Space News
space history and artifacts articles

Messages
space history discussion forums

Sightings
worldwide astronaut appearances

Resources
selected space history documents


Thread Closed  Topic Closed
  collectSPACE: Messages
  Space Explorers & Workers
  U.S. sues Edgar Mitchell to reclaim lunar camera (Page 4)

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


This topic is 7 pages long:   1  2  3  4  5  6  7 
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   U.S. sues Edgar Mitchell to reclaim lunar camera
Robert Pearlman
Editor

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

posted 07-05-2011 11:56 PM     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 chet:
I've been consistent in noting the concept of INTENTIONALITY as it applies to abandonment law.
The Navy holds a different interpretation of the law as it applies to abandoning government property.
These laws establish that right, title, or ownership of federal property is not lost to the government due to the passage of time, or by neglect or inaction. Ultimately, abandonment of government-owned ships and aircraft occurs only through congressional action.

...the property clause of the United States Constitution, Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2, [provides] that only Congress and those persons authorized by Congress can legally dispose of United States property pursuant to the appropriate regulations.

chet
Member

Posts: 1506
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 07-06-2011 12:47 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for chet   Click Here to Email chet     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I am aware of the case of United States v. Steinmetz (also known as the "Alabama Bell case), and the implications thereof.

But even the "Alabama Bell" case still deals with a wreck that wasn't intentioned to be a wreck.

The same cannot be said of NASA's planned intentions for the DAC.

And as you cited, Robert: the property clause of the United States Constitution, Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2, [provides] that only Congress and those persons authorized by Congress can legally dispose of United States property pursuant to the appropriate regulations [emphasis mine].

So we're still left with the question of whether those who drew up the flights plans, as those persons authorized by Congress, relinquished possession of the DAC some 40 years ago.

Not to mention the main question agitating so many cS'ers here... that of the wisdom and cost-effectiveness (even government lawyer fees and court costs go through $80,000 worth of auctioned DAC pretty quickly) of NASA bringing this suit against Mitchell. (Of course, government costs aren't a factor for those who would reap the benefits of having their names bandied about in the media by hounding a moonwalker).

moorouge
Member

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

posted 07-06-2011 01:08 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for moorouge   Click Here to Email moorouge     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Standing back from this, a couple of points.

It seems that an awful lot of hot air is being generated without a full knowledge of the facts. Surely, these won't come out until this case reaches the courts and witnesses can both give evidence and be cross-examined on that evidence. This is important as there seems to be a lot of hearsay evidence with a lot of, possibly, key persons now unable to give evidence.

I can see no problem with NASA gifting souvenirs of a mission to crew members. Isn't the difficulty here the obtuse legal point of when a gift ceases to be a gift. Can it be argued that this camera, given as a memento, is meant to remain in the recipients family? Does it change status as soon as it is offered for sale? At which point, what is the title to that camera of those gifting it in the first place?

Finally, will the Mitchell case set a legal precedent? If it does, this will be the importance, not whether Mitchell is allowed to keep it.

chet
Member

Posts: 1506
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 07-06-2011 01:23 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for chet   Click Here to Email chet     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
If NASA were to leave Mitchell alone if he were donating the proceeds of the sale to, say, the ASF, I'd still have a big problem with it if it wouldn't be leaving him alone if he just wanted to keep the proceeds himself. (Why should the causes important to Mitchell be any less sacrosanct than the causes "approved of" by NASA? If the camera is Mitchell's, it's his. If it isn't, it isn't. The social engineering aspect you hypothesize about in your post, moorouge, is something I would find every bit as repugnant as the lawsuit NASA has undertaken).

Also, PLEASE NOTE: I'm NOT in any way intending anything personal, of slight, or disrespect to moorouge, or anyone else here regarding this topic; my views may agitate, but I don't intend to disrespect or offend anyone -- well, except for those hounding Mitchell).

moorouge
Member

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

posted 07-06-2011 04:10 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for moorouge   Click Here to Email moorouge     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
No offense is taken Chet. It would be a dull world if everyone took the same view.

I didn't realise I had posed a 'social engineering' problem. I was merely wondering when a gift ceased to be a gift in a legal sense, especially when there were questions/conditions that might, or might not, be attached to the giving of that gift.

kosmo
Member

Posts: 388
From:
Registered: Sep 2001

posted 07-06-2011 05:58 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for kosmo     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
If this data acquisition camera was suppose to be left on Apollo 14's lunar module Antares because of weight restrictions, how did it become a gift? Does Dr. Mitchell really need the money? Why not just give the DAC back, so that it can be displayed in a museum for everyone to enjoy, instead of in the private hands of someone with a deep pocket book. In a way, these relics belong to all of us!

garymilgrom
Member

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

posted 07-06-2011 06:16 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for garymilgrom   Click Here to Email garymilgrom     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by chet:
Such is the strength of NASA's claim on the DAC if it is arguing on the basis of non-abandonment of the article (not to mention other well recognized legal principles, such as usucapture, that would in all likelihood trump NASA's contentions in this case).
When I search for usucapture on dictionary.com I get no such word. What does this mean? Thank you.

chet
Member

Posts: 1506
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 07-06-2011 03:52 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for chet   Click Here to Email chet     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
So sorry for the error. I meant usucaption, the legal definition of which can be found here.

Spacefest
Member

Posts: 1168
From: Tucson, AZ
Registered: Jan 2009

posted 07-07-2011 02:45 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Spacefest   Click Here to Email Spacefest     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I would think that crashing an object into lunar rock at sub-orbital speeds constitutes something more than "abandonment."

kosmo
Member

Posts: 388
From:
Registered: Sep 2001

posted 07-07-2011 04:05 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for kosmo     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Just a rough landing.

SpaceAholic
Member

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

posted 07-07-2011 05:10 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for SpaceAholic   Click Here to Email SpaceAholic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Spacefest:
I would think that crashing an object into lunar rock at sub-orbital speeds constitutes something more than "abandonment."
A 3 pound camera may not seem like much mass but its removal denied 1.92 million joules of impact energy to the Seismic and the Charged Particle Lunar Environment experiments. For comparison a 2200 pound vehicle slamming into a brick wall at 60 miles an hour only has 350K joules of energy...

yeknom-ecaps
Member

Posts: 660
From: Northville MI USA
Registered: Aug 2005

posted 07-07-2011 08:58 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for yeknom-ecaps   Click Here to Email yeknom-ecaps     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Anyone know of any experiences like this from a private company? I don't know of anyone in a private company that received "abandoned" items that were later re-sold...

David Carey
Member

Posts: 782
From:
Registered: Mar 2009

posted 07-07-2011 10:33 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for David Carey   Click Here to Email David Carey     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by SpaceAholic:
A 3 pound camera may not seem like much mass but its removal denied 1.92 million joules of impact energy to the Seismic and the Charged Particle Lunar Environment experiments.
That's cool; gotta love physics. About a 0.03 percent reduction in impact energy from the absent camera for a ~10,000 lb ascent stage (I think the numbers are about right?). Assuming that's correct, perhaps a small or insignificant error in any experiments.

Camera or not, it's a lot of 60mph car impacts worth of lunar surface 'thump'.

chet
Member

Posts: 1506
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 07-07-2011 10:50 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for chet   Click Here to Email chet     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
yeknom-ecaps, ever been to a garage sale, flea market or watched "Antiques Roadshow"?

And personally I think if NASA wanted the DAC so they could launch something of its exact shape, weight and age to crash land it on the moon to measure its impact, they'd have a far better case than the one they have now.

SpaceAholic
Member

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

posted 07-07-2011 11:21 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for SpaceAholic   Click Here to Email SpaceAholic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by David Carey:
That's cool; gotta love physics. About a 0.03 percent reduction in impact energy from the absent camera for a ~10,000 lb ascent stage (I think the numbers are about right?).
Negs... 4600 pounds so closer to .07.

davidcwagner
Member

Posts: 799
From: Albuquerque, New Mexico
Registered: Jan 2003

posted 07-07-2011 11:42 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for davidcwagner   Click Here to Email davidcwagner     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
How does the statute of limitations apply? Beginning in 1971, the US government knew that Mr. Mitchell had the DAC but chose to take no action until 2011. Any legal bearing?

Robert Pearlman
Editor

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

posted 07-08-2011 12:54 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
There is no statute of limitations because Mitchell is not being charged. The U.S. government is asking for the court to rule only on who owns the camera.

moorouge
Member

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

posted 07-08-2011 01:05 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for moorouge   Click Here to Email moorouge     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
The U.S. government is asking for the court to rule only on who owns the camera.

So can I ask again - will this case set a legal precedent?

Robert Pearlman
Editor

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

posted 07-08-2011 01:24 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
After Atlantis launches and the mission is underway, I plan to consult with two attorneys who I sometimes turn to for help when writing about legal issues.

star61
Member

Posts: 294
From: Bristol UK
Registered: Jan 2005

posted 07-08-2011 08:46 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for star61   Click Here to Email star61     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Hmm... if the JWST is abandoned, who will own it? I put in the first bid of $4.95.

This whole thing is pathetic. There are much bigger things for NASA to be concerned with.

rjurek349
Member

Posts: 1190
From: Northwest Indiana
Registered: Jan 2002

posted 07-08-2011 02:45 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for rjurek349   Click Here to Email rjurek349     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by yeknom-ecaps:
I don't know of anyone in a private company that received "abandoned" items that were later re-sold...
Just for fun: other examples? Saw one today concerning movie props from Harry Potter.

Seems to me that happens in the movie business all the time -- and those props can be very lucrative.

MCroft04
Member

Posts: 1634
From: Smithfield, Me, USA
Registered: Mar 2005

posted 07-08-2011 08:24 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for MCroft04   Click Here to Email MCroft04     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by star61:
There are much bigger things for NASA to be concerned with.
Like what? We just launched the last shuttle and have no clear goals for the future. What else is there for NASA to do?

Colin E. Anderton
Member

Posts: 63
From: Newmarket, Suffolk, England
Registered: Feb 2009

posted 07-09-2011 01:58 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Colin E. Anderton   Click Here to Email Colin E. Anderton     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by kosmo:
If this data acquisition camera was suppose to be left on Apollo 14's lunar module Antares because of weight restrictions, how did it become a gift?
I've been thinking this all the way through this thread, and I feel reluctant to say anything against Mitchell's actions, but it seems to me that this is the central point.

Also, wouldn't the absence of this camera have affected the results of NASA's measurements of the lunar module's impact on the lunar surface?

Rizz
Member

Posts: 1208
From: Upcountry, Maui, Hawaii
Registered: Mar 2002

posted 07-09-2011 04:02 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Rizz     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I guess you could call it a gift, it seems more of a souvenir from the trip. Being a photographer myself, I probably would have done the same thing. Again, remember it was destined for doom. (See SpaceAholics analysis).

I imagine Dr Mitchell shared that camera with numerous guests in his home over the last 4 decades. Great coffee table conversation piece.

If he does have to return it, I think it would only be fair that it gets returned to NASA in the same condition that SpaceAholic describes in his post- after impacting the lunar surface.

Fair is fair.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

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

posted 07-09-2011 08:32 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 kosmo:
If this data acquisition camera was suppose to be left on Apollo 14's lunar module Antares because of weight restrictions, how did it become a gift?
According to Deke Slayton, the crew members provided him a list prior to launching of items that were intended to remain on the moon that they instead wanted to return as mementos. Slayton would get the list approved by the program's management and then pass along the approval to the astronauts.

It would appear — if not in all occasions, then in some — that Slayton's list was not used to update the stowage lists. Further, Slayton treated the lists as he did the inventories for the personal preference kits: astronauts' eyes only.

So, it may have been agreed before the flight that the camera would be returned but the only record of that agreement was in Slayton's possession.

moorouge
Member

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

posted 07-09-2011 10:25 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for moorouge   Click Here to Email moorouge     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
According to Deke Slayton, the crew members provided him a list prior to launching of items that were intended to remain on the moon that they instead wanted to return as mementos.

With respect Robert, this is hearsay evidence and as such is not admissible when it comes to a legal hearing. So how much weight should one place on it for purposes of this discussion, especially in view of the fact that the only person who knows now what was on that list, if it ever existed, is Mitchell himself.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

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

posted 07-09-2011 11:06 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I wasn't offering a legal defense, only an explanation as to how a camera destined to be left on the moon can become a memento.

Besides, it's only hearsay if Slayton's original list doesn't still exist. For all we know, it does and is just out of our (and perhaps even Mitchell's) reach.

Blackarrow
Member

Posts: 3120
From: Belfast, United Kingdom
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 07-09-2011 02:00 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Blackarrow     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
One possible solution to this problem would be for the parties to agree that, without prejudice to any arguments about current ownership, Dr Mitchell should be allowed to keep the camera for the rest of his life, and to will it to a suitable museum for public display after his death. I can see various arguments arising from this, but it would at least be a resolution of sorts (and would probably save one or both parties from having to pay a lot of money to grasping lawyers like, errr, me...)

moorouge
Member

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

posted 07-09-2011 02:08 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for moorouge   Click Here to Email moorouge     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by SpaceAholic:
A 3 pound camera may not seem like much mass but its removal denied 1.92 million joules of impact energy to the Seismic and the Charged Particle Lunar Environment experiments.
I have no reason to doubt your figures, but could you explain how you calculated this number?

If the camera was worth 1.92 million joules, what was the whole LM ascent stage worth?

SpaceAholic
Member

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

posted 07-09-2011 02:13 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for SpaceAholic   Click Here to Email SpaceAholic     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
KE = 1/2 (M x (V x V))
KE (Kinetic Energy)
M (Mass)
V (Velocity)

Assumed impact velocity was 5500 FPS...

star61
Member

Posts: 294
From: Bristol UK
Registered: Jan 2005

posted 07-09-2011 05:11 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for star61   Click Here to Email star61     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by MCroft04:
Like what? We just launched the last shuttle and have no clear goals for the future. What else is there for NASA to do?
Like what? We just launched the last shuttle and have no clear goals for the future. What else is there for NASA to do?"

I think your comment answers my point!

moorouge
Member

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

posted 07-10-2011 01:40 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for moorouge   Click Here to Email moorouge     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by SpaceAholic:
KE = 1/2 (M x (V x V))
KE (Kinetic Energy)
M (Mass)
V (Velocity)

Assumed impact velocity was 5500 FPS...


Can you please give your actual working? When I use the formula I get 45.375 million joules for the 3lb camera.

chet
Member

Posts: 1506
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 07-10-2011 03:08 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for chet   Click Here to Email chet     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Blackarrow:
One possible solution to this problem would be for the parties to agree that, without prejudice to any arguments about current ownership, Dr Mitchell should be allowed to keep the camera for the rest of his life, and to will it to a suitable museum for public display after his death.
What you've proposed is simply called a compromise. But why should Mitchell compromise over something he feels is rightfully his?

By the way, it isn't hearsay to enter into the record that there exist written accounts of NASA's "gifting" policies [for flown equipment] back in the day. It is in line with those policies that Mitchell claims he came into owning the DAC, and there are many examples of similar gifting in many other instances (a preponderance of evidence). Because of this, and the length of time the DAC has been in Mitchell's possession it'll likely be incumbent on NASA to prove why the camera should be theirs. Good luck to them on that. (Actually, I wish them none).

moorouge
Member

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

posted 07-10-2011 04:08 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for moorouge   Click Here to Email moorouge     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by chet:
...it isn't hearsay to enter into the record that there exist written accounts of NASA's "gifting" policies [for flown equipment] back in the day.
The problem with this is proving that these exist. As I understand Robert's post there is some doubt as he says that the only evidence that they might exist is based on remarks made by Deke Slayton.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

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

posted 07-10-2011 06:31 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
As mentioned earlier, Slayton's actions are documented beyond what he said in later interviews. There are memos in the NASA history archives that discuss this topic.

The practice of allowing astronauts to keep mementos is not being disputed by NASA.

moorouge
Member

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

posted 07-10-2011 08:48 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for moorouge   Click Here to Email moorouge     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
There are memos in the NASA history archives that discuss this topic.

References please.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

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

posted 07-10-2011 08:58 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I've seen them (I even have copies — somewhere — of a few of them). It's been a few years since I pulled them from the archives for another article I was writing at the time.

Had I/when I have free time, I would/will go back to the JSC History Collection and find them again.

cosmos-walter
Member

Posts: 691
From: Salzburg, Austria
Registered: Jun 2003

posted 07-10-2011 12:57 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for cosmos-walter   Click Here to Email cosmos-walter     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Robert, did you have access to Apollo era PPKs? I am still looking for the proof that no philatelic covers were flown with Apollo 8 or 10. I am sure, stamps were flown on both flights.

Robert Pearlman
Editor

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

posted 07-10-2011 01:19 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Robert Pearlman   Click Here to Email Robert Pearlman     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The Apollo era PPK manifests were not archived by NASA. Extensive searches have turned up only memos from Deke Slayton stating that the PPK contents are personal and left to the crew members to disclose if desired.

Blackarrow
Member

Posts: 3120
From: Belfast, United Kingdom
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 07-10-2011 03:20 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Blackarrow     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by chet:
What you've proposed is simply called a compromise. But why should Mitchell compromise over something he feels is rightfully his?
I think I answered that in the final part of my previous post.


This topic is 7 pages long:   1  2  3  4  5  6  7 

All times are CT (US)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Open Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  
Hop to:

Contact Us | The Source for Space History & Artifacts

Copyright 2020 collectSPACE.com All rights reserved.


Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47a





advertisement