posted 01-19-2012 02:30 PM               

The reason that no other copy was available is that the unflown copies were all disposed of after the mission. The trash cans would be placed out in the hallway overflowing with documentation in those days and well into the shuttle era. This didn't stop until about 1991 when printing costs forced examination of the distribution lists.

The process of placing these documents on microfiche did not start until after the Challenger accident.

What is in the National Archives now with regard to a Apollo are mostly reference copies from the technical library that were turned over to a local university library who in turn sent them to the National archives.

With regard to flown documents prior to the Space Shuttle that are on the open market, they are truly one of a kind. If Jim Lovell's checklist had been lost or destroyed, the final, correct Page Change Notice and Pen and Ink version of this checklst would possibly be completely lost to history. Certainly, the version with his notations is one of a kind since the in flight notations are not recorded anywhere else.

posted 01-20-2012 12:14 AM               

Also he said that most contractor models were thrown away as there was little place to display them - so usually once an (unmanned) mission was over they went straight into the trashbin.

He and others regulary climbed into the trashbin and salvaged the one or other manual or model.

I wonder what happens to that if man lands on Mars for example in 40 years and suddenly some Mars exploring mission may become interesting and documents valuable?

posted 01-20-2012 09:36 AM               

It seems that it would be difficult to prove a negative: How is one supposed to prove that a policy didn't exist? I believe that the burden would be upon you (generically) to show that one did exist, was implemented and was enforced.

posted 01-20-2012 10:03 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by chet:
Kraft's calling for new procedures in 1973...

---

Recall your history, what had just transpired in the astronaut office concerning mementos? The congressional investigation into the Apollo 15 unauthorized mementos. That hearing didn't limit itself to just the covers; it dove into everything the astronauts were allowed (and not allowed) to keep.

The fallout from the investigation was that NASA had to document what had largely been unwritten policies. In 1973, Kraft is trying to address the astronauts' own requests for items with what NASA Headquarters desired and Congress demanded.

posted 01-20-2012 10:22 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dennis Beatty:
It seems that it would be difficult to prove a negative: How is one supposed to prove that a policy didn't exist? they?

---

posted 01-20-2012 10:57 AM               

That weekend, on Sept. 16-17, 1972, a UPI article — which was widely published in many newspapers at the time and date lined from Space Center, Houston — explains the new policy, and, goes further to explore the status of non-PPK items, and quotes:

Space Agency officials said Saturday the new restrictions on personal items astronauts may carry on future space flights apparently do not affect the souvenirs astronauts take from the moon or their spacecraft.

...said they knew of no regulations regarding souvenirs that come from the spacecraft or equipment left on the lunar surface.

The upshot? We don't know what we don't know. But it is clear that all of these issues were discussed at the time and during the period of late 1972 — and discussed in detail and through all levels of NASA management — as evidenced by Kraft's recent interviews, the press reports, the internal memos, the anecdotal comments by astronauts and NASA management, etc.

And we know these investigations addressed a wide variety of items — not just PPK, but also spacecraft parts and material like manuals, etc. (Either by codifying a policy like they did with PPK items going forward, or, as Kraft stated, abdicating a decision on other items because "there were just too damn many.") It was settled once. It is now up to them to settle it again. But this time, definitively.

posted 01-20-2012 12:45 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by SpaceAholic:
Sure it did... as early as 1967 in a NASA-National Air and Space Museum agreement which gave the Smithsonian first right of refusal on historic artifacts; and the ASHUR process. The vast majority of recovered Apollo flown hardware (well over 95 percent) resides in institutions.

---

In my earlier post, I was referring more to documents and other small items (flight plans for example) which are what could have be readily tossed. If these were covered by the agreement to which you referred, I stand by my original question: Where is the material? As I stated in my previous post, not only must a policy be established, but it must also be implemented and enforced at the time... not 40 years after the fact.

Although, it seems that a lot of "souvenirs" made it out, I can't imagine someone waking up one morning, going to work and thinking to himself "Gee the warehouse is getting kind of messy, let's toss all of those darn old command modules." However, I can see that happening with the types of items I am speaking of. We (and NASA) should be glad that the astronauts preserved what they did, otherwise, much would have been lost.

posted 01-20-2012 01:25 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
The fallout from the investigation was that NASA had to document what had largely been unwritten policies.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SpaceAholic:
So far nobody has offered any evidence to support a NASA practice of indiscriminate disposal of Apollo era flown artifacts (a central issue at hand in this thread).

---

posted 01-20-2012 04:09 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dennis Beatty:
It would seem that the NASA/NASM agreement (as implemented) had hardware and equipment in mind. Also, an agreement between two large entities seems far from establishing a policy within the astronaut office.

---

Effective March 14, 1967, a "NASA-Smithsonian Institution Agreement Concerning the Custody and Management of NASA Historical Artifacts" was signed. It provided that all NASA artifacts, when no longer needed by NASA or other governmental agencies for technical uses, would be transferred to the Smithsonian "for the custody, protection, preservation, and display of [324] such artifacts both in the Museum and upon loan to NASA Headquarters, NASA Field Centers, other Federal agencies, museums, and other appropriate organizations."

posted 01-20-2012 05:38 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by SpaceAholic:
...artifacts like the checklist.

---

Similarly, the astronauts' music cassette tapes, sunglasses and personal hygiene kits were not considered "artifacts."

On the other hand, NASA did consider the astronauts' Omega Speedmasters to be artifacts and were transferred to the Smithsonian under the agreement accordingly. For many years though, the Smithsonian loaned the watches back to the astronauts for their continued personal use.

posted 01-20-2012 05:57 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by chet:
Is this a case of NASA claiming the equipment was only "on loan", or is it unaware of the documentation?

---

posted 01-20-2012 06:48 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
NASA did not consider everything that flew aboard the spacecraft to be artifacts by default.

---

posted 01-21-2012 01:32 AM               

If anyone in a decision-making position at the NASM had put forward the proposition the checklists should be considered prized historical pieces I imagine it would have been possible to arrange a diversion of at least a good number of checklists over to the Smithsonian. But there seems to be enough evidence (even if mostly anecdotal) to suggest the post-mission checklists just weren't highly valued (in historical terms) back in the day. Perhaps that's what made them "cost-effective" souvenirs for Astronaut Office disbursement at the time.

posted 01-21-2012 07:32 AM               

In fact there is evidence NASA continued to loan or transfer flown Apollo checklists to NASM at least through 1985.

posted 01-21-2012 11:55 AM               

Your examples show only checklists from Apollos 8 and 11, the "most" historic of the Apollo missions; perhaps the NASM was little inclined to seek checklists from the other "more mundane" missions. The fact that the NASM has some checklists in their inventory is no indication whatsoever that they were clamoring for more but were denied by the Astronaut Office.

Furthermore, if the NASM has the 8 and 11 checklists you've noted, how did they get them if they were being undercut at each turn by failure of NASA to follow policy and procedure?

posted 01-21-2012 12:50 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
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.

---

posted 01-21-2012 01:27 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by chet:
The fact that the NASM has some checklists in their inventory is no indication whatsoever that they were clamoring for more but were denied by the Astronaut Office.

---

quote:

---

Furthermore, if the NASM has the 8 and 11 checklists you've noted, how did they get them if they were being undercut at each turn by failure of NASA to follow policy and procedure?

---

posted 01-21-2012 03:21 PM               

Written procedures are one thing. Application of those procedures is another. That is why we should leave it up to NASA and the astronauts to work out. All the references that everyone is pointing out – myself included – are all just data points, out of context and being presented by people who were not involved.

posted 01-22-2012 03:11 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spacefest:
...which curiously bear a NASA HQ URL.

---

Since June 1996, NASA HQ Historian Roger Launius, his successor Steven Dick, and Policy Analyst Steve Garber have provided a home for the Journal.

posted 01-27-2012 03:57 PM               

We appreciate many of you are concerned with the disposition of your Apollo artifacts purchased from us and other sources, in light of NASA's claim to a few high-profile items seen on auction recently.

What happens now? Whatever scenario plays out, it's not likely to be quick. NASA's beef seems to be with the astronauts, not customers — there are simply too many. Flight Director Chris Kraft said recently; "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)."

Any resolution of this matter will likely leave the status quo — at least for the "small" collector. It may put the kabosh on any high-profile resale, though.

This matter does not involve PPK items — personal souvenirs flown by crews. Patches. medallions, flags, etc. are not at issue. We have removed other potentially challengable articles from the website until some sort of resolution is reached.

If we're wrong, and NASA demands your property, THEN we'll talk refunds. No use wringing hands over this.

Kim Poor

posted 01-31-2012 01:38 PM               

Hardware found through dumpster dives and retirement cleanups probably have no NASA property bar code tags, and may also be cleared with relative ease. I would worry about anything with the NASA property bar code, because it's probably on a missing items list. Labels such as "NASA Property" or "Inventory 1998" are not removed when an item is sold by NASA. Only the property bar code is removed.

posted 03-09-2012 07:47 AM               

New bill defends astronauts' rights to own (and sell) space artifacts

The dispute over whether NASA's early astronauts have title to the space-flown artifacts they kept as souvenirs from their missions may soon be resolved by Congress.

A bill introduced by the chairman and ranking member of the U.S. House of Representatives' Science, Space, and Technology Committee would confirm full ownership rights to the artifacts saved, donated, or sold by astronauts who were part of the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs.

In a March 2 letter titled "Apollo Astronauts Need Your Help," chairman Ralph Hall (R-Texas) and ranking member Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas) appealed to their fellow committee members to help confer full ownership of these mementos to the astronauts by supporting "this common sense legislation."

posted 03-09-2012 08:05 AM               

If the Senate makes any changes, then the bill will need to be reconciled with the House version before passing both houses and being sent to the President for signing into law.

This can be a long process. It's not uncommon for bills to stall in committee or be voted in one house but not the other. It can sometimes take several sessions for Congress to get a bill passed.

Previous bills aimed at awarding astronauts moon rocks and (separately) issuing a set of space coins died after several years trying to get them passed.

posted 03-09-2012 09:59 AM               

For purposes of this Act, the term 'artifact' means, with respect to an astronaut described in section 2(a), any expendable item utilized in missions for the Mercury, Gemini, or Apollo programs through the completion of the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project not expressly required to be returned to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration at the completion of the mission and other expendable, disposable, or personal-use items utilized by such astronaut during participation in any such program. The term includes personal logs, checklists, flight manuals, prototype and proof test articles used in training, and disposable flight hardware salvaged from jettisoned lunar modules. The term does not include lunar rocks and other lunar material.

Covered artifacts are pretty narrow (for example it doesn't include CM flown hardware except "personal use" items).

posted 03-10-2012 10:37 AM               

The bill's definition doesn't specifically exclude any item other than "lunar rocks and other lunar material" so long as it wasn't reusable and/or expressly required to return into NASA's inventory.

posted 03-10-2012 02:43 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
The bill's definition doesn't specifically exclude any item other than "lunar rocks and other lunar material" so long as it wasn't reusable and/or expressly required to return into NASA's inventory.

---

It can be reasonably argued cue cards are no more expendable, disposable (perishable) or for "personal use" then any other flight vehicle component; and that the US Govt under 40 USC (which HR4158 does not amend or supercede) continues to retain title.