Looks like NASA will get to look like petty jerks in open court after all.
NASA and Apollo Astronaut Camera Lawsuit is a Go : Read more
NASA and Apollo Astronaut Camera Lawsuit is a Go : Read more
NASA and Apollo Astronaut Camera Lawsuit is a Go
- Thread starter Guest
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Cameras
- Status
house70
Distinguished
- Apr 21, 2010
- 1,465
- 0
- 19,310
Stupid lawsuit.
The man went to the moon and back and only took a camera that was intended to be destroyed, not even brought back. And now that he needs some money (obviously, the retirement of these true heroes is nothing to brag about) the govt. wants it back? Just pretend it was destroyed, as initially planned, and get over it.
The man went to the moon and back and only took a camera that was intended to be destroyed, not even brought back. And now that he needs some money (obviously, the retirement of these true heroes is nothing to brag about) the govt. wants it back? Just pretend it was destroyed, as initially planned, and get over it.
N.Broekhuijsen
Distinguished
- Jun 17, 2009
- 292
- 0
- 18,940
Stupid of both sides. Give the camera to me, I'll sell it and donate the money to charity. Everyone is happy, except the lawyers
cognoscentiable
Distinguished
- Aug 17, 2011
- 23
- 0
- 18,560
It's still theft, he could have ASKED for something small, maybe a bolt from the hull. It's not as if he wasn't raking in a huge salary/retirement so don't play the whole 'he went to the moon and this is how he's treated'.
I wouldn't say this is a petty suit, the camera belongs in a museum nowaday's not this fella's mantel.
I wouldn't say this is a petty suit, the camera belongs in a museum nowaday's not this fella's mantel.
The biggest problem I see with this is that taking along more equipment (and mass) than the mission planned for could have endangered the mission. They had to have the mass of all astronauts and any thing that they brought with them in order to calculate trajectories and fuel usage. If you suddenly add more mass to the return trip than they had planned for then you suddenly are using more fuel, not reaching the same velocities, and have a stronger wieght force on you. I don't know what he was thinking or why other astronauts went along with his potentially life-threatening souvenir.
dragonsqrrl
Distinguished
- Nov 19, 2009
- 162
- 0
- 18,630
[citation][nom]webbwbb[/nom]The biggest problem I see with this is that taking along more equipment (and mass) than the mission planned for could have endangered the mission. They had to have the mass of all astronauts and any thing that they brought with them in order to calculate trajectories and fuel usage. If you suddenly add more mass to the return trip than they had planned for then you suddenly are using more fuel, not reaching the same velocities, and have a stronger wieght force on you. I don't know what he was thinking or why other astronauts went along with his potentially life-threatening souvenir.[/citation]
It's getting a lot of thumbs down, but this is 100% true...
Although, I don't think a single camera would've been enough to significantly alter their trajectory, it's still a concern.
It's getting a lot of thumbs down, but this is 100% true...
Although, I don't think a single camera would've been enough to significantly alter their trajectory, it's still a concern.
JamesSneed
Distinguished
- Oct 26, 2009
- 146
- 0
- 18,660
@cognoscentiable , he is saying he did not steal the camera. He is saying NASA gave it to him as a gift for a job well done.
@webbwbb, who is to say he did not have permission prior to re-entry?
You guys that are commenting don't have a clue since none of us know the facts.
@webbwbb, who is to say he did not have permission prior to re-entry?
You guys that are commenting don't have a clue since none of us know the facts.
mister g
Distinguished
- Mar 6, 2010
- 60
- 0
- 18,580
Maybe NASA wants the camera back so that they have something from the original Apollo missions to study (other than the stuff they already have). After the Apollo mission and budget cuts NASA literally tossed all their mission parts, manuals, notes, anything that was deemed unnecessary for the space shuttle program. Now they have only some knowledge of how to get back to the moon, and is "buying" all the old stuff back. Just my opinion as to why a broke space agency feels the need to take back a camera of dubious value that might cost NASA more in lawyers than the camera itself.
CaedenV
Distinguished
- Jun 14, 2011
- 532
- 0
- 18,960
[citation][nom]webbwbb[/nom]The biggest problem I see with this is that taking along more equipment (and mass) than the mission planned for could have endangered the mission. They had to have the mass of all astronauts and any thing that they brought with them in order to calculate trajectories and fuel usage. If you suddenly add more mass to the return trip than they had planned for then you suddenly are using more fuel, not reaching the same velocities, and have a stronger wieght force on you. I don't know what he was thinking or why other astronauts went along with his potentially life-threatening souvenir.[/citation]
The camera was part of the mission, installed by NASA. Mitchell took it from NASA, which technically is stealing. However, NASA does not need it, so why care one way or the other on the matter? Oh! Because NASA is broke too and probably wants to sell it to a museum as well!
The camera was part of the mission, installed by NASA. Mitchell took it from NASA, which technically is stealing. However, NASA does not need it, so why care one way or the other on the matter? Oh! Because NASA is broke too and probably wants to sell it to a museum as well!
TheKurrgan
Distinguished
- Sep 16, 2008
- 147
- 0
- 18,630
Lets put some perspective on this..
This guy went to the moon..Check.
In doing so, he and his crew mates risked their lives to further scientific understanding of space, and to explore the ultimate unknown.
I don't see any of these assholes jumping into a 1960's designed space ship to go grab some relic. Finders keepers, he did all the work; Screw their claim they abandoned it. Its his. Pure and simple.
This guy went to the moon..Check.
In doing so, he and his crew mates risked their lives to further scientific understanding of space, and to explore the ultimate unknown.
I don't see any of these assholes jumping into a 1960's designed space ship to go grab some relic. Finders keepers, he did all the work; Screw their claim they abandoned it. Its his. Pure and simple.
There's 2 things of importance in question, the first is the actual camera and roll of film which has significant importance to specific organizations like the Gates photo collection of rare and original photo's. The second is the contents on the photos, NASA prides itself on sharing discovery's and knowledge with the public. The ruling should end with Edgar being able to sell the item, but only after the pictures have been developed and copies given to NASA along with all the rights and privileges to use them. The photo's could provide some insight to solve a problem, a picture is sometimes worth more than any amount of money.
From the viewpoint of the judge - this may be a thing that he sees needs to be properly defined in court, so as to set precedence in cases like this. It's not as simple a matter as "oh it's just junk NASA threw out", and NASA's response even out of court could effect more serious matters that come along.
Frankly, Ross's judgement of NASA's actions is something I expect from a child, not a journalist. A good journalist reports in an unbiased way, doesn't give a whiny 2-bit opinion from a narrow-minded view of the world. I'd say that he has some excuse in light of the low quality "journalists" we see on television, but then we are all ultimately responsible for our own actions, so he has no excuse in the end.
Do I think he should be allowed to keep the memento? Certainly. Do I think he should be allowed to sell it? As long as a clear, legal procedure will define the new owner as having clear title (something this legal stuff will do is help not only establish clear title but add to provenance, proof of what the item is and where it came from), it would be his to sell, and I have no problems with that.
Frankly, Ross's judgement of NASA's actions is something I expect from a child, not a journalist. A good journalist reports in an unbiased way, doesn't give a whiny 2-bit opinion from a narrow-minded view of the world. I'd say that he has some excuse in light of the low quality "journalists" we see on television, but then we are all ultimately responsible for our own actions, so he has no excuse in the end.
Do I think he should be allowed to keep the memento? Certainly. Do I think he should be allowed to sell it? As long as a clear, legal procedure will define the new owner as having clear title (something this legal stuff will do is help not only establish clear title but add to provenance, proof of what the item is and where it came from), it would be his to sell, and I have no problems with that.
[citation][nom]thekurrgan[/nom]Finders keepers, he did all the work; Screw their claim they abandoned it. Its his. Pure and simple.[/citation]
There seems to be some idea here that NASA will never, ever go back, and never, ever want to look at the equipment left behind.
I want to suggest that the first is a ludicrous idea, and the second, if you stop to think about it considering the inquisitive nature of scientists in general, would be normally expected if the objects could be located.
If you think about this far enough in the future, the rulings in this court case could effect explorers not associated with NASA at all stumbling across the old first-landing site and claiming the equipment as their own. That's not going to happen anytime soon, of course, but it will become a possibility, and NASA may well be looking far into the future.
😉
There seems to be some idea here that NASA will never, ever go back, and never, ever want to look at the equipment left behind.
I want to suggest that the first is a ludicrous idea, and the second, if you stop to think about it considering the inquisitive nature of scientists in general, would be normally expected if the objects could be located.
If you think about this far enough in the future, the rulings in this court case could effect explorers not associated with NASA at all stumbling across the old first-landing site and claiming the equipment as their own. That's not going to happen anytime soon, of course, but it will become a possibility, and NASA may well be looking far into the future.
😉
[citation][nom]JamesSneed[/nom]@cognoscentiable , he is saying he did not steal the camera. He is saying NASA gave it to him as a gift for a job well done.@webbwbb, who is to say he did not have permission prior to re-entry?You guys that are commenting don't have a clue since none of us know the facts.[/citation]
I actually am an engineering major who has interned for NASA and has always had a passion for rocketry. One of the things I worked on is a mock mission plan for a Mars mission where I had to figure out the mass of all of the equipment and calculate the amount of fuel it would need to use. Something like this that was done by a pilot with no background in physics or engineering who was not authorized to do it could have doomed the mission.
I actually am an engineering major who has interned for NASA and has always had a passion for rocketry. One of the things I worked on is a mock mission plan for a Mars mission where I had to figure out the mass of all of the equipment and calculate the amount of fuel it would need to use. Something like this that was done by a pilot with no background in physics or engineering who was not authorized to do it could have doomed the mission.
- Status
Similar threads
- Question
Facebook
Twitter