went into astronauts' PPKs) and what mementos they were allowed to keep weren't challenged at the time, or for decades after, until some bureaucrats decided to start making waves.

posted 01-11-2012 03:33 PM               

I really don't believe that at any point did any of the astronauts think that NASA, the very organization they worked for and represented and risked their lives for would ever turn around and go so far as to sue them or imply to the American public that they did anything that wasn't above board.

posted 01-11-2012 05:37 PM               

As for SRB's comments that so many items would flunk NASA's formal de-acquisition tests, well, that is of course true. But it's also why accepted practices have been accepted practices... until relatively recently. Complex legalities, meant for utilization in curbing or preventing real abuse, were misapplied (along with common sense), resulting in the worldwide backlash against NASA's heavy-handed approach to its treatment of its own best ambassadors and spokesmen.

posted 01-11-2012 05:49 PM               

Apollo stowage lists were never intended (nor do they) have the ability to validate actual flown hardware by serial number - it only indicates nomenclatures (by drawing number) of which multiple copies were produced and it only included mostly non-permanently installed components.

There was a very methodical process for laying out equipment and validating against the ASL prior to manifesting on the spacecraft:

With respect to 40 USC, its equally germane then and now; everybody recognizes NASA played loosey-goosey with the rules during the 60's but the current Administrator is bound by its provisions and whatever precedent he establishes in an attempt to resolve this issue to the satisfaction of the current claimants is going to have spill-over legal and ethical ramifications.

posted 01-11-2012 05:51 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by chet:
...NASA's heavy-handed approach to its treatment of its own best ambassadors and spokesmen.

---

NASA had no say in the IG's decision to pursue Mitchell's Data Acquisition Camera.