|
Author
|
Topic: Fair offer for Hubble solar cell acrylic?
|
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 4437
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 07-30-2010 05:04 PM
   
In my opinion, the risk of NASA IG engagement is negligible ...the artifact was encapsulated so its clearly intended to be a memento and to avoid further subdivision (although encapsulation hasn't stopped a few entrepreneurial dealers from extracting embedded material and reselling  ) - the Government employee re-gifted this item (which is not prohibited by federal statute), and is therefore not directly profiting from its sale. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 07-30-2010 05:35 PM
quote:
Originally posted by SpaceAholic:
In my opinion, the risk of NASA IG engagement is negligible...
...which is why, in my opinion, there is little reason not to first verify the sale with NASA first. Ownership is (as represented) not at question, so there is little to lose. |
mjanovec
Member Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 07-30-2010 07:32 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Ownership is (as represented) not at question, so there is little to lose.
There is not much to gain either, unless one enjoys the headache of dealing with a government bureaucracy. NASA is likely not interested in doing anything to help the current owner sell the item. In fact, given the opportunity, they may prefer to do the opposite. I suspect there are officials within NASA who would love to reclaim some of the artifacts that are held within private collections. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 07-30-2010 07:43 PM
Experience suggests differently. While I am aware -- and disagree with -- some of the tactics that NASA OIG has employed to investigate suspected stolen artifacts -- I have also had NASA agents freely assist with clearing items for sale, both for myself and on behalf of other collectors. I called and spoke to a NASA OIG agent about this case back in June (I kept the details generic). He didn't feel there would be any issues but thought it was a good idea if the owner got in touch with NASA's General Counsel Office for guidance. |
Rizz
Member Posts: 1208
From: Upcountry, Maui, Hawaii
Registered: Mar 2002
|
posted 07-30-2010 10:34 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
The issue here may not be the Hubble cells themselves but that they are being sold by a family member of the still-in-hire government employee that received them.
I am personally not interested in buying this piece, mostly following the threads progression, but don't people routinely 'buy/sell' shuttle flown flags etc, that were given or gifted to employees that worked on specific missions?What is the difference? Just curious. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 07-30-2010 10:48 PM
The difference or key point is if the seller -- or someone directly connected to the seller -- is still employed as a federal employee and was the original recipient of the item being sold. Once retired, the former employee is free to sell anything in their legal possession. For the record, given the background as presented, I don't think there is a problem with the solar cells being sold. But the fact that first attempt at a sale already (apparently) caused problems for the original recipient at work led to concerns being raised... |
advertisement