|
Author
|
Topic: U.S. sues Edgar Mitchell to reclaim lunar camera
|
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 4437
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 10-30-2011 08:25 AM
   
quote:
Originally posted by Colin E. Anderton:
Was it, or was it not, against mission rules to bring this camera back to earth? Surely, the answer is yes!
It was against the rules for the crew to arbitrarily decide on the return of the camera — absent compliance with configuration management (CM) policy (weight, balance, space) and receipt of proper authority. There is no evidence I can find within CM documentation or from the inflight transcripts which indicate the coordination occurred (however return of other cameras are addressed in both). |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 10-30-2011 09:34 AM
Per Deke Slayton in a 1972 interview, the hardware approved for the astronauts to return may have never appeared in any public document by his order. "They give me a list of things they're going to bring back," Slayton told the Tucson Daily Citizen. "I give it to the program office and they bring 'em back."Anything registered on the list was considered "legal" for the astronauts to keep, but Slayton insisted on restricting the list to the astronauts' eyes only. "It's the astronauts' personal business," he told the newspaper. |
canyon42
Member Posts: 238
From: Ohio
Registered: Mar 2006
|
posted 10-30-2011 09:39 AM
quote:
Originally posted by chet:
Why do you believe the sale of an item negates its being a personal memento?
Because being willing to give it up in exchange for money implies to me that the item no longer holds a personal meaning for him, or at least not one that is not outweighed by financial interests. As I said, I have no real problem with him simply keeping it (even though this probably doesn't change the legal argument in the slightest), but claiming that it is personally meaningful to him AND looking to profit from it at the same time are not things that coexist peacefully in my mind. As I said, just my $.02 worth, but the one thing that is clear to me is that the rights and wrongs of the case are not nearly as clear as some here would like to believe. As for the house argument, I'm not sure I see the relevance. I PAID for my house, and since that moment there has never been the slightest question of my ownership. |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 4437
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 10-30-2011 10:44 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Per Deke Slayton in a 1972 interview, the hardware approved for the astronauts to return may have never appeared in any public document by his order.
Since he also indicated the list was pushed up to the program office, there was an additional level of coordination and visibility (beyond the crew) which would have precluded that list from being compartmentalized to just the astronauts. |
Spacepsycho
Member Posts: 818
From: Huntington Beach, Calif.
Registered: Aug 2004
|
posted 10-30-2011 12:51 PM
An obscene waste of taxpayers money. The government should be ashamed of themselves for treating Ed Mitchell like a criminal. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 10-30-2011 01:09 PM
quote:
Originally posted by SpaceAholic:
However since he also indicated the list was pushed up to the program office, there was an additional level of coordination and visibility...
The extent of that additional exposure however, could have been limited to just one or two people without generating any further paperwork. We know anecdotally that the pre-Apollo 17 PPK manifest approval process was handled similarly. |
chet
Member Posts: 1506
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 10-30-2011 01:37 PM
quote:
Originally posted by SpaceAholic:
NASA OIG probably approached Mitchell directly to secure its return prior to engaging the U.S. Attorney as a final (and least desirable) option.
I've no doubt Mitchell was approached to get him to surrender the camera voluntarily before any legal filings took place. But when he rightly (in his mind) refused, I believe egos took over, common sense and good judgement took a back seat and it was a pissing contest from then on. The OIG and/or DA may not have been "gunning" for Mitchell (as I don't include sadism among the motives I ascribe to the team that brought this case), but I do believe his adversaries were motivated more by wanting to keep Mitchell from realizing any gain than any deeply held sense of duty to secure its return for "the American People". That, to me, is the most disgusting aspect of this case. quote:
There is no evidence I can find within CM documentation or from the inflight transcripts which indicate the coordination occurred.
That it cannot be found doesn't mean authorization didn't take place. Yet your point, Scott, is all the more indication that the DAC was rightfully Mitchell's. The fact it was in his possession, and for so long, all point to the very high probability that its transfer to him was (purposefully or passively) authorized, though perhaps undocumented. What boils my blood is that those prosecuting the case weren't looking for a way to see the camera being Mitchell's, but to exploit any lack of documentation to force its surrender. quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Per Deke Slayton in a 1972 interview, the hardware approved for the astronauts to return may have never appeared in any public document by his order.
Don't believe for a second prosecutors weren't aware of such period practices; this is all the more indication their actions were initiated in bad faith. quote:
Originally posted by SpaceAholic:
As for the house argument, I'm not sure I see the relevance.
My analogy had to do with the sentimentality one might feel toward one's home, not the matter of legal title; my point was that a possession can be a commodity, yet still a dear item, at the same time. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 10-30-2011 01:53 PM
quote:
Originally posted by chet:
The fact it was in his possession, and for so long, all point to the very high probability that its transfer to him was (purposefully or passively) authorized, though perhaps undocumented.
In fact, the length of custody is not relevant. There are numerous items that the Apollo astronauts were loaned, which they have had for an equally long time. Alan Bean, for example, has had his rock hammer for the same four decades that Mitchell held onto the camera, but it is not his property. |
chet
Member Posts: 1506
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 10-30-2011 02:16 PM
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply length of possession had anything to do with title, only that the DAC was in his possession so long without dispute as to ownership, until now. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 10-30-2011 03:35 PM
Buzz Aldrin had (and may still have) a flight suit in his possession that he was told he would need to return to NASA when/if he no longer desired to hold on to it himself (i.e. he could not sell it). Other astronauts have been advised of the same.I want to say that Mitchell's experience is unique because he couldn't reach an agreement with NASA before the agency turned it over to the Justice Dept. to pursue, but even that might not be true. It's only that Mitchell's case drew media interest that we know about it. |
chet
Member Posts: 1506
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 10-30-2011 03:56 PM
I doubt Mitchell was trying to auction off an item he had previously agreed was only on loan to him from NASA.That's what's so disturbing — if NASA/the DA had documentation to that effect, this would've been a cut and dried case. Obviously they had no such documentation, but went after the camera despite the likelihood it really was Mitchell's to keep. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 10-30-2011 04:10 PM
quote:
Originally posted by chet:
...despite the likelihood it really was Mitchell's to keep.
This is an opinion based on no more solid evidence than what you criticize the government for lacking. Had Mitchell had documentation to the effect that he owned the camera, this too would've been a cut and dried case. Neither the government or Mitchell were able to definitively demonstrate legal title to the camera, hence the desire for the court to resolve the matter. |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 4437
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 10-30-2011 04:20 PM
I disagree - the presumption has to be the government has title unless otherwise proven. What has never been contested is that the camera was originally government property. |
Beau08
Member Posts: 159
From: Peoria, AZ United States
Registered: Aug 2011
|
posted 10-30-2011 04:30 PM
You say Bean has a pick axe that is his to use and not sell. Is there.a document that states this? Buzz has a suit. Is there a document defining its status with him? Since you give such a definitive statement I assume there is. Where is the document defining the statues of the Mitchell's camera? If there is none than the standard set by your examples would imply ownership in absence of documents to the contrary. |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 4437
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 10-30-2011 04:38 PM
By that standard an individual could permanently appropriate any government property and provided I was able to hold onto it for decades by default the item becomes mine and is not theft? No more requirement to fill out DD-1149's (Transfer of Government Property) or survey equipment for disposal? Wow! |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 10-30-2011 04:56 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Beau08:
Since you give such a definitive statement I assume there is.
In Bean's and Aldrin's cases, both have acknowledged the government's claim. But for example, the 1973 memo I earlier cited identifies providing the rock hammer to Bean on loan (the same memo did not address ground support equipment, thus Aldrin's flight suit would not be specified). |
Beau08
Member Posts: 159
From: Peoria, AZ United States
Registered: Aug 2011
|
posted 10-30-2011 06:57 PM
I guess I just don't think of items on the moon as "any government property" hence my comment that special circumstances exists. We don't need to be worried anytime soon of people plundering Apollo sites for artifacts. |
Schoner
Member Posts: 20
From: Flagstaff, Arizona, USA
Registered: Jul 2011
|
posted 10-31-2011 03:59 PM
NASA certainly did not improve integrity of NASA in the eye of the public in this matter.I but one that "discovered" that Ed Mitchell was going to sell this camera... After all he is near 80 and can't hold on to it for ever... That NASA "investigator" simply justified his/her NASA job at Ed Mitchell's expense. |
hinkler
Member Posts: 573
From: Melbourne, Victoria, AUSTRALIA
Registered: Jan 2000
|
posted 10-31-2011 08:36 PM
NASA and the Government suck. If Mitchell and Bean had not carried these items back to earth, they would still be sitting on the moon's surface.Do NASA really claim ownership of the items left on the moon? Including human waste? Get real NASA and stop persecuting the men who made NASA great. Just my humble opinion. Perhaps we could all contribute a few dollars so Mitchell can take further legal action against NASA. |
MCroft04
Member Posts: 1634
From: Smithfield, Me, USA
Registered: Mar 2005
|
posted 10-31-2011 09:14 PM
For what it's worth, Bean did not consciously bring his rock hammer back. |
SRB
Member Posts: 258
From:
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted 10-31-2011 09:52 PM
Okay, so the government has prevailed in this case and gotten it's camera back. What does it teach us about what kind of documentation a collector needs to get to be comfortable that he is getting good title to space artifacts which at one time were clearly owned by the government? Such artifacts include such widely sold items as manuals and checklists, pieces of the LM or CM, and tools and other equipment carried in the LM or CM. Up till now, I (naively) assumed that that a COA from an astronaut saying that the items was his and came from his collection was sufficient. Moreover, what more could one get since the "authorization" documents were all long gone. Based on this case, that COA wouldn't even meet the court's standard for allowing a summary judgement and a trial on the facts would be needed. What's a collector to do now? |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 4437
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 10-31-2011 11:40 PM
The only COA which would be relevant (if it existed) would be one issued by NASA (the agency is missing a good revenue generating activity - imagine the fee's it could levy for such a service).For those items circulating in the public domain lacking clear release of government title - collectors and auction house will continue to incur risk (this caveat almost certainly applies to the majority of flown flight vehicle components) which will drive sales off the public radar and into private treatise. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2454
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 11-01-2011 05:32 AM
Surely a key point in this affair is how the camera was returned to Earth. Was it in Mitchell's PPK bag or was it stowed in Kitty Hawk? If the latter, does it appear in documentation as the capsule was unloaded after recovery and if not, why not? |
SpaceAholic
Member Posts: 4437
From: Sierra Vista, Arizona
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 11-01-2011 07:27 AM
Unlikely as those bags were pretty small... the camera body 6x4x2 inches (not including the attached lens) according to Bonhams, the width of a collapsed large PPK bag is just under 6 inches. Using the PPK would displace original contents - hard to see how everything would fit. |
moorouge
Member Posts: 2454
From: U.K.
Registered: Jul 2009
|
posted 11-01-2011 08:13 AM
quote:
Originally posted by SpaceAholic:
Unlikely as those bags were pretty small...
That's my taking - it wasn't in the PPK. The logic is that it was stowed in Kitty Hawk. Therefore it follows that someone had to document its removal and then hand it to Mitchell. So where is this documentation and how was the camera passed on to Mitchell? The fact that the camera was handed on is rather flimsy proof that there might have been an agreement with Slayton - the interview with him as reported by Robert is at very best just hearsay evidence - but it probably wouldn't stand up in court. However, to set against this is that Mitchell has now agreed to hand the camera back to NASA, which strongly suggests that he realised that he couldn't prove the gifting of it to him. |
NAAmodel#240
Member Posts: 312
From: Boston, Mass.
Registered: Jun 2005
|
posted 11-02-2011 09:31 AM
I too worship astronauts as Gods but find this discussion curious. When we fly obsolete aircraft to the "boneyards" at Davis-Monthan is it okay to strip the vehicle and claim the Air Force gave us components as souvenirs?As much as these pilots deserve our admiration and respect they have also gotten a pretty good deal. From beta cloth to Robbins metals to flown and insurance envelopes to autograph signings and book deals. I don't begrudge them any of it (and I collect it). His insistence that he is entitled to keep or sell this piece of government property, in my opinion, pushes it. |
Topic Closed
advertisement