Apollo 14 astronaut Ed Mitchell sued by U.S. Government

[ky]

It seems that no one saw my rant lol.

 

[FADEC]

Mitchell cared enough about it to prevent it from being reentered in the LM. NASA didn't.

Because the negatives and other stuff like Lunar samples were more important in the first place than extra weight like cameras

It was just possible to take it into the Command Module because size and weight of the camera did allow so. Remember that Apollo 14 did not carry the lunar rover for example. Apollo 15 was the first mission to do so which almost doubled the Lunar sample mass. The Lunar sample mass of Apollo 17 even was almost three times as much as that of Apollo 14. I am not too sure if carrying extra stuff back to earth like the cameras was just possible on those missions.

The LM did not "reenter" by the way. I think it crashed on the Lunar surface.

I bet there are a lot of flown artifacts from the era stuffed away in basements and drawers of former NASA employees. Why does this camera deserve to be in a museum anymore then that stuff?

On the other hand: why should this historic piece allowed to also be stuffed away when its location/"owner" is known whilst it actually still belongs to NASA?

Mitchell already was asked to give it back several times since it obviously was never officially transfered. I can't imagine that it is his camera just because he took it back. Maybe he never asked and maybe NASA did not even know it back then. It was certainly not the usual type of souvenir.

It's even a good chance the camera would be on public display after it was sold.

That's why I think it belongs to NASA. They can then lend it to museums.

You never know who buys it. And why does Mitchell sell it? Because he obviously does not care anymore. If I were him I would have give it back to NASA even if they would not ask me, than just to sell it to somebody else. I say that he needs money. That's why he also talks that UFO nonsense.

 

[C3PO]

Because the negatives and other stuff like Lunar samples were more important in the first place than extra weight like cameras

It was just possible to take it into the Command Module because size and weight of the camera did allow so. Remember that Apollo 14 did not carry the lunar rover for example. Apollo 15 was the first mission to do so which almost doubled the Lunar sample mass. The Lunar sample mass of Apollo 17 even was almost three times as much as that of Apollo 14. I am not too sure if carrying extra stuff back to earth like the cameras was just possible on those missions.

The LM did not "reenter" by the way. I think it crashed on the Lunar surface.



On the other hand: why should this historic piece allowed to also be stuffed away when its location/"owner" is known whilst it actually still belongs to NASA?

Mitchell already was asked to give it back several times since it obviously was never officially transfered. I can't imagine that it is his camera just because he took it back. Maybe he never asked and maybe NASA did not even know it back then. It was certainly not the usual type of souvenir.



That's why I think it belongs to NASA. They can then lend it to museums.

You never know who buys it. And why does Mitchell sell it? Because he obviously does not care anymore. If I were him I would have give it back to NASA even if they would not ask me, than just to sell it to somebody else. I say that he needs money. That's why he also talks that UFO nonsense.

I think the original plan was to leave it either on the Moon or in the LM.

It's not more unusual then this:

The LM's RHC.

NASA had it mounted and then presented to him, so I'm sure they know about it.

He's selling the stuff because he's short on $, not because he doesn't care.

Do you have transfer documents for every gift you've got?

But all this is besides the point. Actually I'm quite sure that NASA will win the case. I just don't think the effort to get it back is worthy of a government agency. Kicking a hero when he's down is just ugly in my book.

I like Alan Bean's comment.

"Be kind to Ed. These things, back in those days, it wasn't important. We were trying to get to the moon and get back alive. The other stuff, it wasn't important."

 

[Notebook]

Very odd, a long time ago I worked with a thing called a Photo-Multiplier Tube. No one uses them these days, I still have one. Wonder if any will come calling?

N.

 

[Ghostrider]

Very odd, a long time ago I worked with a thing called a Photo-Multiplier Tube. No one uses them these days

We still use them, in image intensifier equipment and in some thermal imaging cameras.

 

[Notebook]

Oh dear, its only a matter of time then?

X.

 

[kerlix]

Had they not brought them back, they would have been destroyed, he said. After astronauts climbed back into the command module for the roughly 250,000-mile trip home, engineers in Houston blew up the lunar module, he said.

- Palm Beach Post

I'm not so sure about the whole "blowing it up" thing. I'm pretty sure it was left to succumb to orbital decay. Yes, I'm sure it was destroyed, but I don't think whoever wrote that really researched anything. I think the author again proves my point by calling the RHC the "Rational Hand Controller". As opposed to the "Irrational Hand Controller"? I supposed the THC was called the "Temperamental Hand Controller"?

Seriously.

As far as the whole "give back the camera" thing goes....If NASA really cared about the cameras that went to the moon, then they wouldn't have left all the other ones to sit on the lunar surface. He just happens to have brought one back. And suddenly NASA wants it.

It reminds me of my (divorced) parents. Suddenly, decades later, they realize the other one has something that they want. And they only want it because the other one has it. They cause a big "to do" over the whole thing, and when they eventually get it back they put it in a basement or a closet, and after 2 or 3 days, forget they even have it. It's childish. Let the man keep the #$%^*(& camera. Who cares what he does to it? In the end, whoever buys it might just end up selling it to NASA anyways.

 

[T.Neo]

Why is Mr Mitchell short on cash, anyway? You'd think NASA would at least give their honoured explorers worthwhile pensions.

 

[JEL]

@FADEC;

I find some of your postings in this thread offensive

What has UFO's got to do with it?

I would kindly ask you to please refrain from your slander and hearsay about his person.

 

[FADEC]

He's selling the stuff because he's short on $, not because he doesn't care.

So my assumption was right regarding the money.

Do you have transfer documents for every gift you've got?

I am not a NASA employee...

But I have a few photos from a museum. I got them from my father who is working in that museum. He had to get a permission to make prints from the negatives. And on the back of my photos there are stickers which say that I am not allowed to make any duplications or to publically display the pictures. It's aviation photos from Germany from the 1930s to 1950s by the way

My father really has to get permissions for almost everything. Even if they need new office utensils they even have to file and sign an order list before they can take it from the storeroom. I guess it's just German officialdom and nitpicking :lol: But of course there are also copies which left the museum without permissions for sure

And suddenly NASA wants it.

Not really suddenly. Mitchell said he already was asked several times in the past.

Why is Mr Mitchell short on cash, anyway? You'd think NASA would at least give their honoured explorers worthwhile pensions.

Esotericism and UFOs seems to be the basic things he was interested in after his career at NASA. At least his biography doesn't tell something different. And I think that esotericism isn't really profitable.

I find some of your postings in this thread offensive

What has UFO's got to do with it?

I would kindly ask you to please refrain from your slander and hearsay about his person.

I admit that my postings are offensive. But it's not really an offense of Mitchell but of the nonsense he says regarding UFOs and allegedly secrets. It's really hard to believe that he seriously believes in what he says since I consider him to be very smart. I still think he just tries to make some money with it, but it obviously doesn't seem to work for years. He is a pleasant guy though. I like some of his interviews related to his work at NASA. But I just don't like his UFO nonsense. And I think I am not alone.

But his explanations regarding Apollo are great...

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zSO3jE4l-M"]YouTube - ‪Edgar Mitchell: An Epiphany in Space‬‏[/ame]

 

[orbekler]

See, I don't really understand the reason why everything must be sued that way.

I don't know details about inside things between Mitchell and NASA, but I always wondered why in cases like this, instead moving lawyers and attorneys, no one at NASA picked up the phone and asked to Mitchell: "What the hell are you doing? Are you sure you're doing a wise action, that in future you're not going to regret?".

After all, like it or not, Mitchell is part of history, that one that counts.
If space camera is not his legitimate property, then NASA shouldn't have lend it that day.

After 40 years it seems a really pitiful situation, in which a collapsing NASA seems to care more of its image than its results.

And if this camera is really important, NASA could give some bonus, to get it back, I don't think it would be a great effort.

 

[JEL]

he's short on $

Are you gossiping or do you have some actual knowledge? Google returns nothing on this.

I admit that my postings are offensive. But it's not really an offense of Mitchell

You allege he stole NASA property and are unwilling to return it!

it is likely that Mitchell just took ... the camera.

Allegations or imputations of criminal activity is Defamation per se.

If NASA kindly asks, you think he would just give it back? I don't think so.

This is another offensive accusation you make against him.
It's slander unless you have some actual knowledge and evidence you can show for it.

Mitchell said he already was asked several times in the past.

Where do you have that info from? I've tried googling, and I can't find anything.

United States District Court. Southern District of Florida, has the case registered like this:

Case Number: 9:11-cv-80751-DTKH
Case Style: United States of America v. Mitchell
Judge: Hurley
File Date: 06/29/2011

I haven't read the actual case-file since it's pay-per-view.
But here's a quote from the news-report here: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/01/us-nasa-camera-lawsuit-idUSTRE75T6J520110701

The suit said the government had made repeated requests to Mitchell and his lawyer to return the camera but received no response.

There's no info on WHEN they made these alleged requests, nor on HOW they were made.

Since this is a court-case, a matter of justice, let's just get the actual FACTS here, not the GOSSIP, ok?
Keep it clean.

 

[C3PO]

Are you gossiping or do you have some actual knowledge? Google returns nothing on this.

The Palm Beach Post

Strapped for cash, Apollo 14 astronaut Edgar Mitchell didn't think twice about auctioning off a camera he brought back from the moon 40 years ago.
But Uncle Sam thought about it - plenty.

BTW I don't consider "strapped for cash" derogatory. It can happen to anyone through no fault of their own.

 

[FADEC]

You allege he stole NASA property and are unwilling to return it!

Allegations or imputations of criminal activity is Defamation per se.

I don't say he did "steal" it. I say it is likely he just took the camera. And this doesn't even mean he took it whilst being aware that it could end in a law suit some day. Maybe he just took it in believe he can do so because it was returned home along with other souveniers.

Nobody can prove it is unlikely he just took it. Remember that NASA actually claims he owns it illegaly/without being officially transfered. Also, in case Mitchell would have been willing to return it when they already asked, NASA would not have to file a law suit I guess.

Nice try though as for allegations of criminal activity from my side :tiphat:

There's no info on WHEN they made these alleged requests, nor on HOW they were made.

But they were made obviously. Mitchell admited this regarding both German and English language news articles.

 

[T.Neo]

I still wonder why NASA seemingly doesn't pay pensions to their astronauts. Is this forbidden by government/NASA policy? Or is it just a factor stemming from the way the astronauts were employed?

 

[FADEC]

I still wonder why NASA seemingly doesn't pay pensions to their astronauts.

Me too.

I have absolutely no clue of what astronauts do earn on the whole. But I always thought for doing something like Apollo they already would get a good pension later.

 

[Star Voyager]

Maybe because most astronauts are retired military, and therefore receive a pension anyway? That's about as far as my thinking takes me. Also, I don't think the taxpayers would be enthusiastic about that sort of thing.

 

[FADEC]

Maybe because most astronauts are retired military, and therefore receive a pension anyway? That's about as far as my thinking takes me. Also, I don't think the taxpayers would be enthusiastic about that sort of thing.

I am rather willing to pay pensions for retired military and space flight veterans than for incapable and corrupt politicians I didn't even elect.

 

[Capt_hensley]

Maybe because most astronauts are retired military, and therefore receive a pension anyway? That's about as far as my thinking takes me. Also, I don't think the taxpayers would be enthusiastic about that sort of thing.

Don't for get any government employment time weather military, NASA, National Forrestry Service, or public office in congress, all that time is accumulative. I'd be willing to bet it works like military service, at 20 years you get retirement pay, not a pension(pensions are usually from non-governmental agencies), and it starts at 50% of your base pay of your top three years. Most astronauts stayed beyond 20 years total gov service. However as officers, they get substantialy more pay than the enlisted members.

I call mine Hush money, thay pay me just enough for me to quit complaining about how little I get paid. I make $1300 per month before tax and benifits, as an E-6, at 20 years. There is no way I could live on that income, but it will constitute 1/3rd of my planned retirement income. That's 1/3 I don't have to save for.

 

[Star Voyager]

Thank you for the clarification :tiphat:.