Space News
space history and artifacts articles

Messages
space history discussion forums

Sightings
worldwide astronaut appearances

Resources
selected space history documents

  collectSPACE: Messages
  Hardware & Flown Items
  Apollo flown Kapton: authorized releases

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Apollo flown Kapton: authorized releases
Mike_The_First
Member

Posts: 436
From: USA
Registered: Jun 2014

posted 09-19-2016 01:39 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mike_The_First   Click Here to Email Mike_The_First     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I recall quite a few stories about the Apollo flown Kapton being (more-or-less) stolen by opportunistic souvenir hunters.

If that's true, would that technically (though, clearly, not practically) put ownership of those particular pieces of Kapton in the same capacity as ownership of pieces of Columbia or Challenger? Were there authorized releases of Kapton (and, if so, how might one distinguish between "good Kapton" and "black market Kapton")?

I'm contemplating a purchase of a display presentation, but if the legality is simply "there's so much out there that NASA has bigger fish to fry and decided it's just easier to look the other way," I'd prefer not to get involved for moral reasons.

SpaceAholic
Member

Posts: 4437
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 09-19-2016 07:05 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for SpaceAholic   Click Here to Email SpaceAholic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Possession of (post accident associated) components from Challenger and Columbia are subject to more aggressive replevin action by the government for different reasons then small samples of materials removed from intact government owned flight vehicles.

In the latter example, there is no prior precedent I am aware of to suggest the government will pursue these Kapton samples (but the risk going forward is not "0").

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 09-19-2016 07:24 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Mike_The_First:
Were there authorized releases of Kapton...
There weren't many formal presentations of Kapton, but an example of one would be the acrylic-disc-embedded Apollo 11 "Mylar" squares that were presented post-flight to members of the mission control team.

(A word of caution, though: in recent years, modern reproductions have been introduced to the market that did not originate from NASA.)

Mike_The_First
Member

Posts: 436
From: USA
Registered: Jun 2014

posted 09-19-2016 07:41 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mike_The_First   Click Here to Email Mike_The_First     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by SpaceAholic:
In the latter example, there is no prior precedent I am aware of to suggest the government will pursue these Kapton samples (but the risk going forward is not "0").
As I mentioned, it'd be more of a technical similarity (stolen government property is stolen government property) than a practical one, and, as such, for me, it's a moral issue, rather than a legal one.

Even if one were to assume that it's all genuine flown material (ignoring, as Robert warned below, reproductions or counterfeits that plague most, if not all, collectible hobbies), I see a difference between owning a piece that was salvaged without permission and a piece that exists by virtue of NASA officially relinquishing it. That's what guides my question, rather than a fear of prosecution on the level of Columbia, Challenger or moon rock ownership. (And, of course, even there I'm oversimplifying — as the parameters under which such ownership is illegal are relatively narrow in nature — but, I do so knowing that y'all grasp the gist of what I'm getting at.)

datkatz
Member

Posts: 176
From: New York, NY
Registered: Mar 2009

posted 09-19-2016 01:15 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for datkatz   Click Here to Email datkatz     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
NASA was certainly aware that the post-recovery procedures performed by Rockwell included the removal of all remaining Kapton. Did NASA ask that this material be returned? I don't know. But, if they did not, I would venture to say that Rockwell was thus given implied approval to do with it what they wished.

Mike_The_First
Member

Posts: 436
From: USA
Registered: Jun 2014

posted 09-19-2016 01:34 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mike_The_First   Click Here to Email Mike_The_First     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
All? So no unauthorized removals took place (nor could they have)?

That's good news, but I must admit, based on the past stories of over zealous souvenir hunters, I'm a bit skeptical.

Unless you mean they removed what was left after the random souvenir hunters got to it? If that's the case, it still goes to the heart of my question regarding authorized vs unauthorized (essentially stolen) Kapton, only changing minor aspects regarding the timeline and parties involved.

Not to mention that, while I've essentially said that I don't anticipate NASA to go after anyone at this point (and consider the issue to be a moral, rather than legal, one), there is a difference between saying "you can have it" and not saying "can I have it back." Unless it changed in the past few years after the Lovell checklist PR nightmare (I didn't really follow it), the law was always that property was NASA's until NASA said it wasn't. Not asking for it back didn't equate to NASA relinquishing ownership.

Of course, as I said, that may have changed and isn't really relevant anyway, since the legal issues aren't really worth worrying about when it comes to Kapton, but as it seems to be the crux of what you're getting at, I felt it worth bringing up.

datkatz
Member

Posts: 176
From: New York, NY
Registered: Mar 2009

posted 09-19-2016 02:06 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for datkatz   Click Here to Email datkatz     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
This applied to every flown Apollo spacecraft. You'd think that, after a while, if they thought there was any value whatsoever to the Kapton, NASA would have made damn sure to recover it.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 09-19-2016 02:18 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
This earlier thread discusses the removal of Kapton post-flight, both as a matter of processing and as mementos.

There were unauthorized removals. Citing a 1969 memo written by Jim McDivitt in his capacity as the Apollo Spacecraft Program Manager:

...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.

With regards to the 2012 law, it is only relevant for kapton pieces retained by the Apollo-era astronauts.

SpaceAholic
Member

Posts: 4437
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 09-19-2016 05:12 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for SpaceAholic   Click Here to Email SpaceAholic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Nice wabbit hole... not sure I wanna descend into it.

Mike_The_First
Member

Posts: 436
From: USA
Registered: Jun 2014

posted 09-20-2016 03:40 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Mike_The_First   Click Here to Email Mike_The_First     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by datkatz:
This applied to every flown Apollo spacecraft. You'd think that, after a while, if they thought there was any value whatsoever to the Kapton, NASA would have made damn sure to recover it.
Well, for starters, there's clearly value to it or it wouldn't be bought and sold as it is. Not to mention that NASA has never been that consistent with regards to enforcement or all that vigilant. When the law explicitly says that, unlike private entities, you own it until you explicitly renounce it, you really don't have to be.

There's really no such thing as "abandoned property" for agencies within the federal government, such as NASA or the military. It doesn't matter how much notice you give them, how long you have it, or how many people buy and sell it — it remains theirs until they explicitly say otherwise. That's one of many reasons that nobody's really gone out of their way to get Helo 66.

But that aside, perhaps I haven't been crystal clear. I'm not asking because I'm concerned about hearing from NASA's OIG, GC, or the FBI.

I'm asking because, personally, morally, I'd prefer not to purchase, own, or possess material that is technically stolen property, regardless of the existence or potential (or lack thereof) of any past, current, or future efforts to recover it. Kapton that was removed without authorization would, on the face, appear to fall into that "stolen property" category.

quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
With regards to the 2012 law, it is only relevant for kapton pieces retained by the Apollo-era astronauts.
What's the reach of that law? Would it move any flown Kapton that was ever owned, regardless of when or how briefly an ownership, by an Apollo-era astronaut into the "authorized" category or does it apply strictly to that which they held from the time of their mission and/or at the time of the law?

Again, I know there's pretty much zero chance of enforcement, especially if an Apollo astronaut at one time claimed ownership (they aren't going through that again), but am instead concerned only with what's considered, under the law (since there is no other basis for such a consideration), to be free to own and what's considered to technically be government property (even if that technicality exists solely on paper).

Robert Pearlman
Editor

Posts: 42981
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 09-20-2016 08:58 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The 2012 law confirmed the Apollo-era astronauts' title to any artifact received during his participation in the program. For the purposes of the bill, "artifact" was defined as:
...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 [NASA] 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.

All times are CT (US)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | The Source for Space History & Artifacts

Copyright 2020 collectSPACE.com All rights reserved.


Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47a





advertisement