Posts: 4167
From: England
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 06-15-2012 03:57 PM               

---

Just spotted a very interesting Apollo translational controller on eBay (150836629192) which the seller claims is from a GSA sale and was originally a simulator piece.

Correct me if I am wrong guys but the removal tag would appear to suggest the item is from S/C 109 (Apollo 13 Odyssey). There is also a label marked 1995 on the side as well.

Around 1995 a number of hardware items were loaned out for the making of the Apollo 13 movie.

And then there was the issue of artifacts going missing/being sold unlawfully from the Kansas Cosmosphere.

I suspect this item, as nice as it may be, belongs not in private hands but back in the Kansas Cosmosphere.

Scott, John or anybody else care to comment?

Posts: 107
From: Cleveland, Ohio, USA
Registered: Jul 2005

Posts: 782
From:
Registered: Mar 2009

posted 06-15-2012 05:59 PM               

---

The collectSPACE article Missing artifacts total more than 400 lists a Translation Controller as missing following its loan to the movie production.

No serial numbers are identified in this list to tie it to the eBay item in question but it fits the pattern suggested.

Posts: 853
From: Danville, Ohio
Registered: Dec 2002

posted 06-15-2012 09:44 PM               

---

I don't have any details on the missing Cosmosphere items. And I am also intrigued by the "S/C 109" entry. But this serial number does not match the flown Apollo 13 serial number that is in my database (from what I believe is a reliable source). Even the last four digits of the part number don't match. So for me the details on this are a mystery. The "1995" appears to be a standard NASA inventory tag. It would only tell us that the unit was made surplus sometime after that.

------------------
John Fongheiser
Historic Space Systems

Posts: 2454
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009

posted 06-18-2012 01:40 AM               

---

It may seem an odd question — but why would a film with a multi-million dollar budget want to 'borrow' an historic artifact when they had the capability to construct a realistic imitation that would serve just as well, especially when those viewing the finished film would be unable to detect the difference?

It doesn't make sense.

Posts: 1966
From: Atlanta, GA
Registered: Feb 2007

posted 06-18-2012 05:37 AM               

---

Because of the enthusiasm for the space program held by the producers and director of the film. They would love not only having the real thing in their movie, but the inside joke (knowledge, story) that only a few people knew they had the real thing.

Having said that I have no idea if this piece is indeed from the movie and/or the flight.

On edit: Robert's point about saving money is equally valid.

Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 06-18-2012 06:16 AM               

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by moorouge:
It doesn't make sense.

---

It makes a lot of sense — and cents.

Regardless of how large a film's budget, there are always people looking for ways to shave pennies off the production costs. Borrowing an artifact is cheaper than creating a new one from scratch, especially when you have a museum eager to assist.

Posts: 4167
From: England
Registered: Feb 2001