posted 07-02-2011 08:03 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Mitchell isn't being persecuted, he's being prosecuted; the charges filed are not targeted at him, but at an object in his custody.

---

posted 07-02-2011 08:03 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by mode1charlie:
So... unless Mitchell can prove NASA gave it to him, and unless the statute of limitations has passed, your position is that he should be prosecuted?

---

No, simply pointing out that retention of the artifact in lieu of compensation for his service is not supported in law and inconsistent with general policy governing federal employment.

posted 07-02-2011 12:03 PM               

In the Mitchell situation, the government is using its discretion to distinguish between a camera it wants from other CM and LM parts and pieces it is okay for an astronaut to have retained from the Apollo missions. Clearly the government wants to own the flown spacesuits, Omega watches, and cameras from the missions, along with the moon rocks and some moon dust.

Personally I don't see where the government's position with regard to the Mitchell movie camera makes a lot of sense. The camera could have been abandoned and left on the moon. In reality, since the astronauts instructions were to leave the camera behind and abandon it (unless they wanted to salvage it themselves), this seems to me to be like all other other LM parts (flashlights, optical sights, arm rests, clamps, etc.) which the government has never (at least not yet) claimed that the astronauts which kept them did not get ownership.

Furthermore, the government's position can't be based on the historic importance of the camera since the astronauts were allowed to keep (or were "given") the more historically important mission manuals and maps.

posted 07-02-2011 03:36 PM               

Also, keep in mind... the lawsuit may have the name NASA on it as the plaintiff, but the decision to go after this equipment wasn't made by NASA (per se), but by some government employee/bureaucrats who thought/think this idea to sue Mitchell is a good one. It isn't.

There are many legalities involved here, but the most important one is, who actually owns the camera. According to laws governing abandoned property (which this camera certainly is, since NASA fully planned its abandonment), Mitchell didn't need Kraft's (or anyone else's) permission to keep it.

Once property is abandoned, it by law becomes the property of whoever "finds" it, so the only person Mitchell might've had to consult with is Alan Shepard, who also might've been interested in holding onto it.

posted 07-02-2011 04:38 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by chet:
...the lawsuit may have the name NASA on it as the plaintiff

---

NASA is not involved in the lawsuit, other than its indirect connection as being a federal agency in the United States of America.

quote:

---

According to laws governing abandoned property (which this camera certainly is, since NASA fully planned its abandonment), Mitchell didn't need Kraft's (or anyone else's) permission to keep it.

---

posted 07-02-2011 05:14 PM               

Also, I wasn't literally referring to any "law of finds" (finders-keepers), but to the premise of laws regarding abandoned property.

What rules/regulations state that the U.S. Government can reclaim property even after it has been abandoned? (I guess at the very least this calls into question the definition of "explicit", insofar as how you've mentioned it, Robert).

If the flight plans called for the camera to be abandoned, what regulations could possibly allow the government (40 years later, mind you - thus calling into question the whole legal concept of usucaption) to now claim this doesn't constitute purposeful and explicit deacquisition?

posted 07-02-2011 06:08 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by chet:
According to laws governing abandoned property (which this camera certainly is, since NASA fully planned its abandonment), Mitchell didn't need Kraft's (or anyone else's) permission to keep it.

---

posted 07-02-2011 07:41 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Under current federal law, government property ("state property") remains government property until it is purposely and explicitly deaccessed (disowned).

---

We know from the Apollo 14 stowage lists that Mitchell's camera was expected to be left on the moon. The camera is listed as stowed on the LM at launch and is not included among the items the astronauts are instructed to transfer to the CM before LM liftoff. This is not merely an oversight since the lunar Hasselblad camera which was on the LM is listed as property to be transferred to the CM.

However, does the government's intent to leave this camera on the moon constitute purposely and explicitly deaccessing (disowning)it? In a some ways probably not.

The LM and other artifacts at the landing site are considered part of an historic site (world heritage site) and the government would not want the next people that come along - even in ten or fifty years - to claim anything or everything at the site as their property.

However, Mitchell and the other astronauts are not like anyone else who comes along later. They were given permission to take back to earth various items from the LM that were to be left on the moon whether or not they were all purposely and explicitly deaccessed (disowned).

Furthermore, by instructing the astronauts to leave the camera on the moon this is some indication how important or unimportant it was to the government to have it back on earth. As I discussed before, unless the camera was expressly excluded from the property that they could take back and keep (say like an extra moon rock or two), they should have a good case for keeping what they took back.

That said, it would be nice to know who previously approached Mitchell from the government to "return" the camera and when this happened. Was it was a contemporaneous request made shortly after the mission or one years later?

posted 07-02-2011 08:14 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by chet:
If the flight plans called for the camera to be abandoned, what regulations could possibly allow the government... to now claim this doesn't constitute purposeful and explicit deacquisition?

---

The United Nations' Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, or as it is more commonly known, the "Outer Space Treaty," establishes:

A State Party to the Treaty on whose registry an object launched into outer space is carried shall retain jurisdiction and control over such object, and over any personnel thereof, while in outer space or on a celestial body. Ownership of objects launched into outer space, including objects landed or constructed on a celestial body, and of their component parts, is not affected by their presence in outer space or on a celestial body or by their return to the Earth. Such objects or component parts found beyond the limits of the State Party to the Treaty on whose registry they are carried shall be returned to that State Party, which shall, upon request, furnish identifying data prior to their return.

posted 07-02-2011 08:54 PM               

There was some mention of this auction in April on collectSPACE and during an interesting exchange" SpaceAholic mentions that on non "J" series missions only one DAC was flown on the lunar module.

This camera filmed descent was dismantled and placed on the MET to record lunar traverse. The liftoff of the ascent LM stage Antares was famously recorded from within the module.

If this was filmed by the same DAC, presumably reinstalled in the ascent stage as there was only one it was never intended to be left on the surface at the landing site.

Now I wonder what was meant to happen next? Was it due to be destroyed in the ascent stage when the stage was in collision with the moon after crew transfer to the CSM or was it meant to return to Earth?

If it were the former I assume NASA didn't want the unit back.

If it were the latter surely someone would have inquired at the time about its whereabouts.

posted 07-02-2011 09:17 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by SpaceAholic:
Somebody actually visits my site?

---

Yep, several times, and not just recently. Great stuff, although I confess I don't know what half of it did, much less how it works...

posted 07-02-2011 09:49 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by SpaceAholic:
Abandoned with the LM to impact the lunar surface (rather then being transferred to the CM for the return home).

---

posted 07-02-2011 10:16 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Mitchell isn't being persecuted, he's being prosecuted; the charges filed are not targeted at him, but at an object in his custody.

---

However, as they are seeking recompense for the attorneys and other fees, you can bet it will be very VERY costly.

posted 07-02-2011 10:16 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
NASA is not involved in the lawsuit...

---

Plaintiff, United States of America, on behalf of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), by and through the undersigned Assistant United States Attorney...

The United States of America (United States) brings this action on behalf of NASA, an agency of the United States. NASA is responsible for the nation's civilian space program and aeronautics and aerospace research.

posted 07-02-2011 10:57 PM               

If Defendant proceeds with his intention of selling the NASA camera, the United States would be irreparably harmed.

posted 07-03-2011 12:21 AM               

I suppose one could make the case that at least the U.S. Attorney was thinking about going after compensation from Mitchell to protect the use of taxpayer funds for this little (and I do mean little) exercise, but all this raises, for me, another question: to who can I write to see about having these "Captain Dunsels" removed from active duty to SAVE us taxpayers the money being frittered away on their specific positions and salaries?

As to the point raised by Scott (SpaceAholic) about Mitchell still needing a "senior government official's determination to stow and return the camera on-board federally owned conveyance", I suppose you'd need to ask Alan Shepard, the flight's Commander, about that. Were he still with us he might've pointed out that while the PPK's were limited to 8 ounces, the return of the camera would not have been included in that weight total since it was not part of Mitchell's PPK total at Earth liftoff.

And while one could, again, make a case against Mitchell if it could be determined that he premeditatedly left an equally weighted moon rock on the surface so he could transport the DAC back to Earth in its place... well, good luck with that.

Or maybe the U.S. Attorney should throw in charges that Mitchell owes us taxpayers the return of the cost (in today's dollars, of course) of the additional propellant needed to transport the camera back to Earth?

And last, though Robert points to "The United Nations' Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies", it should be noted that the U.S. (thankfully) was not a signatory to that U.N. gobbledygook.

Also, even if in 1984 NASA and the NASM began work to transfer ownership of the remaining U.S. hardware on the moon to the collection under supervision of the Smithsonian, how does this affect the disposition of a piece of equipment no longer in the NASA's possession (but in fact at that time already in Mitchell's for some 13 years?)

By what accounting or U.S. regulation was that camera not abandoned property? The U.S. has a great claim on anything still left on the moon (or still orbiting around the moon, the sun or on its way to other solar systems, since these haven't become anyone else's possession yet), but by what reasoning or statute does NASA still stake claim to an abandoned DAC? (I haven't been able to find any laws or regulations stating that U.S. Government property (more than anyone else's or more than any other kind) must be "purposefully and explicitly" de-acquisitioned or disowned before it can be considered abandoned).

posted 07-03-2011 01:09 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by chet:
Were he still with us he might've pointed out that while the PPK's were limited to 8 ounces, the return of the camera would not have been included in that weight total since it was not part of Mitchell's PPK total at Earth liftoff.

---

posted 07-03-2011 01:53 AM               

05 23 43 47 CC Ed, this is Houston. I'd like to read you up some extra return items, if you got a piece of paper around.

05 23 43 58 LMP Okay, I'm ready to copy.

05 23 43 59 CC Okay, item number 1, the 100-foot tether. Over

05 23 44 11 LMP Okay, we got that one.

05 23 44 13 CC Number 2, the LEC waste/tether combination. Over

05 23 44 24 LMP Okay.

05 23 44 26 CC Number 3, 30-foot tiedown webbing. Over.

05 23 44 43 LMP Okay.

05 23 44 46 CC Item number 4 - -

05 23 44 47 CMP Okay, I'm cracking the hatch now.

05 23 44 48 CC -- We would like to bring back the Commander's Hasselblad and recommend that that go in the ISA. If you want to bring back the LMP Hasselblad, also that could go in B-1. but we need the Commander's Hasselblad. Over.

05 23 45 06 LMP (Laughter) We thought about bringing them both back, but since you said not to, we left one on the surface. But you'll have the CDR's.

05 23 45 14 CC Roger, we copy. Item number 5, we want both of the LMP's EVA gloves. Over.

05 23 45 26 LMP Okay, they're aboard.

05 23 45 30 CC And of course, we're going to bring back the docking probe. Now on stowage: the first three items, the tethers and the webbing, can go in the temporary stowage bags in the command module. The Hasselblad in the ISA, which is normal, and your gloves can go in the PGA bag, and the probe up underneath the right-hand couch in the temporary stowage location.

05 23 45 49 LMP Okay, we've already stowed most of this stuff, Bruce. The tether - the 100-foot tether is already in the ISA; the LEC waste tethers can go in the TSB and so can the 30-foot tiedown webbing, The Commander's Hasselblad we can put in the ISA: the EVA gloves are already in the ISA.

05 23 46 26 CC Okay, stand by, please.

05 23 47 25 CC Ed, this is Houston. Over.

05 23 47 31 LMP Go ahead.

05 23 47 33 CC We'd like to get the - the tethers. especially the 100-foot tether, out of the ISA, because you're going to be bagging the ISA in a - a contamination bag, and we plan on using the 100-foot tether, the LEC waste tether, and the 30 feet of tiedown for securing the docking probe for reentry; so we'd like - if you can do it without impact, we'd like you to get that stuff out before you put the ISA in the contamination bag. All the other stowage is okay. Over.

posted 07-03-2011 02:19 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fezman92:
How would the United States be "irreparably harmed" by the sale?

---

What many people seem to be ignoring is that the law's the law, no matter how ridiculous it seems in some circumstances (although in this case, if the camera is really government property, I can fully understand why they'd want it back). Hero status doesn't put someone above the law.

posted 07-03-2011 02:23 AM               

06 20 50 03 CC 14, Houston. You reported to us earlier that the weight of the ISA as determined on the lunar surface prior to lift-off was 50 pounds. If, in your opinion, this weight has changed to greater then 55 pounds as a result of the LM return to CSM stowage, then we'll have to make provisions for tying it down. We'd like to get your feel for what the current weight on the ISA is. Over.

06 20 50 46 LMP Roger, Bruce. We'll tell you it weighs exactly 54.9 for the ISA

06 20 50 52 CC Okay, Ed. We copy 54.9 for the ISA.

06 20 51 47 LMP Houston, 14.

06 20 51 49 CC Go ahead, 14.

06 20 51 53 LMP A clarification on the ISA, remember now, there are a few program things that are listed in the flight plan that went into it after it was weighed. Are you taking that into account?

06 20 52 08 CC Roger. We got the weight at 50 pounds from the lunar surface and can add in, if you like, down here those things. We were just interested in getting your feel for what had all been put in. And, if so, what the - what the weight increase would be.

06 20 52 30 LMP Okay, Bruce. This - The things that are in the flight plan to go into the ISA were added in as programed. And any additional items are almost negligible in weight and certain - certainly did not violate your 5- pound criterion.

06 20 52 47 CC Okay. Thank you, Ed.

06 23 08 18 LMP Okay, back to our ISA weight problem

06 23 08 28 CC I didn't know we had a problem, but go ahead.

06 23 08 32 LMP Okay, I was jumped on by both sources, here; it's not a problem; it was a question. the ISA contains the 50 pounds we measured on the surface, less the 100-foot tether, plus the 70-millimeter camera and magazine, plus a pair of EVA gloves, plus the return items on Deke's list.

06 23 09 12 CC Okay, Ed. We've got that, and we;ll work the arithmetic on the weights from down here and keep you advised. Over.

posted 07-03-2011 05:07 AM               

While I would hate to see Ed Mitchell suffer in any way over all this, it seems to me that the astronauts simply did not, and do not, own the equipment that went with them to the moon.

Anything they were allowed to keep was by the good grace of NASA, surely?

posted 07-03-2011 06:11 AM               

These items were not listed for transfer to the CM from the LM (apparently including this LM DAC), and so were abandoned by official representatives of the US government (NASA employees tasked with determining what was to be returned and what was to be abandoned). These plans were approved by more senior US government representatives with expertise and authority in this matter, who gave their signatures to the plans. What perhaps was needed was a government contracts person stapling a DD1149 form to the plan, officially abandoning the LM and its parts. As ridiculous as that sounds, that seems to be what today's prosecutors want to see.

It was certainly understood that the astronauts could remove any LM items to keep for themselves, as the practice went back to at least Apollo 10. There was no additional cost in returning these items, as they had already been launched to lunar orbit. If it had been a problem the time for action was 1969.

posted 07-03-2011 06:21 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by chet:
...it should be noted that the U.S. (thankfully) was not a signatory to that U.N. gobbledygook.

---

quote:

---

Also, even if in 1984 NASA and the NASM began work to transfer ownership... how does this affect the disposition of a piece of equipment no longer in the NASA's possession?

---

posted 07-03-2011 08:57 AM               

Abandoned property doesn't become unabandoned because somebody changes their mind -- the law just doesn't work that way. NASA may want a crack at convincing a judge otherwise, but unless Robert can cite something that says the government has super powers over abandoned property other entities don't, that camera rightfully and lawfully belongs to Mitchell.

Nothing posted since infers that the government has any more right to change its mind about that now than it did if it had demanded the camera back when the CM hatch popped open in the Pacific. If it was abandoned property (and especially documentedly so), it became Mitchell's property the minute he decided to bring it back and call it his.

posted 07-03-2011 09:44 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Colin E. Anderton:
Anything they were allowed to keep was by the good grace of NASA, surely?

---

posted 07-03-2011 10:01 AM               

After the Apollo 15 scandal there were a lot of investigations not only into the covers and the Franklin Mint medallions, but also "moon souvenirs" of the astronauts -- what they took with, what they took off the space craft, and what they could keep and how it could be disposed of. As Robert has alluded to before, there are many NASA documents and memos to this effect -- and many authorizing specific items and class of items okay to keep, and seriously questioning NASA's ability to do anything about it once an astronaut left NASA.

Additionally, in interviews by Deke Slayton in 1972, he has specifically stated that he has condoned the keeping by astronauts of equipment, parts and souvenirs taken from the LM, the lunar rovers, the command module, etc., and said that all the astronauts took such items, and that he kept a complete list, and that he condoned it and the keeping of items. He also refused to release the lists, calling it private and "the business of the astronauts."

We also know that the published stowage lists, transcripts, etc. do not include everything -- do not include "smuggled on contraband" that is exemplified by the Beep Beep patches, the DeDe Lind cue card, and many other Gotcha and other examples.

Fact of the matter is, given the rapid change of not only policy and personnel, but also attitude, post Apollo 15 and the close out of the lunar program, these issues swim in gray and murky waters, where policy changed MANY times -- driven usually by political expedience sparked by external PR issues and a changing national opinion. Everything that any of us as "outsiders" can discuss here is only limited conjecture and partial picture.

Personally, I believe Edgar in the right here, given what I know of policy and attitudes and stated practice at the time of his service (which all changed after he left). I personally feel he will come out on top in this process.

posted 07-03-2011 10:43 AM               

It pains me but as I see it if the plan called for the camera to be destroyed it was to be destroyed, I suspect areas such as discipline and safety could come into this.

This comes up in many other areas of life where one is asked by an owner to dispose of items by destruction one cannot legitimately put these in a bag, walk off and sell them on at a later date (of course in reality this does happen).

There was the recent case of the KSC employee charged with theft of asShuttle tile due for destruction, the defense that others did it because it/they were to be destroyed doesn't seem to have washed.

I'm sure a lot will hinge on permissions and even then whether that permission had authority.

The instance that also comes to mind is the return of the philatelic covers to the Apollo 15 crew which caused such a fuss after if I recall correctly it was decided these were the astronauts' property to the chagrin of NASA.

This seems to be the reverse with NASA asking for its own property back possibly seeing the large sums of money involved and to set a precedent dissuading others from profiting maybe with so many space shuttle items due for disposal in the near future.

The government through the armed forces jealously guard their right to property, an example was examined in length in another group with the possible recovery of the remains of the famous "66" Sea King from the depths with the conclusion that the U.S. Navy held the rights to the aircraft no matter who recovered it.

Having said all this purely for the sake of discussion I hope Ed Mitchell gets to keep the unit and enjoy his retirement. If the government/NASA does decide to push this to its limit maybe he and some other astronauts will think twice about being trotted out by NASA when they want examples of what the space program is all about and their heroic exploits.

posted 07-03-2011 11:29 AM               

Even assuming a court determines that the camera was abandoned property and NASA no longer owned it, the court still must determine if Mitchell was authorized to return the camera to earth and keep it. For example, every rock on the moon was not "owned" by NASA but no astronaut was authorized to bring home extra ones for himself.

As for cameras, it seems generally understood that NASA wanted back the Hasselblad still cameras and any returned to earth would remain NASA property.

What leads me to believe that the data acquisition camera fell into the category of non reusable or to-be-destroyed items that the astronauts were allowed to keep, by general or written policies at the time of the Apollo 14 mission, is that so many other LM flown items were kept and sold by the astronauts and never claimed by NASA.

posted 07-03-2011 11:56 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by rjurek349:
We also know that the published stowage lists, transcripts, etc. do not include everything -- do not include "smuggled on contraband" that is exemplified by the Beep Beep patches, the DeDe Lind cue card, and many other Gotcha and other examples.

---

posted 07-03-2011 02:14 PM               

To reiterate somewhat, if NASA had declared the items left on the moon abandoned, and then had a change of heart, it could restate its claim to all of it since nobody has had the wherewithal to travel there and take possession in the intervening period. But again, that is NOT the case with the camera. It was abandoned, and Mitchell since claimed possession. For NASA to come forward some 40 years later and lay claim to it is not only not grounded under abandonment law, but seems to me to be pretty arrogant as well. And for the lawsuit to request compensatory legal fees from Mitchell (should NASA prevail) seems just a final lame layer of frosting on their entire half-baked cake, in my opinion.