|
Author
|
Topic: 330513683599: Possible Challenger fragment
|
mjanovec
Member Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 01-06-2011 01:08 PM
   
Earlier today, another collector alerted me to an auction on eBay with what might be a piece of Challenger from the 51L accident. (Edit: The listing has since been removed by eBay, as of January 7, 2011.)From a visual inspection of the auction photos, it does appear to be aircraft-grade construction at first glance. The metal also appears to be torn and stressed in a manner similar to what you'd expect to see from a crash or accident. If the sellers story is true, it could possibly be a part of the orbiter, external tank, or an SRB. Of course, it could also turn out to be something else...a piece of an aircraft or some other object. I would caution people against bidding on this item, since owning a piece of the Challenger debris is illegal (as it is still government property). Even if you win the auction, you'll likely have to forfeit the item so it can be investigated. |
GACspaceguy
Member Posts: 2475
From: Guyton, GA
Registered: Jan 2006
|
posted 01-06-2011 01:27 PM
The fasteners shown are defiantly aerospace type and are clearly what are called Hi-Shear rivets (looks like HS11 pins and HS15 collars based on the fact that the pin is corroded it looks like it is alloy steel and the red collar). It looks to be attaching splice of aluminum skins. I sent the seller a note that it is illegal to own Challenger parts and describing something that it is not is fraud.
|
GACspaceguy
Member Posts: 2475
From: Guyton, GA
Registered: Jan 2006
|
posted 01-06-2011 01:28 PM
Also the construction and fasteners are typical of that era.
|
GACspaceguy
Member Posts: 2475
From: Guyton, GA
Registered: Jan 2006
|
posted 01-06-2011 02:20 PM
Here is my reply from the seller: I MAKE NO CLAIMS TO WHAT IT IS BUT IT SURE LOOKS LIKE SOMETHING OFF THE CHALLENGER. It looks like...one can read into it what they want, I'm guessing it may be a piece off a boat,ship,or anything someone would dump in the ocean. I'm done with it.
|
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-06-2011 02:23 PM
Thanks for sharing your insight into the hardware Fred and thank you Mark, for bringing this sale to everyone's attention. |
AJ
Member Posts: 511
From: Plattsburgh, NY, United States
Registered: Feb 2009
|
posted 01-06-2011 03:48 PM
What a jerk. So he's not making any claims as to what it is, but he's listing it with Challenger in the listing title and making plenty of claims that it might be. Add on the fact that he's playing on that name to try and make money and you've got, in my opinion, an opportunist and a jerk. I would think eBay would pull the listing. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-06-2011 03:53 PM
I reported the sale to NASA's Office of the Inspector General and spoke to one of their agents not too long ago. They were grateful for the report and were going to take action. |
AJ
Member Posts: 511
From: Plattsburgh, NY, United States
Registered: Feb 2009
|
posted 01-06-2011 04:10 PM
Good to hear! Regardless of whether the item actually is or is not wreckage from Challenger, the seller is using that as a ploy to sell his item. That's despicable. |
mjanovec
Member Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 01-06-2011 04:25 PM
No matter how I look at it, I believe the seller is violating the law. He either has a piece of Challenger in his possession, which is automatically illegal. Or he believes he possibly has a piece of Challenger in his possession, is advertising it as such, and is therefore taking actions which are likely illegal by attempting to sell the piece (instead of turning it over to NASA).It's not much different than trying to sell a bag of white powder on eBay, speculating that it might possibly be cocaine. Imagine if the seller said "I MAKE NO CLAIMS TO WHAT IT IS BUT IT SURE LOOKS LIKE COCAINE TO ME." |
fredtrav
Member Posts: 1673
From: Birmingham AL
Registered: Aug 2010
|
posted 01-06-2011 05:17 PM
Not to be a devils advocate here, and yes the guy is a jerk for not pulling it, but I doubt most people would know that it is illegal to own a piece of this shuttle. Of course once he was told that it was illegal then he should have stopped the auction. Does anyone know what the listing said before he was told it was illegal? |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-06-2011 05:28 PM
quote:
Originally posted by fredtrav:
I doubt most people would know that it is illegal to own a piece of this shuttle.
Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. If he is capable of creating a listing on eBay, he is capable of spending a few extra moments to research what he has. quote:
Does anyone know what the listing said before he was told it was illegal?
The listing was not edited. For posterity, the seller's description: Challenger Space Shuttle 86' What I Found On BeachI don't know what it is, or what it is from. I was a Florida resident for 18 years and never found anything like this on the east coast beach. Our weekends were going to Cape Canaveral, Daytona and spending the day playing in the sun. We were walking the beach and I saw this piece of metal. I have had thid [sic] since September 1986. I once found an article from an overseas newspaper, showing the same thing i have now. Found on the beach so far away. I make no claims to what it is but it sure looks like something off the Challenger. This not a joke I really found this as I stated maybe some would like to have it.  
|
fredtrav
Member Posts: 1673
From: Birmingham AL
Registered: Aug 2010
|
posted 01-06-2011 06:22 PM
Robert- Since most do not know it is illegal, I doubt many would even think of checking whether it is legal or not. I do not fault him there. The fact that he was told it was illegal should have given him pause, and he should have pulled it at that point. Also the smarmy wording telling you he does not know what it is but it sure looks like a piece of the Challenger is reprehensible. The reason I asked about the original listing was I wanted to know if he had changed the wording from it was a piece from Challenger to I don't know what it is but maybe... |
mjanovec
Member Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005
|
posted 01-06-2011 06:44 PM
quote:
Originally posted by fredtrav:
Robert- Since most do not know it is illegal, I doubt many would even think of checking whether it is legal or not. I do not fault him there.
I agree with Robert here: ignorance is no excuse. A quick Google search would have told him that it was illegal to possess or sell such debris. I also think the wording for the listing was meant to skirt the issue. The seller likely figured that if they didn't directly claim it to be a piece of Challenger, they would not be held accountable for selling it. |
jemmy
Member Posts: 176
From:
Registered: Dec 2010
|
posted 01-06-2011 07:00 PM
Also, by saying he was going to give 10% to charity looks like this person was going to try and redeem his guilt (A small piece).Sold for $76, minus (Charity) $7.60 and eBay/Paypal fees. What was the point? He is $50 better off (crazy). I would have got a better thrill returning it officially to NASA. |
FFrench
Member Posts: 3161
From: San Diego
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 01-07-2011 12:36 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
I reported the sale to NASA's Office of the Inspector General and spoke to one of their agents not too long ago. They were grateful for the report and were going to take action.
This seems like an opportune moment to mention that anyone can email NASA's Office of the Inspector General via their web site. As items on the internet and other sources can sometimes come and go fast, a quick report can ensure that genuine Challenger fragments are returned to the appropriate place. |
arjuna
unregistered
|
posted 01-07-2011 05:07 AM
This should have been reported to eBay as well as to NASA - did someone notify the former? |
Lunar rock nut
Member Posts: 911
From: Oklahoma city, Oklahoma U.S.A.
Registered: Feb 2007
|
posted 01-07-2011 07:35 AM
I find it hard to believe at some point this seller had not seen something about the prosecutions involved over the Columbia accident. I think this old boy was probing with the belief after all this time in his posession that a statute of limitations had passed at some point without realising there is no limit. Is he ever in for a surprise. |
Steve Procter
Member Posts: 1031
From: Leeds, Yorkshire, UK
Registered: Oct 2000
|
posted 01-07-2011 07:54 AM
Whatever he got for it, now there is the added situation of the buyer now potentially having something he shouldn't and subject to investigation. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-07-2011 08:05 AM
quote:
Originally posted by arjuna:
This should have been reported to eBay as well as to NASA - did someone notify the former?
NASA OIG can and does handle notifying eBay; the auction company has cooperated with the space agency in similar cases. |
cspg
Member Posts: 6210
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 01-07-2011 09:38 AM
quote:
Originally posted by FFrench:
...a quick report can ensure that genuine Challenger fragments are returned to the appropriate place.
A silo?  (I know, I know, we already had this discussion in another thread!) |
fredtrav
Member Posts: 1673
From: Birmingham AL
Registered: Aug 2010
|
posted 01-07-2011 03:17 PM
I hope this is not a stupid question, but I see fragments of many different Air Force and Navy jets that have crashed offered for sale both on eBay and other sites. People go out to crash sites and hunt down pieces. Are there different rules for this practice.I thought the government also owned these and it was illegal to take them. |
space_coast
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 01-07-2011 04:52 PM
eBay has removed the listing. I had it in my watched items and now it is gone. This listing (330513683599) has been removed, or this item is not available. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 01-07-2011 05:42 PM
quote:
Originally posted by fredtrav:
Are there different rules for this practice.
The rule that governs Challenger and Columbia debris is very simply theft of government property. NASA never relinquished ownership of either vehicle, thus they still belong to the space agency. There is no statute of limitations on the theft of government property. My guess is that the Air Force abandons/relinquishes ownership of any unrecovered debris after their investigation into the crash is complete. But it is really a question to pose to those who specialize in the recovery of relic debris, such as The X-Hunters. |
David Bryant
Member Posts: 986
From: Norfolk UK
Registered: Feb 2005
|
posted 01-13-2011 01:36 AM
I have corresponded with Peter Merlin of the X-Hunters for several years and traded with him a few times: he is scrupulous about obtaining permissions to search and remove aviation wreckage. As far as I can see, any historically important material he finds is offered to museums. He is a class act and a genuine aviation archaeologist: totally different to the EBay ghoul above! |
advertisement