posted 01-11-2012 06:08 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
NASA had no say in the IG's decision to pursue Mitchell's Data Acquisition Camera.

---

posted 01-11-2012 08:10 PM               

NASA cannot interfere with investigations by the Office of Inspector General. It operates independent of the space agency.

And Lovell's checklist has yet to be claimed by NASA.

posted 01-11-2012 08:24 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
NASA cannot interfere with investigations by the Office of Inspector General. It operates independent of the space agency.

---

If that's true how can Bolden guarantee a resolution?

posted 01-11-2012 09:17 PM               

The main point, however, is that none of what is currently going on could be going on if NASA wasn't (or hadn't been) playing footsie with the OIG.

None of the Apollo astronauts, in that Fox News interview, mentioned the OIG. They expressed their consternation that their integrity was being undermined by NASA. That tells me pretty much all I need to know.

posted 01-11-2012 09:30 PM               

In most cases, when Office of Inspector General actions are reported, they are described as being the actions of NASA. It is only when you get into the details does the distinction become clear.

In this case however, the letter was sent by NASA's General Counsel, which is part of NASA, so the astronauts were not incorrect in citing the space agency.

But again, the details are important. NASA as a whole did not write the letter. It originated from a field office.

Now, you can argue, perhaps rightfully, that the General Counsel office should be better organized such that a field office cannot act without the knowledge of its main office and, when involving public issues, perhaps with the advance knowledge of public affairs too, but it is unreasonable to hold all of NASA at fault for the actions of one its offices.

posted 01-12-2012 10:40 PM               

The first letter reads:

Dear Joe. Sorry you were so put out about the last letter. The attached may help clarify the situation. (Since this was a private letter from the administrator, I have clipped out a bit to protect his privacy.) All the best, Neil.

Recently many questions have been raised concerning materials carried on Apollo flights which were retained by the astronauts following the flights or given by them to others. NASA has requested the Department of Justice to provide a legal opinion as to whether the United States has any claim of ownership or other property interests in these materials.

Keep all of these items in a safe place.

Refrain from authenticating any items having been on a space flight.

posted 01-13-2012 01:25 AM               

Lot 25159 contains some relevant newspaper clippings about an unauthorised Flown Gemini 7 Souvenir and NASA's attitude to such items, and an Apollo 11 Navigational Notebook Flown To The Lunar Surface and signed by Buzz that fetched nearly $250,000 at Swann Galleries.

Lot 25161 contains a copy of the October 3, 1972 letter from NASA Administrator James Fletcher to Neil Armstrong regarding flown items and the request to the Department of Justice for a legal opinion on their status.

posted 01-13-2012 03:09 AM               

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."

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."

Mitchell acknowledged that the government asked him to return the camera in the past. But, he said, he thought the issue had been resolved.

posted 01-13-2012 09:30 PM               

Chapter 1.2 Defining NASA Artifacts

1.2.1. Artifacts, as applied to NASA, are unique objects that document the history of the science and technology of aeronautics and astronautics. Their significance and interest stem mainly from their relation to the following: historic flights, programs, activities, or incidents; achievements or improvements in technology; our understanding of the universe; and important or well-known personalities.

1.2.2. Space-related artifacts may include, but are not limited to, objects such as major program vehicle components, unique devices, prototype and proof test articles, payloads or individual instruments, flight spares, astronaut tools and paraphernalia, design concept models, and high-fidelity simulators.

1.2.3. Flags, insignia, and other mementos carried in Official Flight Kits and astronaut Personal Preference Kits, or items specifically approved as reminders of specific flights are not to be considered artifacts. Artifacts also do not include non-serialized parts, or parts that exist in large numbers, except when such parts acquire special significance as indicated in subparagraph 1.2.1.

It is easy to see how Jim Lovell's Apollo 13 Checklist and Ed Mitchell's Apollo 14 16mm DAC meet many of the criteria to be declared artifacts.

Chapter 3 goes on to explain how program/project managers and centre directors have input on what qualifies as an artifact and that it is designated as such.

Appendix A details the 1998 Agreement Between NASA And The Smithsonian Institution Concerning The Transfer And Management Of NASA Historical Artifacts.

Artifacts are unique specimens relating to the science and technology of aeronautics and astronautics, and of flight in the atmosphere and space, which may consist of aeronautical and astronautical objects, but not limited to, aircraft, space launch vehicles, spacecraft (both manned and unmanned), sub-systems of the above, such as rocket engines, pressure suits and personal equipment, instruments, significant recorded data, operating handbooks, drawings, photographs, motion picture film and related documents, audio and video tapes, training devices, simulators, and memorabilia.

One can see how the "significant recorded data" and "unusual historical interest" of the Apollo 13 Checklist and Apollo 14 DAC would again fall well within the definition of artifacts.

posted 01-15-2012 08:35 AM               

Kraft said he remembers the early NASA policy. Astronauts were given, or could take, small personal items and things such as mission checklists after a flight, but they did not have approval to take any piece of hardware they wanted as a souvenir. The items they did get were to be for themselves and family, not to be sold.

Kraft said he's sure other NASA employees, such as "my people, the flight control world," are angry "to a fare-the-well that these guys are selling this stuff." But Kraft sees the astronauts' point of view, too. "They don't make any money, even now, so what's wrong with them selling this hardware or whatever that was actually given to them by NASA?"

posted 01-15-2012 11:08 AM               

"When we began to look into it, we were damned sorry we did," Kraft said last week by telephone from his home in Texas. "There was too much there ... so we, NASA, dropped (it)."

posted 01-15-2012 11:20 AM               

Kraft's comments are notable, but my favorite take away from the article was this:

[Robert] Pearlman has written extensively about the artifacts issue.

The astronauts are unanimous that "these were items they didn't take, but were given," Pearlman said.

posted 01-15-2012 01:53 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by SpaceAholic:
If one accepts the premise (that the crews were gifted the artifacts) it was with the underlying provision there was not to be exploitation for personal gain.

---

In 1971, NASA Chief of Flight Crew Operations Deke Slayton had personally issued warnings against commercialism by flight crews. Slayton's warning came in the form of personal briefings and in a written memorandum to all astronauts about flown mementos. So why would flown artifacts, gifted or otherwise, be treated differently when they are even more important than mementos?

Is a gift just a gift, when it is a gift of an artifact of a historically important national program of global significance?

Please don't misunderstand, I think Jim and Ed should be allowed to sell the artifacts in question because NASA has been very inconsistent in its practices to date and has largely operated off goodwill. My personal sentiment, however, does not supercede or resolve the legal issues regarding what constitutes title transfer and whether it was even legally permissible to gift such artifacts in the first place.

posted 01-15-2012 02:17 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by SpaceAholic:
If one accepts the premise (that the crews were gifted the artifacts) it was with the underlying provision there was not to be exploitation for personal gain.

---

This theory, however, can be used to restrain sales by astronauts only as long as they are employed by NASA; the termination of employment ends their duty of loyalty to NASA's interests, and fiduciary obligations no longer apply.

posted 01-15-2012 05:05 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by NJSPACEFAN:
The National Archives, nor any branch of the government... never looks to claim through replevin prior documents that were not under their purview...

---

Whether they know it or not, the dealers may be trafficking in stolen government property. The heist may have taken place in 1865. Or last week. Or a document may not have been looted at all, but made its way into private hands instead of the Archives...

The outreach builds trust - and generates tips. Tips and leads from document dealers have helped the agents recover about 7,000 missing items that were stolen from the Archives or never made it into the agency's possession in the first place.

posted 01-15-2012 05:16 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by rjurek349:
That was rather definitive. And we know the rest of the story: the covers were returned to the crew with no restrictions on their sale.

---

My focus was more on underlying intent and dichotomy of views between the astronauts and NASA staffer's like Kraft. I would love to know what Collins and Armstrong think about this issue having donated their material (or at least not sold it) and adhering to the intent of unwritten policy subsequently codified post Apollo in NPR 4310.1.

Unlike many who praised the performance of the Astronauts during the Fox interview, my eyebrow was raised when Lovell stated he just happened to find the checklist in a drawer and thought somebody "might want it". The same Lovell who is well cognizant of the premium paid for flown articles as a seller of such material in the past. To be clear, subject to resolution of title in his favor I don't begrudge attempts to sell and profit from the checklist, its just that his statement seemed a bit disingenuous to me and undercut his credibility.

posted 01-15-2012 07:58 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by rjurek349:
...the covers were returned to the crew with no restrictions on their sale.

---

What the legal opinion in the memo does seem to suggest, however, is that flown personal mementos in a PPK can be sold once an astronaut leaves NASA, because of the personal nature of the property involved.

The real question is what happens with flown artifacts i.e. valuable and historically significant hardware/equipment that were originally property of the US government?

When a NASA official presented the gift of such an artifact to a trusted NASA or government employee on behalf of a grateful nation, was that a legally permissible act and did title transfer unconditionally in that act?

What is clear is that NASA officials failed to identify the significance of historical artifacts correctly (moon rock was cherished but some flown equipment not). More crucially NASA officials of the day failed to effect correct transfer of title via proper paperwork in order to make the gifts to astronauts proper unconditional gifts.

Those latter failures unfortunately may well mean that title does still remain with NASA, and that it is NASA's discretion and goodwill that will dictate what artifacts they challenge and retrieve and the manner in which they do that.

posted 01-15-2012 08:02 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by SpaceAholic:
I would love to know what Collins and Armstrong think about this issue...

---

Collins donated his items, as acknowledged by the National Air and Space Museum - just as they acknowledge NASA as the donor. Yes, he was the director of the museum, nonetheless they still acknowledge the sunglasses just as they do his checklists.

Armstrong is so different from all the others. He donated items to the museum with his name, and considering the significance of his donated items, we don't see the National Air and Space Museum or any other government agency or archive insisting on their either being "loaned" or claimed as rightfully theirs, certainly not while he's alive.

posted 01-16-2012 02:53 AM               

NASA, and we, are left then with a tough question: Assuming the astronauts were acting in good faith, how is it possible that so many of them could have so misconstrued the acts under which they took possession of their mission artifacts, so that ALL of them ended up misunderstanding the actual "true" status of their title to the objects [i.e., that title to the artifacts would always revert to NASA]?

posted 01-17-2012 12:02 PM               

John Glenn received his earth path indicator made up as a desktop display piece and a number of other flight flown artifacts such as his hand controller, a failed thruster from Friendship 7, connectors, skin from the Atlas rocket and so on. Also his bio sensors to name a few.

No big deal back then.

You have to ask when all that changed and why? Probably in the Apollo days after the Apollo 15 cover deal. I think you would be amazed what the early guys were given and kept. They were keepsakes back then, and future value wasn't even considered!

We as collectors are the ones that are responsible (in part) for making these items of any monetary value and have caused NASA to toughen it's position. Don't get me wrong I am NOT endorsing NASA's current stance, but merely pointing out that we in part are responsible.

We as collectors have to ask ourselves why we collect. Is it an investment? Or is it that we want a keepsake and to preserve a piece of history that was thought to be junk by NASA. Food for thought.

posted 01-17-2012 02:34 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rick Boos:
I believe we need to know when and why the change in NASA's stance and what the rules are and why and when did they change. When does scrap or junk become treasure?

---

The better question may be, why has NASA been more questioning in the disposition of the Apollo 13 LM activation checklist than in the disposition of other checklists of other Apollo missions?

The answer, sadly, seems obvious.

posted 01-18-2012 03:23 PM               

Possible cumulative reasons for NASA to view this checklist differently include: historic mission/incident, furthest manned space exploration mission, significant recorded data, well-known personalities, international motion picture fame, international auction publicity, high sale price.

posted 01-19-2012 01:20 AM               

As for the agency having an inkling it was in private hands, wasn't NASA aware of numerous other checklist sales by former mission crewmen? Shouldn't it have occurred to anyone at the OIG to have thought to ask Lovell or Haise if they knew where this checklist could be?

Seems NASA became keenly interested in securing this item for posterity only after stumbling upon its whereabouts and realizing it'd fetch a princely sum.

posted 01-19-2012 06:04 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by chet:
If Lovell hadn't secured it, the checklist likely would've ended up in a NASA dumpster a long time ago.

---

posted 01-19-2012 12:39 PM               

I have it on good word many checklists were ready for disposal by simple dumping; only the intervention of an alerted astronaut prevented the loss of the original mission- used checklists.

posted 01-19-2012 02:14 PM               

The checklists and other documents were part of a long list of items, ranging from the generic (e.g. personal hygiene kits) to the specific (individual spacecraft's hand controllers) to the very specific (e.g. Apollo 17's map-repaired fender).