posted 09-13-2012 01:49 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hart Sastrowardoyo:
Rather simplistic, but if there were no buyers, there'd be no market...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
A whitelist, rather than a blacklist, would only include those who agree not to segment artifacts any further then they already are, regardless if they are dealers, collectors, investors, charity organizations or curators.

---

posted 09-13-2012 03:55 PM               

Skyman has an extraordinary collection, as he correctly stated, most if not all museums wouldn't qualify as good stewards of artifacts by the "guidelines" according to Kyra. Back in the 80's and 90's the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum was routinely destroying extremely rare artifacts because they had no room to house them. The historical artifacts intentionally destroyed by the museum is staggering and the pieces lost didn't need to be destroyed, they could have been given to other museums.

I have 100+ rare artifacts on loan to museums for free, all I ask is they're insured and they're displayed to the public. I've been through many museum backrooms and storage areas, if you were to see the poor condition, lack of care and pathetic budgets that don't allow the protection of artifacts, you'd have a stroke.

When I purchased the Lunar Orbiter sold by Langley in 2003, it was in horrendous condition from 20+ years of neglect. I spent many dozens of hours researching the proper way to restore it, finding the proper materials required to polish it, taking it to 10-15 metal working experts to take out the dents and then spending 80-100 hours polishing it with my fingertips so I wouldn't damage the structure. This Lunar Orbiter is 1 of 3 in existence (the others in the National Air and Space Museum and Virginia Air & Space), so you'd think that NASA/Langley or any museum curator would take great pains to preserve and protect this rare artifact. Guess again, it took a private collector to restore and bring it back into the public's eye again.

Based on what I've seen over the years, the private collector is a much better protector of rare artifacts than any museum. There are exceptions like Al Valdes at the San Diego Air & Space Museum, who take great pains to preserve and protect their artifacts. We private collectors have a passion and knowledge of these artifacts that greatly exceeds the vast majority of museum staffs. Not only that but we all have a financial stake in maintaining our artifacts because one day we or our families are going to sell our stuff.

Like most of you, I hate it when rare artifacts are cut up and turned into fragment cards. I won't sell to certain people because I know it will end up as tiny fragments on 8x10 displays. But are you going to condemn guys like Williamson or Slezak who cut up their film leaders and put them on displays? How about the ASF cutting up the flown beta patch? Okay, so it raised more money for their organization, but does that justify destroying a rare artifact? How about Jerry Cubinzki fragmenting artifacts or Winco for destroying flown metal artifacts to make their coins that we all buy? How about blaming NASA for melting flown metal to make their MFA coin? Did you want to hold the astronauts to the these "guidelines", because many here don't think they should be selling off individual pages of flown checklists, thereby destroying a historical document. How about he Kansas Cosmosphere for cutting up Liberty Bell 7 film or pieces of flown hardware in lucites? Where does this slippery slope end?

We all know that Florian never met an artifact that he didn't dream of cutting up and making a lot of money. Okay, so he wants to cut up and destroy rare artifacts to make money, so what. I don't agree with that, but the only thing I can control is that I will never buy anything that he produces. That said, judging what he's paying for artifacts and then making fragment cards, it's obvious there's a lot of guys who have no problem buying his stuff. That's called freedom.

As far as the NASA Inspector General actively confiscating anything they deem "historic," their lack of scope or guidelines as to what they're hunting for, is it any wonder people aren't displaying rare pieces. Why would they if there's a chance that their going to lose it?

How in good conscience can NASA confiscate artifacts that were discarded, thrown in the dumpster or otherwise given away when the programs were cancelled. Back in the day nobody cared about this "junk" and when junk was taken home, it was considered worthless. So now that these items have become artifacts worth thousands of dollars, the NASA OIG is going to steal these pieces from those who legally collected them. Please don't tell me that these items are stolen or were improperly discarded or not properly scrapped. Back in the day NASA destroyed many millions of dollars worth of artifacts because they were considered scrap, so the fact that workers took pieces as a remembrance of their dedication to the program, doesn't constitute theft.

There's a huge difference between someone like Ed Mitchell or contractor workers who spent years working on the space program taking an item that was expendable and someone like Max Ary, who with intent ripped off every collector and space enthusiast by stealing, then selling rare space artifacts on loan from NASA to enrich himself.

I know this is long, but one quick story. A couple of years ago I spoke with a gentleman who worked at NAA in Downey. Part of his job was installing and removing the silver based batteries used in the Apollo command module. He took home every expended battery from every Apollo spacecraft that was returned to Downey after the mission. He read about the NASA Inspector General going after someone's artifacts, some expendable parts that they had taken from the spacecraft after the missions. The news scared this gentleman, so he decided to melt down these silver batteries and sell the metal for scrap prices. That's the way to treat people, scare the crap out of them so they destroy rare pieces instead of doing everything they can to preserve artifacts.

I just spoke with the grandson of a gentleman who worked on every Apollo mission at Downey. This guy had dozens and dozens of lucites, resins, flags, medals and parts from the Apollo spacecraft that his grandfather collected. This guy decided that nobody was interested in space junk, so he threw it in the dumpster after his grandfather passed away. I didn't know whether to beat him or laugh in his face, but he wasn't laughing when I told him how much his grandfather's stuff would have sold for.

posted 09-13-2012 03:57 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by space1:
But by not joining the whitelist, aren't you essentially putting yourself on the blacklist (or maybe the greylist)?

---

Only some will see it that way. But since I'm a believer in never saying never, let me be the first to exclude myself from that "white" list. (Others that choose to view me as belonging on a "black" list are certainly free to do so).

posted 09-13-2012 03:58 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by space1:
But by not joining the whitelist, aren't you essentially putting yourself on the blacklist (or maybe the greylist)?

---

For example, a collector on the whitelist might choose to only do business with a dealer on the whitelist.

posted 09-13-2012 04:34 PM               

However as far as I know, only a small number of private collectors own flown tires. I've only heard of a few flown tiles being on the market as well. While more own intact insulation blankets, they're still fairly uncommon. And they'll be more uncommon now that the space shuttle program is over, NASA is done servicing the orbiters, and all the scrap has probably been thrown away. Therefore it's worse for private collectors to destroy one of few remaining examples, than it was for SFA to have just selected a blanket that was going to be thrown away anyways (to turn into bookmarks).

What aggravates me the most is the eBay seller who's been destroying items such as flown checklist pages, that bar of soap flown on Skylab, and a number of other items. And that seller outright committed fraud when he cut up a roll of aluminum insulation tape and claimed it was flown. I tried messaging him on eBay to tell him it wasn't flown and that he should revise his listing, but he never responded. That's the kind of stuff that I'd like to see less of in our community.

Also aggravating is that I noticed that the eBay seller who is selling the space suit cut ups is also selling a presentation that includes a cut off from STS-86 flown insulation, and a cut off from "Authentic Li-900 insulation," as well as another display that's just Li-900 and nothing else for $23.

posted 09-13-2012 10:19 PM               

At the same time I think preservation can also be taken to extremes; not every scrap that ever had a place in the space program needs to be preserved in exactly the same state in order to leave a "living history" for future generations.

posted 09-14-2012 01:15 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spaceguy5:
... Also aggravating is that I noticed that the eBay seller who is selling the space suit cut ups is also selling a presentation that includes a cut off from STS-86 flown insulation, and a cut off from "Authentic Li-900 insulation," as well as another display that's just Li-900 and nothing else for $23.

Note: Based on the size and their description of the material, I believe they just bought some of the souvenir tiles (3"x3"x1/4") that the KSCVC sells for $15, cut them into 12 small pieces, and slapped on a Challenger/Columbia memorial on the back. Not only is that tacky and disrespectful, but it's also very deceiving to consumers because they're paying more for less.

---

Thanks for the links. I'm sure you're right about the Li-900 source. I also agree that the memorial stuff on the back is pretty tacky, although that's just a matter of taste.

I'd still argue that the original unused material is already a smaller chunk of something larger so I couldn't care less if the person cuts it into smaller chunks.

posted 09-14-2012 03:04 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spaceguy5:
A $261 profit (not counting ebay fees and the cost of packaging) on something that costs $15 is disgustingly high though...It looks bad on our community

---

But using your parameters somewhat, if someone buys a house for $10,000 and then sees it's value skyrocket in a few years to $200,000, is it outrageous for that person to realize his/her 20-fold profit by selling? Or should he/she just sell way below market to avoid being labeled a scalper of some sort?

posted 09-14-2012 05:57 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by chet:
Destroying is a pretty loaded word

---

posted 09-14-2012 06:47 AM               

Underwood and others cut Apollo flown film into arbitrary pieces and sold them. Does cutting one of these pieces into smaller fragments today result in their destruction?

posted 09-14-2012 07:20 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by chet:
items of far less magnitude (such as ILC shuttle blanket material sample swatches, for crying out loud).

---

You've written over and over that folks should be free to do whatever they want and that others should not judge their conduct, but you get to decide which artifacts are important? That's not consistent.

As the owner of several space suit items and a donater to a local science museum, this booklet showing what the suits are made of would have been an excellent and educational accessory to a display of suit parts. It's a shame it has been destroyed. Yes destroyed, as the original booklet no longer exists.

posted 09-14-2012 08:55 AM               

Will people boycott NASA because the space agency took flown shuttle tires, painted them white, and then allowed people to write on them with markers?

posted 09-14-2012 08:58 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by spaced out:
Presumably Gene Cernan and Buzz Aldrin should be on the blacklist as they've sold individual pages of flown documents

---

Before jumping to conclusions, Cernan's documents were sold intact and taken apart by others. I've talked to him about this. I'm not sure about Aldrin's but I bet it's the same situation.

Of course, as pointed out by many, anyone is free to do whatever they please with whatever they own. You can yell fire in a crowded theatre too - but that doesn't prove it's a smart or ethical thing to do.

posted 09-14-2012 09:05 AM               

We can only hope that everyone who agrees with the black/white lists refuses on principal to buy anything from these infidels, sorry astronauts.

posted 09-14-2012 09:05 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hart Sastrowardoyo:
Will people boycott NASA because the space agency took flown shuttle tires, painted them white, and then allowed people to write on them with markers?

---

Not boycott NASA,that's not enough. I think we should cancel the entire American space program and de-orbit all existing satellites because of this grievous incident.

I don't understand the zeal with which the chopping up of artifacts is being defended.

All the "curators" are saying is that one should try and keep historical artifacts intact. Why does that make others so angry?

posted 09-14-2012 10:16 AM               

Everyone knows that the kapton foil hanging in shreds from the Apollo capsules when they were brought on board the recovery ships was stripped off in vast quantities by those who could get close enough to do so.

It doesn't matter whether you agree with this or not. It was done 40 years ago and there's nothing we can do about that now.

The strips of foil that people took as souvenirs were torn and cut into smaller pieces and given to family and friends and maybe subdivided again over the years.

Some of these pieces were acquired by space collectors over the years and divided into smaller pieces to produce presentation certificates, lucites and covers.

I really don't see what historical importance we can attach to keeping 'intact' any one of these fragments of foil today. Maybe larger pieces have more aesthetic appeal but that's about it.

Likewise the Apollo flown film that Underwood and others cut up into fragments 40 years ago. If someone acquires one of these arbitrarily-sized cut pieces today and decides to cut it into smaller pieces for whatever reason I don't think any major harm has been done.

Things are not simply black and white so blindly applying a 'rule' that the cutting of any object is a crime is frankly ridiculous, which is what I was trying to highlight by my comments above.

In my personal opinion cutting up an intact flown strap is effectively destroying a historic artifact. I don't believe it should be done today in any circumstances, but at the same time I'm happy to own a piece of Apollo 14 lunar safety line or Apollo 13 couch fabric that resulted from NASA's decision to do so in the past.

In my personal opinion cutting a small fragment of kapton foil or flown film in two today does not count as destroying a historic artifact.

posted 09-14-2012 11:24 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by SpaceAholic:
Parting/dismantlement of an artifact for sale is akin to its destruction.

---

When Linda Gordon made nearly perfect duplicate copies of at least one of her husband's Apollo 12 checklists, how was the original artifact "destroyed" by individual pages being sold off to collectors who really wanted them (and will likely cherish them) as top-quality legacy souvenirs?

Why wouldn't those duplicate copies suffice as legacies for future generations? And why is it a bad thing that there are now, in place of one intact flown checklist, dozens of happy collectors/now-curators admiring and safeguarding those individual checklist pages?

quote:

---

Originally posted by garymilgrom:
You've written over and over that folks should be free to do whatever they want and that others should not judge their conduct, but you get to decide which artifacts are important? That's not consistent.

---

posted 09-14-2012 01:42 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by spaced out:
the extremes to which this approach is being advocated above amazes me.

---

In my opinion the choppers are the extremists. Calling astronauts infidels? Calling for a fatwah? These comments have no place in this or any civil discussion.

Regarding items (parachutes were mentioned) cut up at the time of the flights, perhaps we've gained an appreciation for the history these artifacts represent with 40 years of hindsight.

posted 09-14-2012 03:23 PM               

When the Smithsonian adds a new piece to their collection, regardless how it was handled prior to arriving at the museum, from the point it enters the building, it is treated with care and an eye toward preservation.

Case in point, here is a quote from the ceremony that saw the donation of the Buzz Lightyear action figure that flew on the space shuttle:

"I am wearing blue gloves," [John] Lasseter said, holding up his covered hands. "I don't have a problem, it's just that Buzz Lightyear is normally used to small sticky hands in life, but now that he's been in orbit and he's now a part of the Smithsonian, they have us wear gloves to play with him."

posted 09-14-2012 04:37 PM               

If you buy an Alan Bean painting that contains cut up fragments of his flown patches, your response shouldn't be to then feel it is right (however legal it may be) to cut it apart. The idea is that once the item is in your hands, you become its conservator.

posted 09-14-2012 09:49 PM               

The Smithsonian is a museum and preserver, and a buyer doesn't have to assume the duties of the Smithsonian.

Though I believe it would be wonderful if everyone took on the responsibilities of being good caretakers, there is NO OBLIGATION to do so. That's what REAL freedom is all about, and what I believe Ray was alluding to in the very first sentence of his post.

And if being a good conservator is what qualifies one for inclusion on the "white" list, I suppose I should be on it after all. I take very good care of all of my collection, though others may argue with that based on their own definitions of what constitutes being a "good" conservator. Would that be by, exclusively, keeping a mission flown checklist intact, or would making high-res scans of each page (where such didn't exist before), before distributing individual pages, also qualify? Both seem to reflect "good" and "responsible" caretaking, but what gets by as "good enough" for the "white" list, and perhaps most importantly, exactly who decides?

posted 09-14-2012 10:29 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by chet:
The length of this thread seems to indicate that the best (and most uncomplicated) way is simply leaving any and all decisions in the hands of the owner of any item, and take it from there.

---

posted 09-15-2012 04:15 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by SpaceAholic:
By inference then, you are stating that others have the ability to take decisions away from the owner. That isn't the case.

---

No, it isn't YET the case.

In an earlier post in this thread, Scott, you yourself noted "it only takes amendment of 16 USC 470 (the National Historic Preservation Act) to expand protection to artifacts placed on a registry".

Such "protection" is tantamount to a pair of handcuffs on owners, removing from them a good deal of discretion pertaining to their property rights you now are saying are inviolable.

While I believe actually amending the act to include [space] artifacts is a long shot, that it can be suggested at all on these boards means collectors such as myself need to be vigilant and try to point out, to others whose minds perhaps aren't yet made up, the downsides and consequences of the kind of change you seem to have earlier advocated.

quote:

---

Originally posted by fredtrav:
A whitelist can also strengthen a persons property rights. It gives the owner of an artifact the right not to sell it to someone he believes will not take care of it and to sell it to someone who will.

---

A whitelist doesn't confer any right that doesn't already exist without the list.

As Greggy_D pointed out earlier in this thread, only in a non-auction sale can a seller directly control to whom an item is sold, so just a simple agreement between two parties is enough to establish an understanding as to what special conditions need to be in place to consummate a sale.

For the reasons above I find a "whitelist" to be therefore only so much public posturing, but I certainly have no objection to it and think it's fine if enough people want to establish one. I completely agree the right of free speech is most certainly no less important than property rights.

posted 09-15-2012 10:17 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by chet:
Though I believe it would be wonderful if everyone took on the responsibilities of being good caretakers, there is NO OBLIGATION to do so.

---

The encouragement to remain listed is whatever benefits the whitelist offers, even if it is only a sense of community.

quote:

---

And if being a good conservator is what qualifies one for inclusion on the "white" list, I suppose I should be on it after all.

---

It could be as simple as a statement that the undersigned agree to not further segment the space artifacts and memorabilia within their possession, regardless if that possession is by purchase, consignment or donation.

quote:

---

Both seem to reflect "good" and "responsible" caretaking, but what gets by as "good enough" for the "white" list, and perhaps most importantly, exactly who decides?

---

A whitelist is only effective if its membership roll is significant, so it is within the community's interest to make it as inclusive as possible, without violating the basic tenets of why it exists.

As an aside, you've introduced a fallacy into the discussion. A replica, whether it is a high-resolution copy or a clone, is not a substitute for an artifact.

For example, no matter how high a quality reproduction the National Archives can produce, there is no substitute for the original Constitution or Declaration of Independence.

posted 09-15-2012 12:56 PM               

Since the "whitelist" will not confer any special or additional rights which don't already exist, and since instruction sites as to how to properly care for historic artifacts already abound (see the Kansas Historical Foundation for example), the whitelist will not serve any other function but for its signators to be able to publicly trumpet their preference for one set of "principles" over others. As such it is preferable to a "blacklist", certainly, but in form and function it actually serves no purpose other than pronouncement. As it would be somewhat inocuous, I'd not object to the establishment of a "whitelist", but let's all understand it for the type of grandstanding maneuver it would, in all actuality, be.

(A list of all cS members who wish to declare their distaste for meatloaf would probably be just about as useful).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
As an aside, you've introduced a fallacy into the discussion. A replica, whether it is a high-resolution copy or a clone, is not a substitute for an artifact.

---

What some here have been clamoring for is the preservation of the legacy of our space programs for future generations, and I concur. For that purpose replicas of some materials are perfectly functional substitutes to accomplish that end. I'm well aware of the difference between a copy of the Declaration of Independence, for example, and the true article, but let's not begin to mix apples and oranges.

posted 09-15-2012 01:16 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by chet:
Since the "whitelist" will not confer any special or additional rights which don't already exist...

---

If a museum decides to offer a special behind-the-scenes tour or preservation class only to the members of the list, that would be a perk for membership.

Those are just two examples, I can think of others that are possible...

quote:

---

Museum displays abound with replicas.

---